Hotelling, Steven P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 12, 2021

2019004316 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 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.
11/367,749 03/03/2006 Steven P. Hotelling 106842009300 (P3685US1) 5043
161038 7590 03/12/2021
Apple c/o Kubota & Basol LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suite 2140
Los Angeles, CA 90071
EXAMINER
GYAWALI, BIPIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2021 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):
docket@kuba-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN P. HOTELLING

Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL L. SILVERMAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10–14, 18–22, 26, 27,
32–35, 37, and 38, which constitute all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 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. 2.
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a multi-functional hand-held
device capable of configuring user inputs based on how the device is to be
used. The device includes touch sensors that are capable of detecting a
plurality of concurrent touches and also includes one or more force sensors.
Spec. ¶¶ 1, 10, 43, 51 19, Abstr., Figs. 21, 22.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A hand-held electronic device, comprising:
a force sensitive multi-touch input surface including a
plurality of capacitive touch sensors capable of detecting a
concurrent plurality of touches and generating a plurality of
concurrent touch inputs, and one or more force sensors; and
a processing unit operatively connected to said force
sensitive multi-touch input surface, said processing unit capable
of
receiving one or more touch inputs and one or
more force inputs from the plurality of capacitive touch
sensors and the one or more force sensors resulting from
one or more touches,
discriminating a location of the one or more
touches from the one or more touch inputs,
determining that the one or more touches
represent either a first force level touch or a second force
level touch based on data from the one or more force
sensors, and
initiating a first action including one of moving a
cursor, scrolling, panning and zooming based on a first
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
3
force level touch determination and initiating a second
action based on a second force level touch determination.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Fagard US 5,592,198 January 7, 1997
Deeran US 5,594,471 January 14, 1997
Bisset US 5,825,352 October 20, 1998
Doemens US 2003/0074977 A1 April 24, 2003
Lu US 2003/0085882 A1 May 8, 2003
Nurmi US 2005/0154798 A1 July 14, 2005
Seguin US 2006/0079969 A1 April 13, 2006

Claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 20, 21, 26, 27, and 38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bisset and Fagard. Final Act. 4–6.
Claims 2–4, 8, 12, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bisset, Fagard, and Nurmi. Final Act. 6–8.
Claims 13 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bisset, Fagard, and Deeran. Final Act. 8.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bisset, Fagard, and Seguin. Final Act. 8–9.
Claims 32–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bisset, Fagard, and Doemens. Final Act. 9.
Claims 35 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bisset, Fagard, and Lu. Final Act. 10.

Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred,
as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal
Brief.
The § 103(a) Rejection of claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 20, 21, 26, 27, and 38
over Bisset and Fagard
The Examiner finds Bisset teaches many of the limitations of claim 1
but does not teach the limitations related to force sensing (also referred to as
“disputed limitations”). Final Act. 4–5 (citing Bisset, 5:19–65; Figs. 1, 2).
The Examiner finds Fagard teaches force sensing and the disputed
limitations directed to determining that touches represent first and second
force levels. Id. at 5 (citing Fagard, Figs. 3–4, items 15, 16; 5:52–65). The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Fagard into
the Bisset system in order to provide rapid access to command. Id. (citing
Fagard, 1:16–19).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because the combination of Bisset
and Fagard is improper. Appeal Br. 7–10.
Regarding independent claims 1, 20, 21, and 38, Appellant argues
“[u]nder In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, the combination of Bisset and
Fagard is improper because Bisset provides all of the control necessary to
perform the recited functions without needing the extra complexity that
would be added by Fagard.” Appeal Br. 7–8 (emphasis omitted) (citing
Bisset Fig. 2, 5:20–43, 1:65–2:15, 2:38–41, 3:61–65, 4:6–11; In re
Omeprazole Patent Litig., 536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). According to
Appellant, the function of providing rapid access to commands is already
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
5
provided by Bisset. Id. Appellant argues Bisset provides all the control
necessary to perform the recited functions without needing to resort to the
extra complexity that would be added by Fagard. Id. at 8.
Appellant argues the function of enabling fewer steps to perform an
operation is already provided by Bisset and no rationale is provided for why
one of ordinary skill in the art would want to add the force sensing of
Fagard, when Bisset already provides reduced step functionality through
multiple finger detection. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner admits that
adding the force sensing of Fagard “would require extra circuitry and maybe
complexity and expense.” Id. at 9 (emphasis omitted) (citing Final Act. 3–
4). Appellant argues that adding extra circuitry inherently requires more
complexity (at least structural or physical complexity) and more expense.
Id. According to Appellant,
although modifying Bisset’s multiple finger detection by adding
Fagard’s multiple-level force sensing could have been done,
there would have been no reason to modify Bisset, because Bisset
already provides rapid access to commands and enables fewer
steps to perform an operation. Fagard’s force sensing therefore
adds an extra sensing mechanism that would amount to extra
work and greater expense for no apparent reason. Therefore, in
accordance with In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation and MPEP
2143 I.A, the rejections of independent claims 1, 20, 21 and 38
and dependent claims 7 and 10 based on a combination of Bisset
and Fagard merit reversal.
Id. at 10.
Appellant argues modifying Bisset with the teachings of Fagard is
motivated only by the desire to conform the teachings of Bisset to the
recitations of claims 1, 20, 21 and 38, and is therefore impermissible
hindsight. Id. at 10. According to Appellant, modifying Bisset’s multiple
finger detection with Fagard’s force sensing was motivated only by the
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
6
desire to find all of the limitations in the cited prior art. Id. (citing MPEP
§ 2145 X.A.).
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Bisset, as stated by the Appellant,
suggests a multi-touch input device that is capable of providing more
functionalities and fewer steps to perform operations compared to single-
touch input device. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Fagard clearly teaches a
touch input device with a touch-sensitive layer and a force sensor layer. Id.
(citing Fagard, Fig. 4 elements 15 and 16; 4:2–5). The Examiner finds the
combination of the touch-sensitive layer and the force sensor is designed to
distinguish a light touch from a clear cut pressing. Id. (citing Fagard, 5:57–
65). According to the Examiner, adding a force sensor in Bisset will provide
more functionalities, such as clear cut pressing, to the multi-touch input
device and there is motivation/reason to modify Bisset to add the force
sensing of Fagard. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates and argues the Examiner
ignores the Federal Circuit’s holding in Omeprazole, and fails to provide an
explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the
knowledge that Bisset’s multi-finger approach provides all the control
necessary to perform the recited functions, would nevertheless add the same
functionality provided by the light and hard touch determinations of Fagard,
at greater complexity and expense. Reply Br. 2–3.
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 finding that the combination of Bisset and Fagard teaches the
disputed limitation and to support the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to make the combination.
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
7
We now refer to claim 1 disputed limitations, which require one or
more force sensors and
determining that the one or more touches represent
either a first force level touch or a second force level touch
based on data from the one or more force sensors, and
initiating a first action including one of moving a cursor,
scrolling, panning and zooming based on a first force level
touch determination and initiating a second action based on a
second force level touch determination.
Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis added).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings that Bisset teaches
many of the limitations of claim 1 nor does Appellant dispute the
Examiner’s findings that Fagard teaches the disputed limitations. See
Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–3.
The Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Bisset and Fagard
are reasonable. On the record before us, Appellant presents no persuasive
argument that the teachings of Bisset and Fagard, if combined as suggested
by the Examiner, do not teach all the limitations of claim 1. The teachings
of Fagard include the recognition that the use of a force sensor can add to
rapidity. Fagard, 1:16–19; Final Act. 5. The teachings of Fagard include the
recognition that the use of a force sensor can add functionality, such as clear
cut pressing. Fagard, 5:57–65; Ans. 4. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings that the combination of Bisset and Fagard teaches the
limitations of claim 1, including the disputed limitations.
We now address Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s
combination of Bisset and Fagard to support the conclusion of obviousness
is improper. Regarding obviousness, we note
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
8
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.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on
some 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)).
Appellant’s arguments regarding Omeprazole are inapplicable to the
claims before us. Omeprazole is directed to the question of obviousness
regarding the additional presence of an interior coating to protect a drug. In
re Omeprazole, 536 F.3d at 1379–80. The interior coating was known in the
prior art as a form or protection, BUT the record did not establish that there
was any need for protection here and the need for protection was considered
part of the invention. For example, the Federal Circuit’s decision explained:
Example 12 of the '495 European application describes a
tablet containing omeprazole magnesium salt with a cellulose
acetate phthalate enteric coating. The district court found that the
'495 European application does not disclose tablets with any sort
of subcoating or tablets containing an ARC. The court further
observed that the ′495 European application does not disclose or
suggest a negative interaction between the drug core and the
enteric coating. Apotex relies on a number of references that
disclose the use of subcoatings in various pharmaceutical
preparations in support of its argument that it would have been
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
9
obvious to one of skill in the art to apply an inert subcoating to
Example 12 of the '495 European application. None of the
references on which Apotex relies, however, undermine the trial
court's conclusion that the claims of the '230 and '505 patents
would not have been obvious to a person of skill in the art.
In re Omeprazole, 536 F.3d at 1379–80.
In the case before us, the functionality of force sensing of Fagard is
available as a general teaching to add to the functionality of Bisset as
articulated by the Examiner. Moreover, we note the Omeprazole decision
refers to a clear and convincing standard to establish obviousness.
Apotex was required to show by clear and convincing
Evidence that a person of skill in the art would have appreciated
the need to include a subcoating in Example 12 of the ′495
European application. The district court, however, found that the
′495 European application does not disclose or suggest a negative
interaction between the drug core containing the magnesium
omeprazole salt and the enteric coating in Example 12. The court
further found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have inferred from the ′495 European application that a negative
interaction would occur. Based on those findings, the court
concluded that a person of ordinary skill would have had no
reason to apply a subcoating to the tablets shown in Example 12
of the ′495 European application.
Id. at 1380.
In affirming the District Court decision of non-obviousness, the
Federal Circuit stated:
Finally, Apotex argues that the district court's analysis
conflicts with the analysis required by the Supreme Court's
decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007), because the district
court insisted on absolute predictability instead of a reasonable
expectation of success and because the district court failed to
recognize that adding a subcoating would be “obvious to try,” a
standard referred to in KSR. Apotex, however, mischaracterizes
the district court's decision. The court found that a person of skill
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
10
in the art would not have seen a reason to insert a subcoating in
the prior art formulation shown in Example 12 of the ′495
European application. The court's finding was based on Apotex's
failure to demonstrate that a person of skill in the art would
conclude that a negative interaction would take place between
the enteric coating and the drug core.
Id. at 1381.
In contrast to Omeprazole, in the case before us, the standard for
obviousness is a preponderance of the evidence. On the record before us,
this standard is met by the Examiner’s findings and conclusions discussed
supra. Similarly, Appellant’s reliance on MPEP § 2141 is unpersuasive as it
is based on the facts of Omeprazole, rather than the facts of the record before
us.
In contrast to the facts of Omeprazole, on the record before us, the
Examiner presents sufficient evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the
art would apply the teachings of Fagard to Bisset. In Omeprazole, the
Federal Circuit determined there to be no reason to insert a subcoating. In
contrast, Fagard provides teachings of the advantages of force sensing,
including additional functionality, and these advantages are useful to
improving Bisset’s teaching of touch sensing. Fagard, 5:57–65. We agree
with the Examiner’s conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the value of adding force sensing of Fagard to the touch sensing
of Bisset.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error in rejecting claim 1, independent claims 20, 21, and 38 that recite
similar limitations and are argued together, and dependent claims 7, 10, 26,
and 27, as these claims are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 7–10.
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
11
Dependent claim 11 recites “[a] hand-held electronic device as recited
in claim 1, wherein said hand-held electronic device is operable to receive
simultaneous inputs from different input devices and perform actions based
on the simultaneous inputs.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Bisset only discloses
receiving simultaneous inputs from multiple fingers on the same hand and
multiple fingers on the same hand are not “different input devices” as
required by claim 11. Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing Bisset, 2:41–55).
In the Answer, the Examiner finds one finger can be interpreted as
one input device and an input from first finger on the touch input device is
an input from first input device, and an input from a second finger on the
touch input device is an input from the second input device. Ans. 4. The
Examiner finds, alternatively, a user can easily use one finger from each
hand to perform a two finger swipe as shown in figures 7B–7C. Id.
According to the Examiner, the combination of Bisset and Fagard suggests a
touch-sensitive layer and a force sensor layer and, therefore, the prior art
clearly teaches “different input devices” as claimed. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant refers to paragraph 140 of the
Specification statement that “the hand-held device may be configured to
receive simultaneous inputs from different inputs [sic] devices.” Reply Br. 3
(alteration in original). Appellant argues this paragraph goes on to describe
different inputs such as a voice command and a gesture. Id. According to
Appellant, the plain meaning of “different input devices” that would be
given to this phrase by those of ordinary skill in the art, when interpreted in
view of the Specification, is different devices, not different fingers, and the
rejection of claim 11 is improper because Bisset fails to teach the limitation
of claim 11. Id.
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
12
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). 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)). We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments,
because the Examiner’s interpretation that a “device” may be a finger does
not represent the broadest reasonable interpretation, but is rather is
unreasonably broad. Additionally, the Examiner’s interpretation is not
consistent with the Specification. See Spec. ¶ 140. Bissett discloses the
ability to input from multiple simultaneous fingers using a touchpad (one
input device). See Bisset 2:18–20; 2:38–41. We agree with Appellant that
multiple fingers are not “different input devices,” as required by claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
13
The § 103(a) Rejection of claims 2–4, 8, 12, 14, and 22 over Bisset,
Fagard, and Nurmi
Claims 2–4, 8, 14, and 22 depend from independent claims 1 and 21
discussed supra.
Appellant’s arguments reiterate claim 1 arguments discussed supra
regarding improper combination and Appellant argues Nurmi fails to cure
the deficiencies of Bisset and Fagard with regard to claims 1 and 21. Appeal
Br. 11.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the combination is
proper as discussed supra and there is no deficiency to cure.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–4, 8, 14, and 22.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11. The Examiner does not cure the
deficiency discussed above in the rejection of claim 11 over Bisset, Fagard,
and Nurmi. See Final Act. 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 12.

The § 103(a) Rejection of claims 13 and 18 over Bisset, Fagard, and
Deeran

Claims 13 and 18 depend from independent claim 1 discussed supra.
Appellant’s arguments reiterate claim 1 arguments discussed supra
regarding improper combination and Appellant argues Deeran fails to cure
the deficiencies of Bisset and Fagard with regard to claim 1. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the combination is
proper as discussed supra and there is no deficiency to cure.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 18.

The § 103(a) Rejection of claim 19 over Bisset, Fagard, and Seguin

Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
14
Claim 19 depends from independent claim 1 discussed supra.
Appellant’s arguments reiterate claim 1 arguments discussed supra
regarding improper combination and Appellant argues Deeran fails to cure
the deficiencies of Bisset and Fagard with regard to claim 1. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the combination is
proper as discussed supra and there is no deficiency to cure.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 19.

The § 103(a) Rejection of claims 32–34 over Bisset, Fagard, and
Doemens

Claims 32–34 depend from independent claim 1 discussed supra.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Appellant reiterates arguments discussed
supra regarding improper combination. Appeal Br. 14–15. For the same
reasons, as discussed supra, we sustain the rejection of claims 32 and 33.
See Final Act. 9.
Claim 34 recites “[t]he hand-held electronic device as recited in claim
33, further comprising a resilient structure between the display device and
the structural platform.” Claim 34 depends from claim 33 and claim 33
depends from claim 32.
Claim 33 recites “[t]he hand-held electronic device as recited in claim
32, wherein the one or more force sensitive strain gauges are attached to a
structural platform within the display device.” Claim 32 recites “[t]he hand-
held electronic device as recited in claim 1, wherein the force sensitive
multi-touch input surface includes one or more force sensitive strain
gauges.”
Regarding claim 34, Appellant argues the spring 15 disclosed in
Doemens is not located between a display and a structural platform. Appeal
Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
15
Br. 15. Appellant argues Doemens is directed to a motor vehicle, not hand-
held electronic devices. Id.
In the rejection of claim 32–34 over the combination of Bisset,
Fagard, and Doemens, the Examiner finds Doemens teaches the force sensor
includes one or more force sensitive strain gauges attached to a structural
platform, further comprising a resilient structure between the display device
and the structural platform. Final Act. 9 (citing Doemens ¶ 24). In the
Answer, the Examiner finds
Doemens clearly teaches a resilient structure (Fig. 5 element 6;
Fig. 6 element 15) that is between the actuator bottom 2 and the
top surface where a user would apply the pressure. And, Fagard
clearly teaches a force sensor layer that is between display layer
2 and the outer casing (Fig. 1, 4; Col. 2 lines 53-67). The force
sensor is used to filter out spurious stresses on the touch-sensitive
layer and distinguish clear cut pressing. Furthermore, even in a
case where the force sensor and the display layer are on the same
plane, the force sensor would still be between the side wall of
casing and the display layer of Fagard.
Ans. 5.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings in the
Answer are in error because the actuator bottom 2 of Doemens is never
described as being a display, and thus Doemens fails to teach this limitation.
Reply Br. 3–4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because the
Examiner’s findings are based on the combination of Bisset, Doemens, and
Fagard. The Examiner finds Fagard, not Doemens, teaches a force sensor
between the display layer and the casing. See Ans. 5 (citing e.g., Fagard,
2:53–67; Figs. 1–4).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 34.

Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
16
The § 103(a) Rejection of claims 35 and 37 over Bisset, Fagard, and
Lu
Regarding claims 35 and 37, Appellant reiterates arguments discussed
supra regarding improper combination. For the same reasons, as discussed
supra, we sustain the rejection of claims 35 and 37. See Final Act. 10;
Appeal Br. 15–16.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the rejections of claims 1–4,
7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 18–22, 26, 27, 32–35, 37, and 38. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 11 and 12.

Appeal 2019-004316
Application 11/367,749
17
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 10,
11, 20, 21,
26, 27, 38
103(a) Bisset, Fagard 1, 7, 10, 20,
21, 26, 27,
38
11
2–4, 8, 12,
14, 22
103(a) Bisset, Fagard,
Nurmi
2–4, 8, 14,
22
12
13, 18 103(a) Bisset, Fagard,
Deeran
13, 18
19 103(a) Bisset, Fagard,
Seguin
19
32–34 103(a) Bisset, Fagard,
Doemens
32–34
35, 37 103(a) Bisset, Fagard, Lu 35, 37
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7, 8,
10, 13, 14,
18–22, 26,
27, 32–35,
37, 38
11, 12

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED IN PART