Ex Parte Miller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 201711945611 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/945,611 11/27/2007 Charles G. Miller 0087962-000004 7682 23464 7590 11/17/2017 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC P.O. BOX 1404 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404 EXAMINER THAI, XU AN MARIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/17/2017 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): ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES G. MILLER and CLIFFORD OLMSTEAD Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 Technology Center 3700 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JILL D. HILL, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charles G. Miller and Clifford Olmstead (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1—4, 6—11, 13,1 and 15—20 as unpatentable over Scharf (US 2004/0204635 Al, published Oct. 14, 2004) and Kurzweil (US 1 Claim 13 is not listed in the heading of this rejection but is discussed in the body of the rejection. See Non-Final Act. 2, 4 (mailed Oct. 9, 2013). We consider this a typographical error. Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 2004/0138864 Al, published July 15, 2004)2; (2) claim 123 as unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Reichek (US 5,701,153, issued Dec. 23, 1997); and (3) claim 14 as unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Kirkpatrick (US 2006/0179403 Al, published Aug. 10, 2006). Claim 5 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to methods “for the integrated recording and playback of video, audio and data inputs using training simulators, particularly patient simulators in the medical environment.” Spec. 12, Fig. 1. Claims 1,16, and 18 are independent. Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recite: 1. A method of conducting a session with a training simulator comprising at least one subject and at least one moderator comprising the steps of: Capturing at least one video image of the subject during at least part of the session with the training simulator from at least one video camera; 2 The Examiner acknowledges the typographical errors regarding the Scharf and Kurzweil references in the Answer and notes that the “references cited by the examiner are correctly indicated in the 892 form which was mailed along with the office action on 10/13/2013.” See Ans. 7 (mailed Oct. 1, 2014); see also Appeal Br. 11 (filed May 27, 2014). We note that Appellants refer to the Scharf reference as “the Caregiver Device Reference” and the Kurzweil reference as “the Web Based Virtual Patient Simulator Reference.” See Appeal Br. 11. 3 Claim 13 is also listed in the heading of this rejection but is not discussed in the body of the rejection. See Non-Final Act. 6. We consider this a typographical error. 2 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 Capturing at least one audio record of at least a portion of the session with the training simulator from at least one microphone; Capturing data source inputs throughout at least a portion of the session which correspond to at least one simulated parameter of the training simulator; Integrating each of the data source inputs of the training simulator, each video image and each audio record into a common log file; and Contemporaneously flagging the common log file by at least one moderator during the session through a wireless controller, wherein each flag is a time sequenced moderator input into the common log file. 18. A method for the integrated recording and playback of video, audio and data inputs using training simulators comprising the step of simultaneously receiving at least one data source input, at least one audio input and at least one video inputs into a common digital memory buffer in a time stamped manner for at least a given training event, wherein at least one of the data source inputs is a data record throughout the event of at least one simulated parameter of the training simulator, wherein at least one audio input is an audio record of the training event and at least one video input is a video record of the training event, and wherein the common memory buffer allows independent, simultaneous, synchronized, user controlled playback of the individual inputs received within the memory buffer. ANALYSIS Obviousness over Scharf and Kurzweil Claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 9 Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 2—4, 6, 7, and 9 separate from those presented for independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11—19. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2—4, 6, 7, and 9 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 8, 3 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 10, 11, 13, and 15, which depend from claim 1, are addressed separately below. Appellants contend that Scharf “fails to teach or suggest a method of conducting a session with a training simulator with at least one subject and at least one moderator.” Reply Br. 3, 44; see also Appeal Br. 13. According to Appellants, Scharf “is a device for caregivers and thus no ‘training session subject’ and no ‘moderator’” are present.” Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 13. As an initial matter, the Examiner correctly points out that “claim 1 doe[s] not recite the limitation of ‘trainee subject’ rather a [‘]subject[’] is disclosed by the claim language.” Ans. 8—9; see also id. at 7 (“[Cjlaim 1 recites in the preamble ‘ . . . comprising at least one subject. . . . ’ and [claim 1] does not disclose wherein the subject is the trainee.”). Moreover, we note that the Specification merely describes a “subject.” See, e.g., Spec. 28, 56, 62, 65; see also Reply Br. 4. Stated differently, there is no disclosure in the subject application of a “training session subject.” See, e.g., Spec. 1128, 56, 62, 65. Further, the Specification describes “the moderator” as a “reviewer” or “instructor.” See id. 116, 18, 20; see also Reply Br. 4. The Examiner clarifies in the Answer that “the caregiver in [Scharf] has been interpreted to be the moderator and the patient as the subject.” Ans. 7 (citing Scharf, Abstract, 112); see also id. at 8—9. Scharf discloses that “[conventional monitoring systems are used by caregivers, such as doctors, nurses, technicians, other health professionals ... to monitor parameters related to the physiological state of a patient [subject].” See 4 Filed Dec. 1,2014. 4 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 Scharf || 3, 4. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, the Examiner’s findings concerning the terms “moderator” and “subject” are reasonable. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error.5 Appellants further contend that the Examiner fails to provide a reason with rational underpinnings to combine Scharf and Kurzweil. See Appeal Br. 12—15; see also Reply Br. 2—5. In particular, Appellants contend that in Kurzweil, “the user interactions with the virtual simulation are ALREADY recorded as the associated inputs, and which recorded inputs drive the simulation,” that the “system” of Scharf “fails to include the training simulator and thus there is no teaching or suggestion of the ‘a method of conducting a session with a training simulator’ in [Scharf]” that there is “no teaching or suggestion of video recording of the trainee subject [in Scharf] ‘during at least part of the session with the training simulator’ as set forth in the present claimed method” and that the combined teachings of Scharf and Kurzweil fail to disclose the step of “capturing at least one audio record of at least a portion of the session with the training simulator 5 In the Reply Brief, Appellants state that “[a] key aspect of the claimed method of training of the present claimed invention is the ability of the moderator to effectively observe and comment on the trainee subject (who is distinct from the moderator) and his performance in the training session with the training simulator.” Reply Br. 3. As discussed above, claim 1 does not recite a “trainee” subject nor does claim 1 recite anything regarding the moderator effectively observing and commenting on the trainee subject and his performance in the training session with the training simulator. See id.; see also Appeal Br. 22, Claims App.; In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). 5 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 from at least one microphone as claimed.” See Reply Br. 2—5; see also Appeal Br. 12—15. Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive because they are not responsive to the Examiner’s proposed rejection of the combined teachings of Scharf and Kurzweil. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of references). In this case, the Examiner finds that Scharf discloses the method of claim 1 “substantially as claimed” except for utilizing “the technology in [a] medical simulation field.” See Ans. 7; see also Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that “[t]he system of Scharf is capable of carrying out the method steps as disclosed by claim 1. . . in a training environment.” See Ans. 7. The Examiner relies on Kurzweil for disclosing a “patient simulation system.” Non-Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 7—8. In particular, the Examiner finds that Kurzweil “discloses a patient simulator for training and educational purposes which records data source input of a simulated event and also integrates the simulated parameter into a common log file such that the videos dynamically get adjusted to display the changes corresponding to the input parameter.” Ans. 8; see also id. at 7; Non-Final Act. 3. Kurzweil discloses that “in one embodiment, the applications 120a- 120r/ provide users with a simulation of a patient medical exam (i.e., simulation of a medical exam to ‘virtual’ patient). . . . The medical simulation applications 120a-120r/ continually update the state data 112 for a patient to reflect the virtual patient’s health.” Kurzweil 133, Fig. 1; see also Non-Final Act. 3. Kurzweil discloses that “[t]he simulator provides an 6 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 interactive, multimedia simulation of a medical examination” and that [t]he simulator provides extensive medical education and reference information such as pharmacological references (e.g., PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference) notes), videos and images illustrating proper use of products and procedures, medical dictionary entries (e.g., from Gray’s Anatomy), and links to medical information on the Internet. Kurzweil 48-49; see also Ans. 8. Kurzweil further discloses that [i]n some embodiments, the simulator operates by interpreting data structures encoding different virtual patient characteristics. For example, a developer can code data structures that define the progression of different medical conditions. Procedures interpret the data structures to present a virtual patient. Interpretation of the data structures can include accessing and modifying virtual patient state data. Kurzweil 170; see also Non-Final Act. 3. Kurzweil also discloses that As shown, the simulator 1700 also provides multimedia files 1716 such as video (e.g., MPEG (Motion Pictures Experts Group)) files, sound files, and picture (e.g., JPEG (Joint Photographers Experts Group)) files. These files may include instructional references material and/or multimedia features used to present the virtual patient. The state data 1718 can include references or copies of the multimedia files that reflect the current state of the patient (see FIGS. 15a and 15£)[.] Kurzweil 179, Fig. 17; see also Ans. 8. Given that the Examiner points out that “no structure” has been recited for the claimed “training simulator” (see Ans. 7), we understand the Examiner to be interpreting the computer implemented simulation applications/procedures of Kurzweil to constitute the claimed “training simulator.” See Non-Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 7—8. We further understand the Examiner’s proposed modifications of Scharf in view of Kurzweil to include replacing the “real” patient/subject of Scharf with the 7 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 “virtual” patient/subject of Kurzweil and modifying “the patient physiological data gathering and capturing teachings” of Scharf to include the simulation/annotation file systems of Kurzweil in order to enhance a user’s/medical student’s “learning experience [/training outcome] by providing trainees an opportunity to interact and/or solve a real life situation in [a] virtual world by minimizing the risks (e.g. in medical industry).” See Non-Final 3; see also Ans. 8.6 The Examiner’s findings are sound and supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the Examiner’s conclusions therefrom are based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error. Appellants contend that the “training” method of Scharf and Kurzweil “lacks the teaching of a moderator and more importantly of the step[] of ‘Contemporaneously flagging the common log file by at least one moderator during the session through a wireless controller, wherein each flag is a time sequenced moderator input into the common log file’ as claimed.” Reply Br. 5; see also Appeal Br. 15. Scharf discloses that Before, during, or after the sensor transmits 315 signals to the PDA, a caregiver determines 333 he or she wishes to document certain observations, diagnoses or any other information related to the physiological condition of the subject. In order to do so, the caregiver, or user, turns the audio memo system on 335, such as by pressing a button or switch that is preferably built into the PDA. The digitized voice data from the 6 Kurzweil discloses that “[t]he simulation enables users to experiment with different patient treatments and quickly witness the impact of their recommendations on the virtual patient.” Kurzweil 150; see also Ans. 8. 8 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 audio memo system is also tagged 340 with the date and time of generation of the voice data and subsequently stored 345 in the form of digital audio files for future reference and display/access 350. The tagged physiological and corresponding audio event data is obtained for a specific period of time continuously or intermittently as required by the user. Synchronization of sensor data with observational data is realized since the physiological data recorded by the sensing module is time-stamped by the same real-time clock that time-stamps the event data. The tagged data so obtained is finally displayed to the user through a plurality of GUI configurations. Scharf 150 (emphasis added); see also id. H 31, 34, 56, 57; Non-Final Act. 3. Based on the foregoing, we agree with the Examiner that Scharf discloses the step of “[contemporaneously flagging the common log file by at least one moderator [i.e., user] during the session through a wireless controller, wherein each flag is a time sequenced moderator input into the common log file,” as claimed. See Non-Final Act. 3. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. We further sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—4, 6, 7, and 9, which fall with claim 1. Claim 8 Appellants contend that the combined teachings of Scharf and Kurzweil fail to disclose the step of “automatically synching the each wireless video camera to the central controller when the wireless video camera is within range of the central controller,” as recited in claim 8. See Appeal Br. 15—16; see also Reply Br. 5—6. 9 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 In the Answer, the Examiner states that [Scharf] discloses wherein the sensor modules (e.g. camcorder) may be implemented as detached unit[s] and that they can interface and communicate with any general purpose microprocessor based computing device through wireless transmission such as radio frequency transmission (e.g. it is understood that the wireless communication among devices occurs when they are within certain range of one another). Ans. 9 (citing Scharf |34). The Examiner further notes that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word ‘syncing’ in wireless technology is that the content of the synced devices become the same” and refers Appellants to paragraph 46 of Scharf “where it discloses wherein the content of audio sensor (element 110, figure 1- or alternatively a video recorder) are communicated to a PDA for further analysis.” Ans. 9. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. Claim 10 Claim 10 recites, “[t]he method . . . according to claim 1 [,] wherein the common log file allows independent, simultaneous, synchronized, user controlled playback of the individual inputs received within the common log file.” Appeal Br. 23, Claims App. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 55 and 61 of Scharf for the recited limitation. See Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 9. In this case, we agree with Appellants that neither paragraph 55 nor paragraph 61 of Scharf discloses that “the common log file allows independent, simultaneous, synchronized, user controlled playback of the individual inputs received 10 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 within the common log file,” as required by claim 10. See Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 6—7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. Claim 11 Appellants contend that “[tjhere is no teaching or suggestion in [Scharf] of ‘a polygraph of the subject and further includes the step of capturing data source inputs throughout at least a portion of the session which correspond to at least one parameter of the polygraph, ’ as claimed.” See Appeal Br. 16—17; see also Reply Br. 7—8. The Examiner relies on paragraph 30 of Scharf for this limitation. See Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 9. Scharf discloses that [t]he physiological sensing module 105 comprises a sensor to monitor the physiological condition of a subject. The sensor may be one of various types used in health and medical fields such as EKG monitors, exercise monitors such as pedometers, heart rate monitors, body temperature monitors, spirometers, electronic heart sound monitors, blood oxygenation and perfusion monitors, blood glucose monitors or any other suitable invasive or non-invasive physiological characteristic sensing system known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. Scharf 130 (emphasis added). Scharf additionally discloses “interfacing with a plurality of physiological sensors ... for capturing clinical observations to provide a common platform for suitably manipulating data.” See id. at Abstract, || 8, 27. In this case, the Examiner correctly notes that a polygraph “is a system which monitors several physiological parameters such as pulse, li Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 blood pressure, respiration, etc.” See Ans. 9.7 The Examiner states that paragraph 30 of Scharf “discloses several sensor elements including heart rate monitor, EKG, etc.” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute and/or add as many sensor modules as one desires depending on the application of Scharf s system in order to accommodate the users.” Id. The Examiner’s findings are sound and supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the Examiner’s conclusions therefrom are based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. Claim 13 Claim 13 recites, “[t]he method . . . according to claim 1 [,] wherein the session includes at least two moderators each having an independent flagging controller, and wherein the common log file is configured to differentiate the flagging controllers.” Appeal Br. 24, Claims App. The Examiner relies on paragraph 35 of Scharf for the recited limitation. See Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 10. Paragraph 35 of Scharf discusses having “a unique identification (sensor ID)” for each sensor module but discusses nothing regarding the session including “at least two moderators each having an independent flagging controller, and wherein 7 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “polygraph” is “an instrument for simultaneously recording variations of several different [physiological] pulsations (as of the pulse, blood pressure, and respiration).” 5edittps://www.merri am-webster.com/dictionary/polygraph (last visited Nov. 10, 2017) 12 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 the common log file is configured to differentiate the flagging controllers,” as claimed. See Scharf |35. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. Claim 15 Appellants contend that Scharf discloses “identification is OF THE PATIENT not a trainee subject or even the caregiver.” Reply Br. 8; see also Appeal Br. 17. As an initial matter, claim 15 recites “the step of using an Identification Card to input the identity of at least one subject or moderator.” Appeal Br. 24, Claims App. (emphasis added). Further, the Examiner correctly points out that claim 15 recites “‘the identity of at least one subject’ and not a trainee subject as argued by [Appellants].” Ans. 10. As discussed above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the “patient” constitutes the “subject” of the claimed invention. See Ans. 7—10. We further agree with the Examiner that Scharf discloses using an identification card to input the identity of at least one subject (i.e., “a patient ID”). See Ans. 10; see also Scharf 135. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. Claim 16 Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of independent claim 16 separate from those presented for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 18 (“Claim 16 defines over the applied prior art for the reasons discussed . . . in connection with claim 1.”). As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments 13 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 regarding claim 1 are not persuasive. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. Claim 17 Claim 17 depends from claim 16. Appellants present the same arguments regarding “moderator based flagging” as for claim 1. Appeal Br. 18. As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above for claims 1 and 16, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. Claims 18—20 Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18. Similar to dependent claim 10, independent claim 18 requires that “the common memory buffer allows independent, simultaneous, synchronized, user controlled playback of the individual inputs received within the memory buffer.” Appeal Br. 25—26, Claims App. The Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings for claim 18 as those discussed above for claim 10 (i.e., paragraphs 55 and 61 of Scharf). See Non-Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 9. Thus, the Examiner’s findings with respect to Scharf are deficient for claim 18 as well. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18— 20 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. 14 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 Obviousness over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Reichek Claim 12 Appellant contends “[t]he examiner has merely found a stenographic related reference to throw at the method of training of claim 12, and nothing related to a training simulator as claimed.” Reply Br. 8; see also Appeal Br. 20. Appellants further contend that the “nonanalogous nature” of the prior art combined teachings “remains an unanswered.” See Reply Br. 8. However, Appellants fail to apprise us how the prior art combined teachings are “nonanalogous.” See id. In this case, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Scharf, Kurzweil, and Reichek to reject claim 12. See Non-Final Act. 6. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. Further, in the Answer, the Examiner notes that Reicheck “integrates a stenographer output with video recording in a time coded manner such that the stroke data of the stenographer can be determined with a corresponding position on the video tape recording.” Ans. 10 (citing Reichek 7:65—9:25). Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Reichek. Obviousness over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Kirkpatrick Claim 14 Appellants contend that “[t]he fact that editing is known does not make the limitations of claim 14 obvious.” Appeal Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 9. Appellants further contend that “[t]he examiner does not seem to address the editing limitation [i]n detail.” Reply Br. 9. However, claim 14 merely requires “the step of editing the log file after the session.” See 15 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 Appeal Br. 24, Claims App. Stated differently, the “editing” step is not further defined in the claim. See id.', In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. In this case, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Scharf, Kurzweil, and Kirkpatrick to reject claim 14. See Non-Final Act. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to modify the log file comprising gathered audio, video, and correlated data information using timestamps as set forth by Scharf [and Kurzweil] with the timestamp audio, video, and correlated information editing methodology as set forth by Kirkpatrick to enable temporal synchronization and editing of multimedia and gathered, time related information within a composite document (log file) using temporal correlation. Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Scharf || 6—9, 12—15; Kirkpatrick || 6, 11—13, 58— 67, 86). Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 as unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Kirkpatrick. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—4, 6—9, 11, and 15—17 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10, 13, and 18—20 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 12 as unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Reichek. We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 14 as unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Kirkpatrick. 16 Appeal 2015-002106 Application 11/945,611 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-IN-PART 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation