Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 11, 2021

2020006250 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/261,978 09/11/2016 Paul X. Wang P28121USC1 8749
145730 7590 05/11/2021
Dorsey & Whitney LLP/Apple Inc.
111 South Main St
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
FIGUEROA, FELIX O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
DWAppleteam@dorsey.com
apip.docket@dorsey.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL X. WANG, RYAN P. BROOKS, and ZHENG GAO

Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–28, which constitute all3 pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 A telephonic hearing was held for this appeal on April 20, 2021.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claims 29–34, 41, and 42 are withdrawn. Final Act. 2. Claims 1–20 and
35–40 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 14, 16.
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a switch assembly for an
electronic device, such as a keyboard, and the key including a dome, a cover,
and a pad. Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 2, 5, 42, 43; Figs. 4, 8A, 8B, 9, 11.
Claim 21 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows
(emphasis added):
21. A keyboard, comprising:
a keyboard base; and
a set of keys coupled to the keyboard base, a key of the set of
keys comprising:
a switch body having an opening at least partially defined
by a sidewall and a bottom surface;
an electrical terminal partially encapsulated in the bottom
surface of the switch body and exposed through the bottom
surface;
an array of recesses in the sidewall;
a dome positioned in the opening and comprising an
array of arms extending from an outer perimeter of the dome,
the arms disposed in the recesses in the sidewall;
a cover over the switch opening and attached to the
switch body; and
a pad having a top surface coupled to a bottom surface of
the cover, the pad having a curved bottom surface configured to
contact a curved upper surface of the dome.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

3
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Tsai US 5,760,351 June 2, 1998
Domzalski US 5,898,147 Apr. 27, 1999
Boireau US 6,369,801 B2 Apr. 9, 2002
Villain US 7,906,739 B2 Mar. 15, 2011
Takeuchi US 8,835,787 B2 Sept. 16, 2014

Claims 21 and 23–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Domzalski, Takeuchi, Boireau, and Villain. Final Act. 3–
5.
Claims 22, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Domzalski, Takeuchi, Boireau, Villain, and Tsai. Final
Act. 3–4.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has
erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner has not presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. Consistent with the discussion herein, we adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which the appeal
is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer. In our analysis below, we highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in the rejection of independent
claim 21 because there is a lack of motivation to combine Domzalski and
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

4
Takeuchi, the combination of Domzalski and Takeuchi results in an
inoperable assembly, and the rejection of claim 21 appears to be based on
impermissible hindsight bias. Appeal Br. 6–12; Reply Br. 5–8.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of
Domzalski, Takeuchi, Boireau, and Villain teaches the limitations of claim
21. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds Domzalski teaches many of the
claim limitations and relies on the teachings of the remaining references for
the remainder of the limitations. Id. The Examiner finds Takeuchi teaches
the use of a pad (17) coupled to a bottom surface of the cover (154) and
configured to contact an upper surface of the dome (4), and determines it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was effectively filed to use a pad, as taught by Takeuchi, in
order to aid press the dome in an efficient manner. Id. at 3 (emphasis
added).
The Examiner finds Boireau teaches the use of pad (23) having a
curved surface (Fig. 2) configured to contact a curved upper surface of the
dome and determines it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the pad
with a curved surface, as taught by Boireau, in order to provide a more firm
connection between the pad and the dome. Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner finds Villain teaches an electrical terminal (38/40, Fig.
3) partially encapsulated in the bottom surface of the switch body (20) and
exposed through the bottom surface (22), and determines it would have been

4 The Examiner identified the cover as 14; it appears the cover is 15. See
Takeuchi, Fig. 2.
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

5
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
effectively filed to form the electrical terminal exposed through the bottom
surface, as taught by Villain, in order to minimize the profile of the switch.
Id. at 4.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues there is insufficient motivation
to modify the switch assembly of Domzalski with the pad 17 of Takeuchi as
proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 8–9. According to Appellant,
Takeuchi describes challenges with adhering a protective sheet on a case
and, to address these challenges, Takeuchi teaches using the pressing
member 17 to enhance stability of the protective sheet 15 on the case 11. Id.
at 8 (citing Takeuchi, 2:21–31). Appellant argues Takeuchi teaches
that “the upper surface of pressing member 17 is welded to the lower
surface of protective sheet 15 so as to form second welding place 22”
- the first welding place being the upper surface of the wall part 1 lA
of the case 11. See Takeuchi, Col. 3, 11. 5-9, Col. 4, 11. 17-24 and
Col. 6, 11. 1-5 (noting that “even if a contact area between protective
sheet 15 and case 11 is small, protective sheet 15 can be stably held
on case 11 [ via the pressing member 17]”).
Id. at 8.
Appellant argues, in contrast to Takeuchi, Domzalski teaches a switch
body having a surface plate 12 that seals an elastomer actuator 14 to the base
20 by way of compression (e.g., as a mechanical clamping mechanism). Id.
at 9 (citing Domzalski, 6:54–62, Fig. 3). Appellant argues Domzalski does
not discuss a need for additional measures (e.g., by way of adhesives or
welding) to secure the elastomer actuator 14 to the base. Id. According to
Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art would not see a need to provide
additional securing of the elastomer actuator 14 by providing the pressing
member of Takeuchi and welding it to the elastomer actuator 14 of
Domzalski. Id. Appellant argues because Domzalski uses the surface plate
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

6
12 to compress or clamp the elastomer actuator 14 to the base, Domzalski
lacks a need for the pressing member 17 of Takeuchi because the actuator 14
is already securely compressed between the surface plate 12 and the base 20
to create a sealed switch assembly. Id. Appellant argues there is a clear lack
of motivation to modify Domzalski to include the pressing member 17 of
Takeuchi for improved adhesion. Id.
Appellant also argues there is a lack of motivation to modify
Domzalski to include the pressing member 17 of Takeuchi for improved
transfer of a pressing force and disagrees with the Examiner’s assertion that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a
pad, as taught by Takeuchi “in order to aid press the dome in an efficient
manner.” Id. 9–10; Final Act. 3. According to Appellant, Takeuchi
describes that “the pressing force is transmitted to the center part of movable
contact 4 via pressing member 17,” but Domzalski already provides a
“pressing member” or a force transference mechanism in the form of a push
button 15. Id. at 10. Appellant describes the push button is positioned atop
of the elastomer actuator 14 (not between the film and the dome), and
extends through a hole in the surface plate 12 above the disc 16. Id. (citing
Domzalski, 6:54–58, Fig. 3). According to Appellant, with the push button
15 of Domzalski already providing an efficient force transfer to a center of a
dome, it is apparent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated to modify add the pressing member 17 below the actuator 14 and
the push button 15 and above the dome. Id.
Appellant further argues the Examiner has not provided appropriate
motivation for combining Boireau with Domzalski and Takeuchi. According
to Appellant, while the Examiner asserts that it “would have been obvious to
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

7
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively
filed to form the pad with a curved surface, as taught by Boireau, in order to
provide a more firm connection between the pad and the dome” (Final Act.
3–4), Takeuchi teaches that its pressing member 17 is fixed to the moveable
contact 4 (or the dome) by an adhesive or similar means. Id. at 10 (citing
Takeuchi, Col. 3:63 –4:6). Appellant then argues, with Takeuchi' s pressing
member 17 being adhered or otherwise “fixed” to the moveable contact 4,
the Examiner's proposed motivation to combine (i.e., “a more firm
connection”) is clearly lacking. Id.
Appellant additionally argues combining the pressing member 17 of
Takeuchi with the switch assembly of Domzalski (i.e., by positioning the
pressing member 17 of Takeuchi above the dome 16 of Domzalski), or the
pad 23 of Boireau with the pressing member 17 of Takeuchi, the resulting
switch of Domzalski would not operate as intended and result in an
inoperable assembly. Appeal Br. 10–11. Specifically, Appellant argues
Domzalski teaches extending the push button 15 of the actuator
14 through a hole in the surface plate 12. See, e.g., Col. 6. 11. 54-62.
The surface plate 12 appears to be flat and to cover substantially all of
the actuator 14 with the exception of the push button 15 which extends
through the hole in the surface plate 12. See, e.g., FIG. 3. The actuator
14 is positioned above of the first convex disc contact 16. Id., Col. 6,
11. 54-58. Thus, as described below, the configuration of Domzalski’s
device is not compatible with the pressing member 17 of Takeuchi.
As shown in FIG. 2 of Takeuchi (reproduced in Section B(2)(a)
above), the inclusion of a pressing member 17 results in the raising or
upward displacement of the protective sheet 15 (compare with the prior
art embodiments shown in FIGS. 7 and 8 of Takeuchi, which Takeuchi
teaches away from). However, given the configuration of the surface
plate 12 of Domzalski, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that any attempt to displace the elastomeric actuator 14 upwards would
be limited if not prohibited. Thus, positioning the pressing member 17
of Takeuchi between the disc 16 and actuator 14 of Domzalski would
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

