Rolls-Royce North American Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 19, 2021

2020000784 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 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.
15/253,978 09/01/2016 Bradley Eugene Auker 1106-262US01/LWA11686 5073
120486 7590 04/19/2021
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
Rolls-Royce Corporation
1625 Radio Drive
Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
REID JR, CHARLES H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2832
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2021 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRADLEY EUGENE AUKER and EDWARD CLAUDE RICE

Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Sept. 1, 2016 (“Spec.”),
the Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 13, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed July 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
dated Sept. 6, 2019 (“Ans.”), the Reply Brief filed Nov. 6, 2019 (“Reply
Br.”), the Declarations Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Bradley Eugene Auker
filed Apr. 27, 2018 (“Decl. I”) and Nov. 26, 2018 (“Decl. II”), collectively
“Declarations” or “inventor declarations.”
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Rolls-Royce North American
Technologies, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

2
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a turbine engine that drives an electric
generator for converting mechanical power produced by the turbine engine
to electrical power. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2. According to the Specification,
“positioning an electric generator within a cooler section or cavity of a
turbine engine [improves] overall heat dissipation from the electric
generator, enable[s] easier maintenance of the electric generator, and
generally improve[s] the overall design of the turbine engine.” Id. ¶ 12. The
Specification describes positioning the electric generator between the inlet
duct and the outer bypass duct in particular for more easily dissipating heat
produced by the electric generator. Id. Appellant’s Figure 2 below is a
conceptual diagram of electric generator 4 within turbine engine 2. Id. ¶ 8.

Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

3
Figure 2 above shows cavity 20 between inlet duct 14 and outer
bypass duct 16, which is a cooler section of turbine engine 2 due to the
proximity of cavity 20 to outer bypass duct 16. Id. ¶ 30. Component 26 may
comprise of one or more magnets and be referred to as a rotor that may
rotate with respect to component 24 which may comprise one or more
electrical windings. Id. ¶ 34. Drive shaft 6 may drive the rotation of tower
shaft 8 through gearbox 22A. Id. ¶ 33. Gearbox 22B may mechanically
couple component 26 to tower shaft 8. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal (disputed claim limitation italicized).
1. A turbine engine comprising:
an intake;
an inlet duct configured to receive fluid from the intake;
an outer bypass duct configured to receive fluid from the
intake;
a drive shaft;
a tower shaft mechanically coupled to the drive shaft; and
an electric generator mechanically coupled to the tower
shaft,
wherein the electric generator is located between the inlet
duct and the outer bypass duct, and
wherein the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft.
Appeal Br. 33 (Claims Appendix) (disputed element italicized).
Claims 11 and 15, directed to a method and an electric generator
module, respectively, are the other independent claims in this Appeal.
Id. at 35, 36.

Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

4
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the appealed rejections.
The Examiner’s rejections rely on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Coffinberry US 2006/0042227 A1 Mar. 2, 2006
Ress US 2010/0107650 A1 May 6, 2010
Macchia US 2010/0327589 A1 Dec. 30, 2010
Dooley US 2012/0133150 A1 May 31, 2012
Veilleux US 2015/0048617 A1 Feb. 19, 2015

Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

5
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:3
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–20 112(a) Written description
1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14 102(a) Ress
4 103 Ress, Coffinberry
7, 13 103 Ress, Veilleux
15, 16, 19, 20 103 Ress, Dooley
17, 18 103 Ress, Dooley, Veilleux
1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14 103 Ress, Macchia
4 103 Ress, Macchia, Coffinberry
7, 13 103 Ress, Macchia, Veilleux

Written Description Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for
lacking written description support in the Specification for claims 1 and 11’s
recitation “wherein the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft” and
claim 15’s recitation, inter alia, “wherein the power generation component
surrounds the drive shaft.” Non-Final Act. 2. Appellant argues claims 1–20
together. Appeal Br. 5–15. Therefore, we confine our discussion of the
written description rejection to claim 1, which we select as representative.
Claims 2–20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
According to Appellant, the Examiner erred in dismissing the two
inventor declarations in connection with this rejection without explaining
why the evidence is insufficient. Appeal Br. 6, 8. Appellant contends the

3 The Examiner duplicates the rejections of claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 over
Ress and Dooley and claims 17 and 18 over Ress, Dooley, and Veilleux in
the Non-Final Office Action. Compare Non-Final Act. 9–12 with Non-Final
Act. 17–20.
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

6
declarations establish a person having ordinary skill in the art would
understand electric generator 4 in Figures 1 and 2 circumferentially
surrounds drive shaft 6. Id. at 6–7 (citing Decl. I ¶ 3). Specifically, Appellant
argues that a skilled artisan would understand the Figures to show half of
turbine engine 2 and that the components of turbine engine 2 are
symmetrical about drive shaft 6. Id. at 11. Appellant contends the Examiner
failed to provide a specific rebuttal to the inventor’s declaration regarding
the relative positioning of stator 24 and rotor 26, a single set of electrical
windings 42, and the positioning of mechanical element 40. Id. at 11–15
(citing Decl. II ¶ ¶ 3–6). Appellant’s position is that an accessory generator
would be depicted differently from a circumferential generator because it
would have another set of electrical windings facing compressor 10 that are
not present in Appellant’s Figures 1–3 and portions of rotor 26 would be
shown on both sides of stator 24. Id. at 11, 12, 14.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Rather, we agree with
the Examiner that the Specification and Figures support placing electric
generator 4 between the inlet and outlet ducts for maintenance advantages,
but do not suggest electric generator 4 surrounds drive shaft 6. Ans. 4. The
focus is on the Specification, including the Figures and original claims, to
discern whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
applicant possessed what is claimed as of the filing date sought. See Agilent
Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(“Adequate written description means that the applicant, in the specification,
must ‘convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the
filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the [claimed] invention.’”
(citation omitted)). As the Examiner points out, the Specification’s
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

7
disclosure that compressor 10 and drive shaft 6 may obstruct access to
electric generator 4 if the electric generator is placed at a different location
does not suggest that the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft. Ans. 5
(citing Spec. ¶ 26). If the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft, then
the drive shaft could not be said to obstruct access to the electric generator.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts that Figures 2 and 3 by
themselves may satisfy the written description requirement. Reply Br. 3–4.
Appellant relies on the inventor declarations to support the argument that
electric generator 4 surrounds drive shaft 6 because it would have been
understood from Figures 2 and 3 that the electric generator rotates around
the drive shaft. Id. Appellant’s position is that if there is any possibility the
elements depicted in the Figures could be manipulated to technically rotate
the electric generator around the drive shaft as the Declarations describe,
then there is written description support for the recited “electric generator
surrounds the drive shaft.” Id. at 2–3.
Appellant’s arguments and evidence are not persuasive of error. The
purpose of the written description requirement is to convey with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant
was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The possession test
alone, however, is not always sufficient to meet the written description
requirement. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969 (Fed.
Cir. 2002). Rather, “the written description requirement is satisfied by the
patentee’s disclosure of ‘such descriptive means as words, structures,
figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.’”
Id. (quoting Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed.
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

8
Cir. 1997)). It is not sufficient that the claimed feature can be developed
from, computed from, or otherwise ascribed to the originally filed
application. See Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 505 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“It is
‘not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct
the patentee’s device from the teachings of the disclosure . . . . Rather, it is a
question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular
device.’” (citation omitted)). Appellant’s Declarations merely present an
alternative embodiment that can be explained with reference to originally
filed Figures 2 and 3. Rotation of the electric generator about the drive shaft
is not even discussed in passing in the Specification. See Purdue Pharma LP
v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Examples in a patent
specification that possessed the claimed ratio in a pharmaceutical
formulation failed to provide written description support for the claimed
ratio where the written disclosure did not direct a skilled artisan to the
claimed ratio.).
There is nothing in the written description of the Specification that
conveys to a skilled artisan that rotating the electric generator around the
drive shaft is a defining property of the turbine engine. Nor does the
disclosure motivate one to place the electric generator such that it surrounds
the drive shaft in view of the express teaching that location of the electric
generator is between that the inlet and outlet ducts otherwise the drive shaft
may obstruct access to the electric generator. Spec. ¶ 26.
The preponderance of the evidence in this appeal record therefore
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter does not
have written description support in the Specification. Accordingly, we affirm
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

9
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2–20, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) for the above reasons and those provided by the Examiner.

Anticipation
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by Ress. Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds
Ress’s Figures 1 and 2 disclose “the electric generator surrounds the drive
shaft” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Id. at 6, 7. Ress’s Figure 1 is
shown below.

Ress’s Figure 1 above is a cross sectional view of a gas turbine engine
showing power device 125, which can be a generator, coupled to gear box
110 configured with device shaft 115 to transmit rotational power from shaft
90. Ress ¶¶ 4, 14–16.
Appellant argues claim 1 in a group with claim 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8–10,
and relies on the same arguments directed to claim 1 for the rejection of
independent claim 11 which Appellant groups with claims 12 and 14.
Appeal Br. 16–20. Appellant provides additional arguments with respect to
claim 8, which depends from claim 1. Id. at 19–20. Accordingly, we address
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

10
claims 1 and 8 below and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9–12, and 14 will stand or fall
together with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claim 1
Appellant contends Ress’s Figure 1 does not show the exact same
configuration of a turbine engine as Figure 2 of Appellant’s disclosure,
noting that the Examiner does not identify elements that correspond to
Appellant’s stator 24, rotor 23, mechanical element 40, electrical windings
42, or support elements 44 and 46. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues that the
Examiner had not explained how Ress’s turbine engine could include the
two power device embodiment described in Ress’s abstract or the variation
shown in Ress’s Figure 6. Id. at 17–18. In the Reply Brief, Appellant
contends it is improper for the Examiner to use the structures shown in
Appellant’s Figures 2 and 3 to interpret Ress’s Figure 1 in view of the
Appellant’s additional elements not shown in Ress’s Figure 1. Reply Br. 8.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting
claim 1 as anticipated by Ress. Even if Ress’s Figure 1 is not exactly the
same as Appellant’s Figure 2, the Examiner finds each of the claimed
elements are present in Ress’s Figure 1. Non-Final Act. 5–6. Regarding the
claim 1 recitation “electric generator surrounds the drive shaft,” the
Examiner explains that Ress depicts the drive shaft and the electric generator
in the same relative position as Appellant’s Figure 2 and Ress’s Figure 2
shows the front of the turbine engine in a circular shape that supports the
drive shaft being centered in the middle with the electric generator
surrounding. Ans. 10–11. The record supports the Examiner’s findings. Ress
Figs. 1, 2. The Examiner additionally finds it is well known in the art that
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

11
electric generators comprise a rotor and stator and often times are not shown
in drawings. Ans. 12. Appellant does not dispute this finding. Appellant’s
arguments based on Ress’s additional embodiments disclosed are not
persuasive of error because the Examiner’s rejection does not rely on these
additional embodiments. Ans. 11.
The preponderance of the evidence in this appeal record therefore
supports the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Ress.

Claim 8
Claim 8 further requires the electric generator of claim 1 comprises “a
first component comprising a magnet, wherein the first component is
coupled to the tower shaft; and a second component comprising a winding,
wherein the second component is coupled to the compressor.” Appeal Br. 34
(Claims Appendix). The Examiner identifies in Ress’s Figure 1 electric
generator 125, tower shaft 115, compressor 75, and finds the recited magnet
is inherent to a rotor. Non-Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Ress does not
describe any portion of power device 125 that is coupled to compressor 75
let alone a winding of the power device. Appeal Br. 19. Appellant also
argues that a skilled artisan would understand coupling the power device to
the compressor would interfere with the potential removal or replacement of
the power device described in Ress’s paragraph 20 and shown in Ress’s
Figure 3. Id. at 19–20.
We are not persuaded the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim
8 as anticipated by Ress. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding
(Ans. 12) that Ress discloses a power device may be coupled to any shaft
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

12
connecting a compressor to a turbine. See Reply Br. 9. The Examiner’s
finding is supported by the record. Ress ¶ 13. Instead, Appellant’s argument
is that Ress’s disclosure should be limited to shaft 90 connecting a
compressor to a turbine rather than shaft 115 because Ress’s paragraph 11
identifies shaft 90 as connecting a low pressure turbine to a low pressure
compressor and a high pressure turbine to a high pressure compressor. Reply
Br. 9. Appellant’s argument does not identify error because the Examiner
does not rely on the embodiment disclosed in Ress’s Figure 3. Ans. 13.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6,
8–12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) for the above reasons and those
provided by the Examiner.

Obviousness
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ress in
combination with secondary references. We address below each of the
claims separately argued by Appellant.

Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites in pertinent part “wherein
the outer bypass duct comprises a bleed configured to provide cooling to the
electric generator.” Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner rejects
claim 4 over the combination of (1) Ress and Coffinberry and (2) Ress,
Macchia, and Coffinberry. Non-Final Act. 8, 16. Each of the rejections of
claim 4 rely on Coffinberry for teaching a bleed configured to provide
cooling to the electric generator. Id. at 8, 16 (citing Coffinberry Fig. 1, items
124 and 90).
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

13
Appellant persuasively argues that Coffinberry’s bleed air drives an
air turbine rather than cools generator 90 as the Examiner finds. Appeal Br.
21–22, 31. The Examiner’s statement (Ans. 14–15, 21) that bleed air
transported to the electric generator would inherently cool the electric
generator is not supported by Coffinberry’s Figure 1, which does not direct
air to generator 90. The Examiner does not adequately explain why cooling
of generator 90 would be expected to occur inherently when bleed air 124 is
directed to air turbine 97 instead. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejections of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claims 7 and 13
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 13 is in
error because there would have been no apparent reason for one having
ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ress’s system in view of Veilleux.
Appeal Br. 23. Appellant additionally asserts that the Examiner failed to
establish a prima facie case of unpatentability for the same reasons provided
with respect to the anticipation rejection over Ress. Id.
Because we are not persuaded of error as to the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Ress in connection with the anticipation rejection, we
likewise find these arguments unpersuasive with respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection over Ress for the same reasons. Appellant’s
conclusory assertion that the rejection lacks a reason to combine the cited
references does not adequately explain error in the Examiner’s rejection,
particularly where the rejection provides a reason to modify Ress. Non-Final
Act. 9; see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that
the Board reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) as requiring
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

14
“more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in
the rejection of claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claims 15 and 20
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 20 is in
error because there would have been no apparent reason for one having
ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ress’s system in view of Dooley.
Appeal Br. 24. Appellant additionally asserts that the Examiner failed to
establish a prima facie case of unpatentability for the same reasons provided
with respect to the anticipation rejection over Ress. Id. at 25.
Because we are not persuaded of error as to the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Ress in connection with the anticipation rejection, we
likewise find these arguments unpersuasive with respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection over Ress for the same reasons. In addition,
Appellant’s assertion that a skilled artisan would not have modified Ress
with the Dooley’s teachings because Ress describes “a configuration [that]
can provide for more compact packaging within the frame 105” is not
persuasive of error because Appellant does not adequately explain why the
proposed modification “could cause the packaging within the frame to be
less compact.” Appeal Br. 24. Moreover, Appellant does not dispute the
Examiner’s finding that it is well known in the art that electric generators
comprise a rotor and stator to generate electricity and Dooley is cited for that
purpose and would not require modification to Ress’s power generator. Ans.
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

15
16. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 15
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claims 16 and 19
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 19 is in
error because Ress describes “a power device may be coupled to any shaft
connecting a compressor to a turbine” and does not describe any portion of
the power device is coupled to the compressor, much less a component
including a winding of the power device is coupled to the compressor.
Appeal Br. 25.
Because we are not persuaded of error as to the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Ress in connection with the anticipation rejection of claim 8,
we likewise find these arguments unpersuasive with respect to the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection over Ress for the same reasons.

Claims 17 and 18
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 18 is in
error for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 15.
Appeal Br. 26. Because we are not persuaded of error as to the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15, we likewise affirm the rejection of claims 17 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, and 10
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 over the
combination of Ress and Macchia as a group. Appeal Br. 26–29. Therefore,
we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative.
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

16
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination of Ress with Macchia
fails to disclose “the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft” because
“uncited portions of Macchia” would be considered by a skilled artisan in
deciding whether to modify Ress’s power device. Appeal Br. 27–28.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner did not explain why a skilled artisan
would understand Ress’s power device rotor does not already act as a
magnetic field circuit for generating an electrical current or rotating a shaft.
Id. at 29.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
over the combination of Ress and Macchia because the Examiner relies on
Macchia’s disclosure of an electric generator surrounding the drive shaft to
the extent that it is not explicitly disclosed by Ress. Ans. 19. Moreover,
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that it is common
knowledge that typical power generators have a rotor and winding that
generate a magnetic field circuit for generating an electrical current. Id.

Claims 8, 11, 12, and 14
Appellant relies on the same arguments presented with respect to the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 8. Appeal Brief 30. Because we do not
find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error with respect to the
anticipation rejection, we likewise do not find reversible error in the
rejection of claims 8, 11, 12, and 14.

Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

17
Summary
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claim 4 and affirm the
Examiner’s remaining rejections of claims 1–3 and 5–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for the above reasons.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons and those the Examiner provides, we uphold the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lacking
written description support, claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, and 14 as anticipated by
Ress, and claims 1–3 and 5–20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the cited prior art. We reverse the rejections of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for the reasons discussed herein.
Appeal 2020-000784
Application 15/253,978

18
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 112(a) Written description 1–20
1–3, 5, 6, 8–
12, 14 102(a) Ress
1–3, 5, 6, 8–
12, 14
4 103 Ress, Coffinberry 4
7, 13 103 Ress, Veilleux 7, 13
15, 16, 19,
20 103 Ress, Dooley
15, 16, 19,
20
17, 18 103 Ress, Dooley, Veilleux 17, 18
1–3, 5, 6, 8–
12, 14 103 Ress, Macchia
1–3, 5, 6, 8–
12, 14
4 103 Ress, Macchia, Coffinberry 4
7, 13 103 Ress, Macchia, Veilleux 7, 13
Overall
Outcome 1–20

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED