Ex Parte Adams et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201815292438 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 15/292,438 10/13/2016 Paul R. Adams 54549 7590 12/26/2018 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 59389US12; 67097-2790US8 CONFIRMATION NO. 2727 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANDREW H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/26/2018 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL R. ADAMS, SHANKAR S. MAGGE, JOSEPH BRENT STAUBACH, WESLEY K. LORD, FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ, and GABRIEL L. SUCIU Appeal 2018-005365 1' 2, 3 Application 15/292,438 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. 1 "Appellant has filed a Notice of Appeal for co-pending Application No. 15/292,249" filed October 13, 2016. App. Br. 1. That co-pending application has been assigned Appeal No. 2018-005364. 2 The Examiner notes, "Inter partes review was instituted for parent application 13/475,252 (Patent 8,844,265) on 1/3/2017 and the final written decision was mailed 12/29/2017 which found claims 1, 2, 6-16, and 20 unpatentable." Ans. 2. 3 United Technologies Corporation is identified as the applicant on the Application Data Sheet dated October 13, 2016 submitted in association with this application. United Technologies Corporation is also identified as the real party in interest and as the assignee of the entire right to this application. See App. Br. 1. Accordingly, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, we understand United Technologies Corporation as the Appellant. Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-30, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). For the reasons explained below, we do not find error in the Examiner's rejections of these claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relates to turbofan engines" and "[ m Jore particularly, [] relates to low pressure turbine sections of turbofan engines which power the fans." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1, 11, 24, and 29 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A turbofan engine comprising: a fan including a circumferential array of fan blades; a compressor in fluid communication with the fan, the compressor including a second compressor section and a first compressor section, the second compressor section including a second compressor section inlet with a second compressor section inlet annulus area; a fan duct including a fan duct annulus area outboard of the second compressor section inlet, wherein the ratio of the fan duct annulus area to the second compressor section inlet annulus area defines a bypass area ratio that is greater than 6.0; a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor; a shaft assembly having a first portion and a second portion; a turbine in fluid communication with the combustor, the turbine having a two-stage first turbine section coupled to the first portion of the shaft assembly to drive the first compressor 2 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 section, and a four-stage second turbine section coupled to the second portion of the shaft assembly to drive the fan, each of the second turbine section stages including blades and vanes, and a second turbine airfoil count defined as the numerical count of all of the blades and vanes in the second turbine section; wherein a ratio of the second turbine airfoil count to the bypass area ratio is less than 150; wherein the second turbine section further includes a maximum gas path radius and the fan blades include a maximum radius, and a ratio of the maximum gas path radius to the maximum radius of the fan blades is less than 0.55; and wherein a hub-to-tip ratio (Ri:Ro) of the second turbine section is between 0.4 and 0.5 measured at the maximum Ro axial location in the second turbine section; and a planetary gearbox coupled to the fan and rotatable by the second turbine section through the second portion of the shaft assembly to allow the second turbine section to tum faster than the fan, the gearbox having a speed reduction ratio between 2: 1 and 13: 1 determined by the ratio of diameters within the gearbox. Cronstedt Lee Orlando et al. Udall Seda et al. Henry et al. REFERENCES us 3,814,549 us 4,313,711 US 7,841,165 B2 US 2002/0172593 Al US 2003/0163984 Al US 2008/0098718 Al June 4, 1974 Feb.2, 1982 Nov. 30, 2010 Nov. 21, 2002 Sept. 4, 2003 May 1, 2008 Knip, Jr., G., Analysis of an Advanced Technology Subsonic Turbofan Incorporating Revolutionary Materials, NASA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, 1-24 (May 1987). Kurzke, J., Fundamental Differences Between Conventional and Gear Turbofans, PROCEEDINGS OF ASME TURBO EXPO 2009: POWER FOR LAND, SEA AND AIR, 145-153, (June 8-12, 2009). 3 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 4 Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act. 2-3. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3. Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, and Lee. Final Act. 4. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, Lee, and Henry. Final Act. 8. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, Lee, and Cronstedt. Final Act. 9. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, Lee, and Udall. Final Act. 9. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, Lee, Udall, and Seda. Final Act. 10. 