8
result in the premature compression of the disc 16 given that the surface
plate 12 of Domzalski acts as an upper limit to the travel of the button
15. In other words, there is no "upward" space for the pressing member
17 of Takeuchi. The premature compression of Domzalski's disc 16
would, at the very least, result in a premature electrical connection
within the switch, and quite possibly result in a constant electrical
connection within the switch (i.e., always on).
Id. at 10–11.
Appellant additionally argues, in the alternative, making the switch of
Domzalski larger in order to provide space for an additional (and in the case
of the Domzalski switch, needless) pressing member, would merely
serve to make the overall switch larger, which is contrary to the teachings of
the various prior art references, and also contrary to at least one of the
Examiner's stated motivations to combine the references (e.g., “in order to
minimize the profile of the switch.” Id. (citing Final Act. 4).
Regarding motivation to combine, in the Answer, the Examiner
addresses Appellant’s arguments. Ans. 3–6.
With respect to combining Domzalski and Takeuchi, the Examiner
finds one of ordinary skill in the art would use a pad (17, Fig. 2), as taught
by Takeuchi, in order to aid in pressing the dome in an efficient manner and
the use of a pad (17) focuses the pressure on the center of the dome. Id. at 5.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that “Domzalski already provides a
'pressing member' or a force transference mechanism in the form of a push
button 15”, the Examiner finds the presence of push button 15 would not
preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from adding a pad (17), as taught by
Takeuchi, in order to aid press the dome in an efficient manner, i.e. focusing
the pressure on the center of the dome. Id. With respect to Appellant’s
argument that that “[w]ith the push button of Domzalski already providing
an efficient force transfer to a center of a dome, it is apparent that a person
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

9
of ordinary skill in the war would not be motivated to modify add the
pressing member 17 below the actuator 14 and the push button 15 and above
the dome”, the Examiner finds the push button 15 of Domzalski helps focus
the pressure between a top key or user and the cover (14), and the pad (17)
of Takeuchi helps focus the pressure between the cover (15) and the dome
(4). Id.
With respect to combining Boireau with Domzalski and Takeuchi and
Appellant’s argument that because of “Takeuchi's pressing member 17 being
adhered or otherwise 'fixed' to the movable contact 4, the Examiner's
proposed motivation to combine (i.e., 'a more firm connection) is clearly
lacking,” the Examiner finds that the use of matching surfaces, as taught by
Boireau, provides a more stable seating/connection than that of a curved
surface to a flat surface (before and after the adhesive settles). Id. at 5–6.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that the combination of Domzalski
and Takeuchi is inoperable, the Examiner states that “the test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 6 (citing In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner finds that any
adjustment necessary to accommodate the pad 17 of Takeuchi would not
have been beyond the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the
invention was effectively filed. Id. at 6–7. Regarding Appellant’s argument
of undesirable premature electrical connection with the switch, the Examiner
finds Appellant’s arguments derived from an incorrect assumption of bodily
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

10
incorporating the features of Takeuchi into the structure of Domzalski. Id. at
7.
The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to use a pad (17), as taught by Takeuchi, in order to
aid press the dome in an efficient manner, i.e. focusing the pressure on the
center of the dome. Id. Regarding Appellant’s argument about making the
switch of Domzalski larger, the Examiner notes that the motivation referred
to by Appellant relates to the horizontal profile of the switch, i.e., by keeping
the terminals under the base instead of protruding out. Id. at 7–8.
Regarding hindsight, the Examiner determines it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a pad, as taught by
Takeuchi, in order to aid press the dome in an efficient manner, i.e. focusing
the pressure on the center of the dome. The Examiner refers to the findings
regarding motivation and inoperability, discussed supra. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates and argues lack of motivation
to combine Domzalski and Takeuchi. Reply Br. 5–9. Appellant argues,
based on the limited disclosure of Domzalski, Domzalski appears to disclose
the push button 15 is part of the actuator and does not teach or suggest
anything between the actuator and the first convex disc 16. Id. at 5–6 (citing
Domzalski, 6:54–58, Fig. 3).
As discussed below, on the record before us, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments because the Examiner provides sufficient evidence to
support the findings of motivation to combine the teachings of the references
to result in the limitations of claim 21, and Appellant has not persuasively
shown that the combination is inoperable or based on impermissible
hindsight.
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

11
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Our reviewing court
states that “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). However, the broadest reasonable
interpretation differs from the broadest possible interpretation. In re Smith
Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The correct inquiry in
giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification is “an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the
inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation
that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” Id. at 1382–83 (quoting In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).]]
Along with unreasonably narrow claim interpretations, Appellant also
argues an unreasonably narrow teaching of the cited references to attempt to
limit the teaching to the express disclosures, and asserts an overly
demanding standard of obviousness. However, we note:
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

12
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (1981).
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on:
[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
We note much of Appellant’s arguments are unsupported by factual
evidence. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blouse, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, Appeal 2009-004693, 2009 WL
2477843, at *3–4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
Here, the Examiner provides sufficient evidence to support the
findings of motivation and provides articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Appellant’s
arguments are based on an unreasonably narrow view of the teachings of the
references and an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the claim.
Additionally, Appellant’s argument are attorney arguments regarding the
teachings of the references and often rely on impermissible bodily
incorporation.
The disputed limitations of claim 21 are directed to a dome, cover,
and pad in a switch. The claim does not recite limitations of size or material.
Nor does the claim recite specifically how these elements are physically
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

13
connected. Appellant does not persuasively identify Specification portions
that require size or specific physical connections.
Takeuchi teaches the use of a pad and we agree with the Examiner’s
findings that the pad enables aid press, and one of ordinary skill in the art
would be motivated to use this feature to enable aid press in Domzalski.
Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–5; Takeuchi, Fig. 2. Takeuchi teaches facilitating the
transfer of pressure from the button to the dome surface by, e.g., focusing
the pressure on the center of the dome. Id. Appellant’s argument that
Domzalski already is “reliable” does not negate opportunity for
improvement. Additionally, Appellant’s argument is not supported by
sufficient evidence and constitutes attorney argument.
Regarding the “curved bottom surface of the pad configured to contact
a curved surface of the dome,” Boireau’s teaching to improve securing does
not negate the use of the curved surface to obtain a more firm connection.
Additionally, in KSR, the Supreme Court held that “if a technique has
been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one
skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known
methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination
yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416. Appellant has not
presented any evidence demonstrating that the modification would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

14
See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, at 418).
Based on the above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s lack of
motivation arguments.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s proposed
combination would cause the resulting switch assembly of Domzalski not to
operate as intended and result in an inoperable assembly, Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive. The arguments are not supported by sufficient
evidence and are attorney arguments based on impermissible bodily
incorporation.
Regarding hindsight, as discussed supra, the Examiner’ findings are
based on the teachings of the references as understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art. Additionally, we note Appellant provides no objective
evidence of secondary considerations, which our reviewing court guides
“operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak
Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Based on the above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s hindsight
arguments.
The Examiner provides prima facie support for the rejection of claim
21. “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on
any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the record
before us, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claim 21, and
dependent claims 23–26 as these claims are not argued separately.
Regarding dependent claim 22, Appellant argues the inclusion of a
support mechanism, as recited by dependent claim 22, would appear to run
Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

15
contrary to the teachings of the various prior art references, and also contrary
to at least one of the Examiner’s stated motivations to combine the
references (e.g., “in order to minimize the profile of the switch”). Appeal
Br. 12 (citing Final Act, 4) (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, this
indicates there is further lack of motivation to combine Tsai with Domzalski,
Takeuchi, Boireau, and Villain in the manner proposed by the Examiner. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner notes that the motivation referred to by
Appellant relates to the horizontal profile of the switch, i.e., by keeping the
terminals under the base instead of protruding out. Ans. 9. The Examiner
also finds that the addition of a support mechanism does not change the
overall profile of the switch itself.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments for the same reasons
discussed supra regarding claim 21. Additionally, we note Appellant does
not persuasively address claim 22 in the Reply Brief. Therefore, we sustain
the rejection of claim 22. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims
27 and 28 as these claims are not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 21–28.

Appeal 2020-006250
Application 15/261,978

16
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 23–26 103 Domzalski, Takeuchi,
Boireau, Villian
21, 23–26
22, 27, 28 103 Domzalski, Takeuchi,
Boireau, Villiam,
Tsai
22, 27, 28
Overall
Outcome
21–28

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED