Ex Parte Hedman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2012

10371826 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/371,826 02/20/2003 David E. Hedman THERMA-43707 1530
26252 7590 02/28/2012
KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP
6320 CANOGA AVENUE
SUITE 1650
WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367
EXAMINER
CHORBAJI, MONZER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1773
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID E. HEDMAN
____________

Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-18, 20, 23-28, 30, 32, 33, 36-41, 43-46, and
48-54.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 We use the Substitute Appeal Brief filed on October 5, 2009, unless
otherwise indicated. Appellant correctly explains why these claims are on
appeal, contrary to the Examiner’s position taken on page 2 of the Answer.
Br. 33-34. These claims were indicated as being appealed on page 4 of the
Brief filed on March 4, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

2
Claims 1, 18, and 37 are representative of the subject matter on appeal
and are set forth below:
1. A process for treating a passenger occupiable vehicle or building
structure at least partially contaminated with harmful microorganisms or
insects or having objects therein contaminated with microorganisms or
insects, comprising the steps of:

substantially enclosing at least a portion of the structure to be treated;

heating ambient air within the structure to a temperature of between
110° F to 400° F to cause the harmful microorganisms or insects in the
structure to be destroyed or migrate into the ambient air;

monitoring the temperature in the structure until the temperature is
achieved;

passing the heated air from the structure through a filter; and

recirculating the filtered and heated air into the structure.

18. The process of claim 1, including the step of directing non-heated
ambient air into the structure after a predetermined time of directing heated
air into the structure, while continuing to remove the air through the filter.

37. A process for removing or treating harmful biological and organic
substances within an enclosed passenger occupiable vehicle or building
structure, comprising the steps of:

creating a negative pressure within the structure;

directing heated air into the structure and distributing the heated air
until an interior of the structure rises to a temperature of between 100° F and
400° F to cause the harmful substances in the structure to be destroyed or
migrate into the ambient air;

Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

3
monitoring the temperature of the structure until the temperature is
achieved;

monitoring pressure levels within the structure to verify adequate
negative pressure;

aggressively moving the air within the structure to aerosolize the
biological and organic substances;

passing the heated air carrying the harmful substances from the
structure through a filter;

recirculating the heated and filtered air within the structure; and

after a predetermined period of time, directing non-heated air into the
structure.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Potapenko 3,107,974 Oct. 22, 1963
Zuckerberg et al. 3,966,407 Jun. 29, 1976
Forbes 4,817,329 Apr. 4, 1989
Obee et al. 5,030,423 Jul. 9, 1991
Deal 6,656,424 B1 Dec. 2, 2003

Appellant lists the following items in his Evidence Appendix:

Declaration of Dr. Michael R. Linford dated Feb. 20, 2007
Declaration of Sean Abbott, Ph.D. dated Mar. 2, 2007
Declaration of Larry Chase dated Mar. 2, 2007
Declaration of Michael Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP dated Mar. 12, 2007

Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

4
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 44, 46, 48, 50, and 51 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Forbes in view
of Zuckerberg.
2. Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 43, 45, 49, 53, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forbes in view of Zuckerberg, and further in view of
Potapenko
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forbes in view of Zuckerberg, and further in view of
Obee.
4. Claims 23, 24, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forbes in view of Zuckerberg, and further in view of
Deal.
ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, we consider the claims separately argued by
Appellant (enumerated, infra), and any claim not separately argued will
stand or fall with its respective independent claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We essentially adopt the Examiner’s findings pertinent to the issues
raised by Appellant for these rejections, except for the Examiner’s position
pertaining to claims 18 and 51. We add the following for emphasis.

Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

5
Rejection 1
Claim 1
It is the Examiner’s position that Forbes suggests the recitations of
claim 1 except “Forbes fails to filter the heated air prior to its return to the
building.” The Examiner relies upon Zuckerberg for this aspect of claim 1.
Ans. 3-4.
We first note that “[on] appeal to the Board, an applicant can
overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence
of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”. . . In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-
86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
With regard to the showing of insufficient evidence of a prima facie
case2, Appellant’s sole argument is that Forbes and Zuckerberg are
nonalagous with each other for the reasons stated on pages 17-18 of the
Brief, and therefore not properly combinable. However, we agree with the
Examiner that these references are properly combinable as both references
are directed to removing particulate matter from air. As such, we are not
convinced of error in the Examiner’s prima facie case.

2 With regard to rebutting the prima facie case, Appellant relies upon 4
Declarations under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 (discussed, infra) as evidence of
secondary indicia. Each of these Declarations is addressed after our analysis
of each rejection regarding the prima facie case.

Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

6
Claim 5
Claim 5 is directed to the step of introducing moisture into the heated
structure.
Appellant argues that the claims must be read in light of the
Specification, and the purpose of introducing moisture into the heated air is
to increase the killing effect of the heated air, and this is not the case in
Zuckerberg. However, claim 5 simply requires a step of “introducing
moisture into the heated air.” Zuckerberg humidifies the air as shown, for
example, at item 70 of Zuckerberg’s drawing, and we are therefore not
convinced of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is directed to the step of “aggressively moving air within the
structure to aerosolize biological and organic substances to facilitate their
removal.”
Appellant argues that Forbes does not teach this step and that
Zuckerberg does not teach this step. Br. 20. However, contrary to
Appellant’s assertion, the Examiner correctly finds that Forbes teaches to
use fans, and explains that Appellant’s Specification uses fans also (Spec.
8:24). The Examiner, therefore, correctly concludes that Forbes does suggest
the subject matter of claim 16. Ans. 16, Forbes, Items 45, 46, and 47 in
Figure 1.

Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

7
Claims 17 and 50
Claims 17 and 50 are directed to the step of positioning a plurality of
temperature probes at predetermined locations relative to the structure.
Appellant argues that Forbes discloses the heating of air of the
structure, but there is no teaching of the positioning of a plurality of
temperature probes at predetermined locations relative to the structure.
Br. 21.
We agree with the Examiner that Forbes teaches maintaining the
temperature within the contaminated building at the effective treating value
(co1. 1, lines 52-54), and that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize positioning multiple temperature sensors at various locations
within the building in order to insure that it remains at that effective value.
Ans. 16. In making a determination of obviousness, one must take into
account the “interferences and creative steps,” or even routine steps, that an
ordinary artisan would employ. Ball Aerosol And Specialty Container, Inc.
v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Perfect
Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(The analysis may also include “recourse to logic, judgment, and common
sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require
explication in any reference or expert opinion.”). “[A]nalysis [of whether
the subject matter of a claim would have been obvious] 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).
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

8
Claims 18 and 51
Claims 18 and 51 recite the step of directing non-heated ambient air
into the structure after a predetermined time of directed heated air into the
structure, while continuing to remove the air through the filter. Appellant
argues that Forbes does not suggest this step. Br. 27-28.
On page 17 of the Answer, the Examiner replies:
Forbes teaches that in certain heat treatment embodiments of
buildings, the existing heating and cooling ducts within a building can
be used to circulate heated gases (col.4, lines 27-30). An HVAC
system of a building having cooling and heating ducts does include
filter(s) as such one recognizes that the heated air/heated gases will
pass through filter(s) as it circulates within the cooling and heating
ducts of an HVAC system. In addition, if a house is to be treated
during summer time, then one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize to open windows/doors of the treated building and to further
turn on the AC (directing non-heated air) if a quick cool down of the
house is needed for an immediate occupancy after the hot air
treatment is finished. Opening the doors/windows prior to turning on
the AC unit would result in the immediate removal of hot air within
the treated building and no possible damage is caused to the AC
system.
We agree with Appellants for the following reasons. If Forbes’
HVAC ducts are used according to the Examiner’s logic, after the hot air
treatment is finished, the Examiner does not adequately explain how such
use suggests the step of “directing non-heated ambient air into the structure
after the predetermined time of directing heated air into the structure” in
conjunction with “while continuing to remove the air through the filter”. Id.
Because the HVAC ducts (supposedly having filters) are not exterior to the
structure (as is Appellant’s filter 30, as depicted in Appellant’s Figure 1), the
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

9
Examiner has not convinced us that the aspect of the claims of “directing
non-heated ambient air into the structure after the predetermined time of
directing heated air into the structure” in conjunction with “while continuing
to remove the air through the filter” is suggested by Forbes.
Claim 44
Claim 44 is an independent claim and is similar to claim 1, but
includes the limitation of aggressively moving air within the structure to
aerosolize at least a portion of the microorganisms to facilitate their removal.
On page 23 of the Brief, Appellant refers to his previous argument
regarding claim 16 and argues that for the same reason, claim 44 is
unobvious. However, for the reason that we are unpersuaded by this
argument for the reasons given above concerning the rejection of claim 16.
In view of the above, we determine that a prima facie case has been
established with respect to all rejected claims of Rejection 1 except for
claims 18 and 51.
Rejection 2
Claims 2, 3, 26, 38, 39, and 45
Claims 2, 3, 26, 38, 39, and 45 are directed to a step of physically
cleaning a contaminated portion of the structure, or to a step of physically
cleaning a contaminated portion of the structure after determining that
adequate treatment had occurred.
The Examiner relies upon Potapenko for teaching physically cleaning
contaminated parts of a building after treatment of air (co1. 1, lines 12-18).
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

10
Ans. 9. On page 18 of the Answer, the Examiner adequately explains how
one skilled in the art would have recognized that after the air treatment is
completed, surfaces can be cleaned as needed. Appellant's arguments made
on pages 23-24 of the Brief do not convince us of error in the Examiner’s
position. In making a determination of obviousness, one must take into
account the “interferences and creative steps,” or even routine steps, that an
ordinary artisan would employ. Ball Aerosol And Specialty Container, Inc.
v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d at 994, Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA,
Inc., 587 F.3d at 1329, and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418.
Claims 28 and 41
Claims 28 and 41 are directed to the step of introducing moisture or a
biocide into the heated air. On page 25 of the Brief, Appellant refers to his
arguments presented for claim 5. In response, we refer to our analysis
directed to claim 5, and are unpersuaded by the argument directed to claims
28 and 41 for the same reasons.
Claims 13 and 49
Claims 13 and 49 are directed to the step of establishing a pressure
within the structure, and monitoring the pressure within the structure.
The Examiner relies upon Potapenko for teaching establishing
negative pressure within rooms in a building (col. 3, lines 50-57 or col. 4,
lines 61-66) and maintaining the desired negative pressure values (col. 3,
lines 54-57). The Examiner reasons that therefore Potapenko must
necessarily monitor negative pressure within the areas of a building in order
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

11
to maintain such a pressure. We agree, and Appellant does not provide
convincing arguments that this is an unreasonable position. Br. 25-26.
Claims 14 and 54
Claims 14 and 54 are directed to the step of placing manometers for
monitoring the pressure.
The Examiner relies upon Potapenko for teaching establishing
negative pressure within rooms in a building (col. 3, lines 50-57 or col. 4,
lines 61-66) and maintaining the desired negative pressure values (col. 3,
lines 54-57). The Examiner reasons that thus, Potapenko must necessarily
monitor negative pressure within the areas of a building, such as by placing
manometers in order to insure that the proper negative pressure values
within the building are maintained. Appellant asserts that the Examiner
makes a “leap of logic.” Br. 27. However, such argument does not
convince us of error in the Examiner’s position that placing manometers
within the structure to monitor pressure is within the ordinary skill of the
artisan.
Claims 15 and 32
Claims 15 and 32 are directed to the step of creating a negative
pressure within the structure and monitoring pressure levels within the
structure to verify adequate negative pressure.
Appellant asserts that “there is no teaching [in Potapenko] of the
creation of a negative pressure within the structure and monitoring pressure
levels within the structure to verify adequate negative pressure.” Br. 27.
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

12
However, we agree with the Examiner’s response on pages 19-20 of the
Answer. Therein, the Examiner correctly explains that Potapenko teaches
establishing negative pressure within rooms in a building and maintaining
the desired negative pressure values (col. 4, lines 59-62). For this to happen,
one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize placing manometers
within the rooms in order to insure that the proper negative pressure values
within the building are maintained.
Claim 25
Appellant argues certain limitations of independent claim 25 on pages
28-29 of the Brief. Particularly, Appellant argues that the applied art does
not suggest the limitation of treating a building structure “contaminated with
microorganisms.” Appellant argues that the Examiner incorrectly equates
termites with “microorganisms.” However, this is not the Examiner’s
position. The Examiner’s position is that Forbes teaches treating a structure
contaminated with insects, and that some insects are microscopic. Ans. 7.
Appellant’s argument does not show error in this position.
Appellant then argues that Forbes fails to disclose the step of
establishing a positive pressure within the structure and monitoring the
pressure within the structure. However, the Examiner does not rely upon
Forbes for this teaching; rather, the Examiner relies upon Potapenko for this
teaching. Ans. 8.
Appellant then argues that Potapenko teaches the step of creating a
negative pressure, rather than a positive air pressure. Br. 28. However, the
Examiner correctly finds that Potapenko teaches maintaining positive
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

13
pressure within certain rooms (col. 4, lines 58-61) so that entry of
contaminated air is prevented.
Regarding the other recitations of claim 25 argued by Appellant on
page 28 of the Brief, these recitations have been addressed, supra, in
connection with similar limitations in other claims, and Appellant’s
arguments are not convincing for the reasons stated previously with respect
to such limitations.
Claim 37
Independent claim 37 recites certain recitations that have already been
addressed, supra, with respect to claims having similar recitations, and
therefore these recitations are addressed in the same way, as previously
addressed.
We also are not convinced by Appellant’s argument that Potapenko is
non-analogous to Zuckerberg and Forbes because each of these references
are directed to air treatment processes as stated by the Examiner on page 21
of the Answer.
With regard to the step of “directing non-heated air into the structure”,
we agree with the Examiner that this recitation is satisfied by opening
windows/doors of a treated building if a quick cool down of the house is
desired. Ans. 17. In reply, on page 37 of the Brief, Appellant asserts that
this position is “ridiculous.” We disagree. In making a determination of
obviousness, one must take into account the “interferences and creative
steps,” or even routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ. Ball
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

14
Aerosol And Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d at 994,
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d at 1329, and KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418.
Claims 33 and 53
Claims 33 and 53 recite the step of positioning a plurality of
temperature probes at predetermined locations relative to the structure.
Appellant argues that Forbes does not teach this step of positioning a
plurality of temperature probes at predetermined locations relative to the
structure. Br. 30. However, we agree with the Examiner’s position that is
within the skilled of the ordinary artisan to monitor temperature using
temperature probes. Ans. 16.
In view of the above, we determine that a prima facie case has been
established with respect to all of the rejected claims of Rejection 2.
Rejection 3
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites the step that the filter comprises a carbon filter. The
Examiner relies upon Obee for teaching removal of air pollutants from
enclosed spaces (co1. 1, lines 12-14 and Figure 1:30 and 16)
through the use of a carbon filter (Figure 1:30), because activated carbon has
tremendous interior surface area and also has high degree of adsorption
potential (col. 3, lines 42-45).
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

15
Appellant asserts that Obee is not analogous to Forbes or Zuckerberg.
Br. 30-31. However, we agree with the Examiner’s position as stated on
page 23 of the Answer that the references are analogous to each other
because each of these references concerns removing particles from air.
Rejection 4
Claims 23, 24, and 52
Claims 23, 24, and 52 are directed to the step of irradiating contents
within the structure with ultra-violet light.
The Examiner relies upon Deal for teaching irradiating the inner
spaces of operating rooms or intensive care rooms with UV automated
sterilizer (col. 2, lines 15-21) where surfaces are sterilized. It is the
Examiner’s position that while surfaces are sterilized, it is necessary that air
within the room is also exposed to UV radiation and is also sterilized, and
thus, it would have been obvious to have provided the modified method of
Forbes/Zuckerberg with the UV automated sterilizer in order to insure that
all exposed surfaces within the building are sterilized as taught by Deal (col.
4, lines 37-42) as well as the air. Ans. 11-12.
Appellant asserts that the teachings of Deal are completely non-
analogous to both Zuckerberg and Forbes for the reasons stated on pages 31-
32 of the Brief. However, we are not convinced of error in the Examiner’s
rejection for the reasons expressed by the Examiner on pages 23-24 of the
Answer.

Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

16
Rebuttal Evidence
In presenting evidence of secondary indicia, the burden is on
Appellant to show how such evidence establishes nonobviousness. See, e.g.,
In re Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228 (CCPA1966); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077,
1080 (CCPA 1972); In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179 (CCPA 1979); In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Also, after evidence or argument is submitted by the Appellant
in response to the Examiner’s case, patentability is determined on the
totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due
consideration to persuasiveness of argument. In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 707 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500
(Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985);
In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Declaration of Michael Linford
We refer to Appellant’s arguments on page 13 of the Brief and to Mr.
Linford’s Declaration for details regarding the contents of the Linford
Declaration.
Basically, Mr. Linford declares that no one recognized the need to
filter the heated air in Forbes’ method, and that the filtered-air eradication of
Appellant’s method provides surprising benefits not previously recognized
as achievable by air filtering.
However, as stated by the Examiner in the paragraph bridging pages
13-14 of the Answer, Zuckerberg teaches that it is known to filter heated
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

17
circulation air to remove fine particles. The Linford Declaration does not
address the Zuckerberg reference (thus, this Declaration has limited value in
this regard). Based upon the Zuckerberg teachings as discussed by the
Examiner, we have weighed this evidence with Appellant’s countervailing
evidence in this Declaration, and agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that
Mr. Linford’s Declaration is unconvincing. Zuckerberg satisfies the long-
felt need to remove airborne particulates. Zuckerman also is evidence that it
was known to use a filter to remove particulates from air. It is well settled
that Appellant has the burden of showing that the claimed invention imparts
not just any improvement, but an unexpected improvement. Klosak, 455
F.2d at 1080 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 948 (CCPA
1975) (Expected results are evidence of obviousness just as unexpected
results are evidence of unobviousness).

Declaration of Michael Geyer
We refer to Appellant’s arguments on pages 13-14 of the Brief and to
Mr. Geyer’s Declaration for details regarding the contents of the Geyer
Declaration.
Basically, Mr. Geyer declares that air filtration during thermal
eradication surprisingly reduced particulate levels without excessively
increasing heating requirements, and that the benefits of air filtration during
thermal eradication were not recognized. It is the Examiner’s position that
Zuckerberg teaches that it is known to filter heated circulation air to remove
fine particles. Ans., para. bridging pages 13-14 of the Answer. The Geyer
Declaration does not address the Zuckerberg reference. Thus, again,
balancing the evidence of Zuckerberg teachings as discussed by the
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

18
Examiner with Appellant’s countervailing evidence in this Declaration, we
agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Mr. Geyer’s Declaration is
unconvincing.

Declaration of Sean Abbot
We refer to Appellant’s arguments on pages 15-16 of the Brief and to
Mr. Abbott’s Declaration for details regarding the contents of the Abbot
Declaration.
Basically, Mr. Abbott declares that there has been a long felt need for
filtration of air in a thermal eradication method, and refers to several articles
in support thereof. However, Zuckerberg is counter balancing evidence that
any long-felt need of filtering heated, circulating air to remove fine particles
has been met by the invention of Zuckerberg. The Abbott Declaration does
not address the Zuckerberg reference and therefore has limited value in this
regard. Weighing the evidence leads us to agreement with the Examiner that
the Abbott Declaration is unconvincing.

Declaration of Larry Chase
We refer to Appellant’s arguments on pages 16-17 of the Brief and to
Mr. Chase’s Declaration for details regarding the contents of the Chase
Declaration. Mr. Chase declares that Appellant’s process has rewarded the
company with whom he is employed (E-Therm, Inc.), commercial success,
as well as success for a large number of licensees (as listed on page 3 of the
Chase Declaration). Mr. Chase also refers to feedback in the form of
articles, a letter, and several quotations praising the method, on pages 4-7 of
the Declaration. However, notably absent from this Declaration is
Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

19
the establishment by Appellant that “the commercial success of the
embodying product resulted from the merits of the claimed invention as
opposed to the prior art or other extrinsic factors.” In re Huai-Hung Kao,
639 F.3d 1057, 1069-70 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner that the Declaration
evidence is unconvincing.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
1. The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 44, 46, 48, and 50
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Forbes in view of
Zuckerberg is affirmed.
However, the rejection of claim 18 and claim 51 in this regard is
reversed.
2. The rejection of claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 53, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forbes in view of Zuckerberg, and further in view of
Potapenko is affirmed.
3. The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forbes in view of Zuckerberg, and further in view of Obee
is affirmed.
4. The rejection of claims 23, 24, and 52 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Forbes in view of Zuckerberg, and
further in view of Deal is affirmed.

Appeal 2010-002980
Application 10/371,826

20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cam