4 In the Advisory Action dated September 29, 2017, the Examiner indicated that the proposed amendments of September 20, 2017 would be entered and stated "[t]he amendments to the claims overcome the 112(b) rejections." See Adv. Act. dated Sept. 29, 2017, pp. 1-2. In the later Advisory Action dated December 15, 2017, the Examiner indicated that the proposed amendments of November 27, 2017 would be entered and stated "[r]egarding the amendments submitted 11/27/2017, the amendments are entered for correcting minor antecedent basis issues. The rejections from the Final Rejection mailed 7/18/2017 are maintained." See Adv. Act. dated Dec. 15, 2017, pp. 1-2. As the Examiner did not raise any issue concerning the indefiniteness of claims 1-10, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in the Answer, we consider the rejections of these claims as not being before us on appeal. See Final Act. 3--4. 4 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 Claims 11-14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, and Lee. Final Act. 11. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, Lee, and Henry. Final Act. 17. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, Lee, and Cronstedt. Final Act. 18. Claims 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, Lee, and Kurzke. Final Act. 18. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, Lee, and Udall. Final Act. 19. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orlando, Knip, Lee, Udall, and Seda. Final Act. 20. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1-30 for failing to comply with the enablement requirement Independent claim 1 recites the limitations: (1) "the ratio of the fan duct annulus area to the second compressor section inlet annulus area defines a bypass area ratio that is greater than 6.0"; (2) "a ratio of the second turbine airfoil count to the bypass area ratio is less than 150"; and (3) "a ratio of the maximum gas path radius to the maximum radius of the fan blades is less than 0.55." App. Br. 17 (Claims App.). 5 The Examiner determines that because the range of each of these recited ratios does not 5 We note that independent claim 11 recites limitation ( 1) only and independent claims 24 and 29 do not recite any of limitations (1 }-(3). App. Br. 19, 21-23 (Claims App.). 5 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 have either an upper boundary or a lower boundary, a person skilled in the art would not be enabled to: (1) "make and use a turbofan engine with a bypass area ratio approaching infinity"; (2) "make and use a turbofan engine with a bypass area ratio approaching infinity or a low pressure turbine airfoil count of zero"; and (3) "make and use a turbofan engine with a maximum gas[]path radius of zero or a fan blade radius of infinity." Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 2--4. Appellant points out that open-ended claims "may be supported if there is an inherent, albeit not precisely known, upper limit and the specification enables one of skill in the art to approach that limit." App. Br. 5 (citing Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Appellant contends that "there is an inherent, practical limitation to each of the claimed open-ended ratios" because "the basic architecture of a bypass turbine engine requires some air to travel to the core engine for combustion to occur and the engine to function" and "a worker of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an infinite bypass area ratio is unachievable and impractical." App. Br. 5---6. Appellant contends that in a similar manner, "[p ]ractical lower limits also exist for ratios of second turbine airfoil count to bypass area ratio" and "practical lower limits exist for ratios of maximum gas path radius to maximum radius of fan blades." App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 1-5. Appellant's contentions are persuasive. When rejecting a claim for lack of enablement, as here, "the [Examiner] bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why [the Examiner] believes that the scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately enabled by the description of the invention provided in the specification of the 6 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 application .... " In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561---62 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24 (CCPA 1971)). In other words, the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d at 1561; In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (setting forth eight factors to be considered to evaluate whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation). The Examiner's rejection does not explain why the disclosure, as filed, is not sufficiently complete to enable a skilled artisan to make and use the subject matter of claim 1 without undue experimentation. See Ans. 2--4. Although the Examiner is not required to discuss all Wands factors, the record does not reflect that the Examiner considered any Wands factor to determine whether undue experimentation is required to make and use the claimed invention. See In re Hillis, 2012 WL 1817636, at *4 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2012). Thus, even if some experimentation is required-rather than undue experimentation-we agree with Appellant that an ordinary artisan would be able to determine the practical inherent limits for the claimed range of ratios to be able to practice the claimed invention. As Appellant explains, one of ordinary skill in the art "would understand from at least the[] portions of Appellant's Specification [] the basic architecture of a bypass turbine engine" in relation to "sufficient airflow to be delivered by the fan 42 to the core flow path C for combustion to occur and the engine to function." Reply Br. 4. Hence, considering this disclosure coupled with knowledge from the ordinary artisan, undue experimentation would not be necessary to determine the limits for the range of ratios as claimed. Concerning "the Examiner's arguments that the claimed quantities represent 'engineering design variables/quantities,"' we 7 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 further agree with Appellant that "the numerical ranges 'must be considered in the context in which [they are] being applied,' here within a gas turbine engine, and not as an unconstrained 'mathematical exercise."' App. Br. 7-8 (quoting Ex parte Feulner6); Final Act. 20. As such, we do not sustain the stated rejection of claims 1-30, for lack of enablement. The rejection of claim 27 for failing to comply with the written description requirement Claim 27 recites "the ratio of the fan duct annulus area to the second compressor section inlet annulus area defines a bypass area ratio that is greater than 6.0." App. Br. 22; emphasis added (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that "[t]he original disclosure fails to teach the second turbine driving the first compressor section and the fan in combination with the limitations of claim 27." Final Act. 3. The Examiner explains that "[t]he claim has apparently mistakenly switched the 'first compressor section' and 'the second compressor section."' Ans. 4. In reply, Appellant states that "[t]o reduce the number of issues on appeal, Applicant has submitted an Amendment herewith to amend claim 27 in the manner suggested by the Examiner." Reply Br. 10. As that proposed claim amendment has not been entered by the Examiner, claim 27 stands rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Accordingly, we summarily sustain this rejection of claim 27. 6 Appeal No. 2013-010469 (App. No. 13/366,419, decided 10/23/2015), pp. 8-9. 8 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, and Lee Appellant argues claims 1, 2, and 5 together. App. Br. 9-15; see also Reply Br. 5-10. We select claim 1 for review, with claims 2 and 5 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Orlando discloses the various components of the claimed turbofan engine (including the recited fan, compressor, fan duct, combustor, shaft, turbine, and gearbox) but acknowledges that "Orlando is silent as to" the three cited ratios reiterated above. Final Act. 5-7. The Examiner relies on the data disclosed in Figure 13 of Knip to ascertain the recited "bypass area ratio" and also the recited ratio between the gas path radius and fan blade radius. Final Act. 6. Regarding the "airfoil count" ratio, the Examiner relies on the above "bypass ratio" to conclude that it would have been obvious to provide "a ratio of the low pressure turbine airfoil count to the bypass area ratio of less than 150, as taught by Kurzke." Final Act. 7. The Examiner reasons that these modifications are obvious because "[i]t has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious" and also that "providing a ratio of the low pressure turbine airfoil count to the bypass area ratio of less than 150 yields predictable results." Final Act. 7. The Examiner further acknowledges that Orlando is silent as to "a hub-to-tip ratio (Ri:Ro) of the low pressure turbine being between 0.4 and 0.5 measured at the maximum Ro axial location in the second turbine section." Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Knip teaches in Figure 13, "Ri:Ro at maximum Ro axial location in the low pressure turbine is 0.5 - 10in/20in." Final Act. 6. The Examiner also finds that "Lee teaches that 9 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 hub/tip ratio of a turbine may be 0.5, and that the ratio is a result[]-effective variable, affecting efficiency (see col[.] 4 11. 49-52)." Final Act. 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the turbofan engine of Orlando "to make the hub-to-tip ratio of the fan drive turbine section between 0.4 to 0.5 at the maximum R[o] axial location, as taught by Knip and Lee." Final Act. 6. The Examiner notes that "[i]t has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art," and that "[i]n this case, the general conditions of the claim determining optimum hub/tip ratio of a turbine - is disclosed," and thus, "[ d]iscovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art." Final Act. 6-7. Appellant contends that "[the] rejection is improper for at least three reasons." App. Br. 9. First, Appellant argues that "the teachings of Orlando and Knip are so disparate that a person of ordinary skill would not have made such a modification without the use of teachings of the current application as a roadmap in an exercise of hindsight reconstruction." App. Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 6-8. This contention is unpersuasive because the Examiner explains that "[b ]oth Orlando and Knip teach turbofan engines comprising the necessary sections (fan, low pressure compressor, high pressure compressor, high pressure turbine, low pressure turbine)." Ans. 4--5. "The differences cited by Appellant ( single fan, number of turbine stages) are well known in the art;" "[t]heir effects are also well-known in the art ... and would have been obvious;" and, "[s]uch changes were within the level of ordinary skill in the art." Ans. 5. Accordingly, per the Examiner, "any such changes made to 10 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 Orlando would be implemented with a reasonable expectation of success." Ans. 5. In other words, the combined teachings of Orlando, Knip, and Kurzke applied in modifying the turbofan engine of Orlando to have the range of ratios as claimed, would yield predictable results of efficiency and energy extraction from the working fluid. See Ans. 5. We also note that Appellant's argument appears to be based on a bodily incorporation into Orlando's turbofan engine of one or more specific teachings of Knip. See App. Br. 9. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCP A 1981 ). "Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. Second, Appellant also contends that "[t]he rejection does not establish a motivation to combine Orlando and Knip," and that "[ m ]odifying the Orlando engine to include additional turbine stages, as disclosed by Knip, would increase the overall weight of the engine" ("[s]uch an increase in weight [being] against conventional wisdom held by engine designers"). App. Br. 10 ( emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 8-9. These contentions are also unpersuasive because the Examiner explains that "there are many reasons to include additional stages, including to extract a desired amount of energy from the working fluid and to decrease loading on each of the stages." Ans. 5. Further, "[w]eight is a single design consideration in a multitude" of such considerations. Ans. 5---6 (referencing "page 6, last paragraph;" "page 7, first paragraph;" and "Figure 16" of Knip ). We have been instructed that "a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily 11 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 obviate motivation to combine." Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, alleged disadvantages of the proposed combination must be considered along with advantages. Appellant further contends that "[t]he Examiner's [m]easurement of Figure 13 of Knip is improper" (App. Br. 13, (emphasis omitted)) and that "Figure 13 of Knip is a small, low-fidelity image" meaning that "[t]here is no indication that the low pressure turbine of figure 13 of Knip is actually drawn to scale" (App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 9). We recognize the teachings of Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int'!, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000); however, this does not mean that "things [Knip's] drawings show clearly are to be disregarded." See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). Here, the Examiner explains that "Knip' s figure [ 13] is drawn to scale, as evidenced by the X and Y axes" and that "[t]he axes give incremental markings, indicative of the actual radius and length relative to the various engine components." Ans. 7. Hence, "the entire purpose of the figure is to provide measurements for each of the engine elements." Ans. 7. Accordingly, the Examiner's action of extracting certain values from Figure 13 of Knip (see Final Act. 6) is not indicative of Examiner error. Appellant further contends that "[t]he rejection has not established a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Orlando in view of Lee." App. Br. 11 ( emphasis omitted). In support for this contention, Appellant argues that (1) "[t]he purpose of the machine disclosed in the Lee patent is solely to extract work from oscillating fluid flows, such as water waves; it does not produce thrust or even drive a fan"; (2) "the Lee reference does not teach that hub-to-tip ratio was known to be result-effective within the 12 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 context of a fan drive turbine of a gas turbine engine, much less keeping this ratio within any particular range"; (3) "a single data point is insufficient to establish that a given parameter was known to be a result effective variable"; and, (4) "[t]he cited portion of Lee only gives one data point (hub-to-tip ratio of 0.5) and does not demonstrate any causal relationship between hub-to-tip and the alleged efficiency." App. Br. 11-12; see also Reply Br. 9-10. These arguments are unpersuasive. As the Examiner points out, "Lee teaches that their invention relates to 'turbines and like rotary machines, hereinafter referred to collectively as turbines ... which are of the kind in which a working fluid, either in liquid or gaseous form, is arranged to act on a plurality of generally radially extending rotor blades for producing a rotation of a rotor' (col[.] 111. 4--12)." Ans. 6 (emphasis added). Lee discloses that "[a] typical design of turbine rotor with a hub/tip ratio of 0.5 can be shown to give an integrated theoretical efficiency of 72Yz%, demonstrating acceptable overall efficiencies of such a rotor" (Lee col. 4, 11. 49-52; emphasis added) and coupled with the disclosure discussed above, and we agree with the Examiner that Lee teaches that "hub/tip ratio is a result[] effective variable, affecting efficiency of the turbine." Ans. 6. In other words, as Lee discloses that the efficiency of a rotor would be varied and affected by the varying of the hub/tip ratio, the hub/tip ratio would thus, be a result effective variable. We further note that even if Lee does not disclose that the hub-to-tip ratio is a result effective variable, the Examiner finds that both Lee and Knip disclose a value of 0.5, which borders the claimed range ("a hub-to-tip ratio (Ri:Ro) of the second turbine section is between 0.4 and 0.5." App. Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). See Final Act. 6. Because Lee discloses a value of 0.5, a prima facie case of 13 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 obviousness exists absent a showing of unexpected properties. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("We have also held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). Appellant finally contends that "[t]he Knip reference shows itself to be unreliable." App. Br. 15 (emphasis omitted). In support for this contention, Appellant argues that "the entire tone of Knip is that technology must develop, such that a new engine might be made 'incorporating revolutionary materials,'" and that "Knip does not provide any teachings with regard to how such materials could enable such an engine." App. Br. 15. These arguments are unavailing in that they do not address the rejection. The Examiner does not rely on Knip for teaching materials used for the turbofan engine of Orlando; rather, the Examiner relies on Knip for teaching the range of ratios as claimed. See Final Act. 6. Further, as the Examiner points out, "weight is a single consideration in a multitude, and there are many ways to decrease weight, including by material selection and removal of other engine parts." Ans. 8. We note that in the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that with respect to the Knip reference, the Examiner does not point to any record evidence to support the Examiner's contentions that the claimed quantities were known to be result effective, much less that a relationship between the two quantities was known to be result effective or that it was known to keep a ratio of the claimed quantities within any particular range (see Answer at pp. 4-5). 14 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 Reply Br. 7. This argument also fails to address the rejection because the basis of the rejection is not modifying the turbofan engine of Orlando via routine optimization. Rather, the Examiner finds that Knip and Kurzke disclose the range of ratios as claimed and modifying the turbofan engine of Orlando would thus, be obvious because "[i]t has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious." Final Act. 7. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, and Lee. We thus, sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5. The rejection of claims 11-14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, and 26--30 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, and Lee Appellant argues claims 11-14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, and 26-30 together. App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 5-10. We select independent claim 11 for review, with claims 12-14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, and 26-30 standing or falling therewith. Appellant contends that "[r]egarding the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 11, 24, and 29, the Examiner's arguments parallel the rejection of claim 1, and are deficient for at least the reasons discussed above." App. Br. 15. Because we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, and Lee for the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11-14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, and 26-30 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, and Lee. 15 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 The rejection of claims 3 and 4 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, Lee, and Henry The rejection of claim 6 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, Lee, and Cronstedt The rejection of claims 7 and 8 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, Lee, and Udall The rejection of claims 9 and 10 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, Lee, Udall, and Seda The rejection of claim 15 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Lee, and Henry The rejection of claim 18 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Lee, and Cronstedt The rejection of claims 19 and 25 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Lee, and Kurzke The rejection of claim 22 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Lee, and Udall The rejection of claim 23 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Lee, Udall, and Seda For these rejections, Appellant contends that "[r]egarding the Examiner's rejection of the remaining dependent claims, the additions of the Lee, Henry, Cronstedt, Udall, and Seda references do not cure the above noted deficiencies of the base combination." App. Br. 15. As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, Kurzke, and Lee and independent claims 11, 24, and 29 as being obvious over Orlando, Knip, and Lee for the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 4, 6-10, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25, over the variously indicated combinations of cited art. 16 Appeal2018-005365 Application 15/292,438 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the enablement requirement is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement is summarily affirmed. The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation