Ross E. Teggatz

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2019

13754709 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2019)

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.
13/754,709 01/30/2013 Ross E. Teggatz 136839.59
(10064/TRI-202)
1069
33649 7590 08/28/2019
Mr. Christopher John Rourk
Jackson Walker LLP
2323 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201
EXAMINER
EVANS, JAMES P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROSS E. TEGGATZ and TRIUNE IP, LLC1
____________________

Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–24. In support of their appeal, Appellants
requested a hearing, which we held on August 13, 2019. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2

1 The Appeal Brief indicates the real party in interest is TRIUNE IP, LLC.
App. Br. 4.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed January 30, 2013,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed February 2, 2016, the Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) filed July 5, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed January 11, 2017, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed March 13,
2017.
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

2

CLAIMED INVENTION
The invention relates to wireless power transfer with the capability to
redirect a primary transmitter signal when a detector senses the presence of a
foreign object that could reduce system efficiency. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 44. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. A wireless power transfer foreign object detector comprising:
at least one foreign object sensor providing at least one
foreign object detection signal; and
at least one primary transmitter coil providing at least one
primary transmitter signal, said primary transmitter coil
responsive to said at least one foreign object detection signal to
redirect the primary transmitter signal in response to the
foreign object detection signal.

App. Br. (Claims App’x. 19) (Emphasis added).

REJECTIONS & EVIDENCE
Claims 1–10, 19, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
based on Kesler (US 2012/0235503 A1, published September 20, 2012).
Final Act. 2–8.
Claims 11–18 and 20–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Kesler. Final Act. 9–17.

Kesler
Kesler’s Figure 139, shown below, is “an automobile parked in a
parking area equipped with a vehicle charging system and corresponding
safety system.” Kesler ¶ 196.
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

3

In Kesler’s Figure 139, charging source resonator 13901 is integrated with a
garage floor 13907 to wirelessly charge automobile 13902. Kesler ¶ 1140.
Vehicle resonator 13911 attached to the underside of vehicle 13902 captures
energy transferred via oscillating magnetic fields from source resonator
13901. Id. Extraneous object 13910 (depicted as a pipe wrench) may
absorb some of the magnetic field energy and become heated, thereby
posing a danger if touched. Id. ¶¶ 1141, 1142. Sensors 13903, 13912 detect
thermal conditions significant enough to raise a safety concern. Id. at
¶ 1143. In one embodiment, the wireless charging system may include one
source and device resonator toward the front of the automobile and one
source and device resonator toward its rear. In response to an abnormal
condition detected by the temperature sensor(s), the safety system uses the
source and device resonator pair producing the least amount of heating,
allowing the automobile to receive power despite a possible obstruction. Id.
¶¶ 1154, 1156. Different kinds of sensors (pressure, temperature, capacitive,
inductive, acoustic, infrared, ultraviolet and the like) may be used together to
prevent false triggering. Id. ¶ 1156.
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

4

ANALYSIS
A. § 102(e) Rejection
“Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) requires that ‘each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743,
745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed.Cir.1987)).
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Kesler discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 3 (citing Kesler ¶¶ 1154, 1156). Appellants disagree, arguing “the
separate primary coils3 of Kesler do not interactive cooperatively with a
single secondary coil,[] and as a result, the single primary coils of Kesler
cannot redirect a signal as claimed[].” App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds
Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive because claim 1 does not require two
primary coils servicing the same secondary coil, nor, more generally, does it
require two or more primary coils. Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion of anticipation,
which we adopt as our own. Final Act. 3. As the Examiner notes, claim 1
does not recite two primary coils interacting with a single secondary coil,
and thus Appellants’ argument is not supported by corresponding language

3 In electromagnetics, it is common to refer to the coil that induces magnetic
flux in another coil as the “primary coil” and the coil in which flux is
induced as the “secondary coil.” See, e.g.,
https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/transformers/ (last viewed
8/13/19). Kesler uses the word “source” to refer to the “primary coil” and
“device” to refer to the “secondary coil.” See, e.g., Kesler Fig. 1.
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

5

in the claims. Ans. 5. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be
relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appellants also argue that “Kesler uses separate primary and
secondary coil pairs, and that a single primary coil with multiple
components is not disclosed that can redirect a primary transmitter signal, as
claimed.” App. Br. 13. We agree with the Examiner, however, that no
secondary coils are mentioned in claim 1, and thus Appellants’ argument
that Kesler discloses separate primary and secondary coil pairs is not
supported by language in the claim as presented on appeal. See Self, supra.
Similarly, as the Examiner finds, the claim does not recite a primary coil
with multiple components, and Appellants’ argument concerning this feature
is likewise not supported by corresponding language in the claims. Id.
Appellants further argue “Kesler does not redirect a primary
transmitter signal—it just turns it on or off, because there is always a single
matched receiver coil in the system of Kesler.” Id. Kesler’s system includes
two charging source resonator 13901 integrated with a garage floor 13901 to
wirelessly charge automobile 13902 using device resonators 13911. (Kesler
Fig. 139, ¶¶ 1140, 1154). When temperature sensor(s) 13903, 13912 detect a
high temperature condition, Kesler’s safety system uses the source and
device resonator pair that generates the least amount of heat and does not use
the other pair. (Kesler Fig. 139, ¶¶ 1143, 1154). When this other pair is
turned off, the power from the wired electricity grid (see Kesler ¶ 42) that
this resonator pair would have consumed is instead used by the resonator
pair generating the least heat. Id. Thus, Kessler discloses a “primary
transmitter coil” (the source resonator that is turning off) is responsive to the
“foreign object detection signal” (from the temperature sensor(s) 13903,
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

6

13912) to redirect the primary transmitter signal (electric power from the
wired electricity grid) in response to the foreign object detection signal. In
Kesler, the redirected signal powers the source resonator of the pair
generating the least heat. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
the rejection. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 6.
Claim 19
Appellants’ arguments for claim 19 are similar to those for claim 1
and involve similar claim limitations. See Final Act. 6–7; App. Br. 13. We
find Appellants’ arguments for claim 19 unpersuasive for the same reasons
stated for claim 1.
Claim 24
Claim 24 is reproduced below:
24. A method of wireless power transfer foreign object detection
comprising the steps of: detecting at least one magnetic field
collapse characteristic;
comparing said detected at least one magnetic field
collapse characteristic to a magnetic field collapse characteristic
window; and
modulating at least one primary transmitter signal in
response to said compared at least one magnetic field collapse
characteristic, wherein said modulation comprises redirecting
said at least one primary transmitter signal in response to said at
least one magnetic field collapse characteristic.
App. Br. 22–23 (Claims App’x.) (Emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Kesler as disclosing the claimed “detecting”
step. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Kessler ¶ 1158). Kesler states that the presence
of a foreign object 13910 may result in an operating parameter of the
resonator to vary from what would be expected, and specifically mentions
alteration of the magnetic field as an example of variation of an operating
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

7

parameter. (Id.) Kesler further states “[a] change of 5% or more of the
parameters from their nominal values may signify an error in the system, or
a foreign object and may be used as a signal to shutdown, lower the power
transfer, run diagnostics, and the like.” (Id.) Kesler further states “an
appropriate electrical parameter or set of parameters is compared with a
nominal value and such comparison is used rather than, or in combination
with, sensor 13903 to detect presence of object 13910.” (Id.)
The term “magnetic field collapse characteristic” is not defined in the
Specification, and Appellants do not proffer any definition for the term. We
construe claim terms under their broadest reasonable interpretation. See In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Under this standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and
customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The word “collapse” in the claimed term “magnetic field collapse
characteristic” implies a drastic decrease in a parameter such as the magnetic
field. For example, one definition for “collapse” defines the terms as “1: to
fall or shrink together abruptly or completely” or “2: to break down
completely.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collapse (last
viewed 8/13/19). Kesler’s “change of 5% or more of the parameters from
the nominal values” (Kesler ¶ 1158) encompasses such a drastic change.
Kesler further discloses that “the system may monitor [i.e., detect] the power
input at the source as well as received at the device resonator and compare
that value to an expected or nominal value.” Id. Thus, we agree with the
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

8

Examiner that Kesler discloses the claimed “detecting at least one magnetic
field collapse characteristic.”
Appellants also argue “Kesler does not modulate at least one primary
transmitter signal in response to the magnetic field collapse by redirecting
the one primary transmitter signal.” App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants’
again argue that Kesler does not redirect a single primary transmitter signal
but instead turns one coil off and another coil on. For the reasons explained
with respect to claim 1 concerning the redirection of electric power, we
disagree with Appellants’ arguments and sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein said at
least one primary transmitter signal comprises a data signal.” App. Br. 19
(Claims App’x.) The Examiner finds this feature disclosed in Kesler which
states “source modules may have a signaling capability that transfers
information.” Final Act. 3 (citing Kesler ¶ 1181). Appellants argue “Kesler
discloses separate wireless communications circuitry 4202 at [530] that does
not use the primary-secondary coil pairs, and which therefore cannot provide
the claimed one primary transmitter signal that comprises a data signal.”
App. Br. 14–15. In response, the Examiner notes that Kesler states “the
signaling capability may be realized using a wireless communications
channel of the types described herein.” Ans.13 (citing Kesler ¶ 1181). “In
other embodiments, the signaling capability may be realized by changing the
electrical properties of the source and/or device resonators.” Id. The
Examiner thus shows Kesler discloses that the primary transmitter signal
comprises a data signal as claimed.
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

9

B. § 103 Rejection
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007) (“KSR”). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the
prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called
secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
(1966).
Claim 11
Claim 11 is reproduced below with emphasis added to show the claim
limitations argued by Appellants:
11. A wireless power transfer foreign object detector comprising:
a transmitter mat;
at least one foreign object sensor connected to said mat
and providing at least one foreign object detection signal upon
interaction with at least one foreign object, wherein said at least
one foreign object sensor detects at least one of a physical
interaction with said at least one foreign object and an electrical
interaction with said at least one foreign object; and
at least two primary transmitter coils providing at least two
primary transmitter signals, said primary transmitter coils
responsive to said at least one foreign object detection signal to
redirect the primary transmitter signals in response to the foreign
object detection signal from one of the primary transmitter coils
to another of the primary transmitter coils.

Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

10

App. Br. 20 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds claim
11 obvious over Kesler. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Kesler Fig. 132, ¶¶ 860,
1154, 1158). Appellants argue “Kesler does not disclose one foreign object
sensor that detects at least one of a physical interaction with at least on
foreign object and an electrical interaction with the at least one foreign
object.” App. Br. 15. Appellants contend “[t]he example relied on by the
Office uses two separate and distinct physical [not electrical] interactions—
1) pressure and 2) temperature.” Id. (Emphasis and comment added).
Kesler states “one or more pressure, temperature, capacitive,
inductive, acoustic, infrared, ultraviolet and the like sensors are integrated
into the source, device, source housing, vehicle, or surrounding area to
detect obstructions and foreign objects and/or materials between the source
and device resonators.” Kesler ¶ 1156. A person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood a pressure sensor or acoustic sensor to sense physical
interaction because pressure and sound are physical phenomena, and
capacitive or inductive sensors to sense electrical interaction because
capacitance and inductance are characteristics associated with
electromagnetism. Moreover, the temperature, infrared, and ultraviolet
sensors detect heat generated in a foreign object by induction from the
source resonator, and thus may be viewed as indirectly sensing an electrical
interaction.
Kesler further states “[i]n some embodiments multiple sensors,
sensing multiple parameters, are used simultaneously to determine if an
obstruction or a foreign object is present.” Kesler ¶ 1156. Further, Kesler
states “[t]o prevent false triggering, in some embodiments at least two
sensors must be tripped, such as pressure and a temperature sensor, for
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

11

example, to turn off the vehicle charger.” Id. Kesler thus discloses using
different sensors together to detect the presence of a foreign object in a
charging area.
As previously mentioned, Kesler also discloses that presence of a
foreign object varies operating parameters of the resonator such as power
transfer, voltage or current amplitude, magnetic field, reactance, and phase,
all of which may be considered as sensing electrical interaction. Kesler
¶ 1158.
Considering all of these Kesler teachings together, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Kesler discloses the argued
claim limitations. For example, Kesler’s teachings support using a pressure
sensor to detect the physical interaction, namely, the weight of a foreign
object, and also using a capacitive or inductive sensor, or the amount of
power received at a device coil, to detect electrical interaction with the
foreign object to determine its presence.
As to Appellants’ argument that Kesler does not disclose a single
sensor that senses through both physical and electrical interactions (App. Br.
16), we note that the claim does not recite a single sensor, and thus
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim. See
Self, supra. The claimed phrase “at least one foreign object sensor”
encompasses multiple sensors, so the Examiner properly relied on use of two
different kinds of sensors to disclose the claimed limitation for this reason as
well. Furthermore, case law supports that including two sensors in one
sensor would be an obvious design choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,
968 (CCPA 1965) (holding that use of one-piece construction for a brake
drum integral with a clamping means, instead of two separate pieces as in
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

12

the prior art reference, would be merely a matter of obvious engineering
choice). For all of these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Claim 13
The Examiner finds claim 13 is obvious over Kesler. Final Act. 12–
14 (citing Figs. 132, 142a, ¶¶ 584, 620, 633, 1151, 1154, 1158). Appellants
argue “Kesler only discloses pairs of primary and secondary coils, and does
not disclose a system whereby multiple primary coils can interact with a
single secondary coil, as claimed.” App. Br. 16. Claim 13 does not recite
multiple primary coils interacting with a single secondary coil, and thus,
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See
Self, supra.
Appellants also argue Kesler’s placement sensor is not a foreign
object sensor. App. Br. 16 (citing Kesler ¶ 584). Appellants’ argument does
not address, however, all of the parts of Kesler that the Examiner relied on,
including paragraphs 1151 and 1158, which disclose monitoring for the
presence of foreign objects. Final Act. 12. Thus, Appellants’ argument is
not persuasive.
As to Appellants’ argument that Kesler’s sensors “are not located in a
mat or in a grid” (App. Br. 17), we do not agree with this contention. As the
Examiner noted, Kesler shows integration of source resonators in a mat
(Final Act. 12, Figs. 132, 142a, ¶¶ 189, 1089, 1161), and those resonators
are used to monitor for the presence of a foreign object (Final Act. 12,
Kesler ¶¶ 1151, 1158). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Kesler
discloses the argued feature of the claim.
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

13

Claim 14
Claim 14 recites “wherein said at least one secondary receiver signal
comprises a data signal.” App. Br. 21 (Claims App’x). Appellants present a
similar argument for patentability as for claim 2, which recites the same
limitation. For the reasons explained with respect to claim 2, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites “wherein said foreign object detection signal is
responsive to a plurality of secondary receiver coils.” App. Br. 21 (Claims
App’x). The Examiner finds this limitation disclosed by Kesler. Final Act.
14 (citing Kesler ¶ 1154). The cited part of Kesler states “[s]ome vehicle
charger designs make use of multiple source and device resonators.” Kesler
¶ 1154. Kesler’s multiple device resonators disclose the claimed secondary
receiver coils. See Kesler ¶ 1158. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 15.
Claims 16–18
Claim 16 recites the additional element of “a transmitting device that
generates a corrective action signal in response to said foreign object
detection signal.” App. Br. 21 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds Kesler
discloses this feature. Final Act. 14–15 (citing Kesler ¶ 503). Appellants
argue Kesler’s “feedback loops are only disclosed for device power and
control circuitry 2304, not for foreign object detectors of Kesler.” App. Br.
17–18. Appellants further contend the Examiner is piecing together
unrelated sections of Kesler using impermissible hindsight. Id.
We agree with Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has not shown
how the transmitter or feedback loop in Kesler’s device power and control
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

14

circuitry 2304 may be related to Kesler’s foreign object detector. At best,
the Examiner shows Kesler discloses a transmitting device that generates a
corrective action signal (implied by Kesler’s disclosure of a feedback loop).
The Examiner fails to show, however, that Kesler’s transmitter generates a
corrective action signal “in response to said foreign object detection signal.”
Based on the evidence cited, we are constrained on this record not to sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, or of claim 17 and claim 18, which
depend from claim 16.
Claim 21
Claim 21 is reproduced below:
21. A method of wireless power transfer foreign object detection
comprising the steps of:
detecting at least one of a physical interaction with at least
one foreign object and an electrical interaction with said at least
one foreign object and providing at least one foreign object
detection signal; and
modulating at least one primary transmitter signal in
response to said at least one foreign object detection signal,
wherein said modulation comprises redirecting said at least one
primary transmitter signal in response to said at least one foreign
object detection signal.
App. Br. 22 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds the “detecting” disclosed
for similar reasons as stated for claim 1, and the “modulating” disclosed for
similar reasons as stated for claims 1 and 11. Final Act. 16–17. Appellants
argue “this limitation is not met by the combination of two separate foreign
object detection devices.” App. Br. 18. The claim, however, does not recite
that the “detecting” is performed by a single device, and thus the argument is
not supported by corresponding language in the claims. See Self, supra.
Moreover, as previously noted, Kesler discloses sensors for detecting
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

15

physical interaction with a foreign object (e.g. pressure sensors) and for
detecting electrical interaction (e.g. inductive or capacitive sensors as well as
the coils themselves). Kesler ¶¶ 1156, 1158. Kesler further states multiple
sensors may be used together. Id. ¶ 1156. Thus, Kesler discloses the
claimed “detecting.”
As previously explained, Kesler discloses the claimed “modulating”
because turning off a first pair of resonators and turning on a second pair of
resonators results in redirection of electric power (i.e., the primary
transmitter signal) from the first coil pair to the second coil pair. Kesler
¶ 1154. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in the rejection of
claim 21.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites “wherein said redirection of said at least one primary
transmitter signal redirects said transmitter signal to at least one primary
transmitter coil that is not adjacent to said at least one foreign object.” App.
Br. 22 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds this limitation disclosed by
Kesler for the reasons stated with respect to claim 11. Final Act. 17.
Appellants argue the claim language requires redirection of the primary
transmitter signal, not that a first primary transmitter signal is terminated and
a second primary transmitter signal is generated, as disclosed in Kesler.
App. Br. 18. As previously explained, we agree with the Examiner that
Kesler’s redirecting electric power from one coil pair to another generating
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

16

the least amount of heat, is sufficient to disclose the claimed limitation. See
Kesler ¶ 1154.
C. Reply Brief Arguments
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by not addressing Appellants’
proposed fact findings in its Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 10–11
(“Proposed FF01” and “Proposed FF02”). As the Examiner’s actual
findings and determinations in the Final Office Action, not Appellants’
proposed findings, are what is under review in this appeal, we do not find
Appellants’ argument persuasive to show Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“The arguments shall explain why the Examiner erred as
to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.”). Moreover, the rules
applicable to ex parte appeals do not provide authority for appellants to
submit proposed findings of fact. See generally 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.30 et seq.
In response to the Examiner’s statement that claim 1 is “very broad,”
Appellants assert they performed a search and found only 28 patents
mentioning “foreign object sensor” and of those only seven patents mention
the term in the claims. Reply Br. 2. Appellants assert this means the claims
are not very broad, contrary to the Examiner’s statement. Id. The Reply
Brief, however, does not indicate that the search was performed on
synonyms of the words in the search term, which might have yielded a much
higher number of search results. In any case, Appellants cite to no evidence
in the record establishing these assertions as fact, and lawyer’s arguments
and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). Furthermore, new evidence is not permitted in a reply brief. 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b) (“A reply brief shall not include any new or non-admitted
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

17

amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence.”)
(Emphasis added). The Examiner has not had an opportunity to consider
and rebut Appellants’ new assertions of fact. Accordingly, we do not
consider Appellants’ untimely assertions of fact at this late stage in the
appeal. Even if Appellants’ assertions were admissible as facts, the issues in
this case are limited to whether Kesler anticipates or renders the claims
obvious. Appellants do not show how the asserted facts are relevant to
either of these issues, and they are inadmissible for this reason as well. See
FED. R. EVID. Rule 401.
As to Appellants’ assertions that “[t]he Examiner focuses entirely on
claim 1,” we do not agree. The Final Office Action and Answer provided
detailed explanations for the rejection of each pending claim and was not
solely focused on claim 1. Final Office Action 2–17; Ans. 2–22.
Appellants generally allege the Examiner failed to respond to
Appellants’ arguments, failed to provide articulated reasoning with rationale
underpinning to support the rejections, and did not articulate a reason to
combine prior art. Reply Br. 2–3 (citing In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). With the exception of claims 16 to
18 (for which we do not sustain the rejection), Appellants do not indicate
with particularity where in the record these supposed errors occurred. Thus,
we do not find these arguments persuasive to show Examiner error. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v). Appellants’ allegations lack particularity and are
conclusory, and are thus entitled to little probative value. See Geisler,
supra.
Appeal 2017-006694
Application 13/754,709

18

D. Remaining Claims
Appellants present no separate arguments for the remaining dependent
claims, which fall with their respective independent claims for the reasons
stated. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1–10, 19, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based on Kesler.
We affirm the rejection of claims 11–15 and 20–23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Kesler, but reverse the rejection of claims 16–18.
For the claims with an affirmed rejection, 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-IN-PART