Hotelling, Steven P.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 12, 20212019004316 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2021) 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. 11/367,749 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation