Saudi Arabian Oil Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2021

2021000197 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 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.
16/056,669 08/07/2018 Sameeh Issa Batarseh 2012738-0060 7472
148219 7590 06/18/2021
Choate / Saudi Arabian Oil Company (ASC and SAO)
C/M Ref: 2012737 and 2012738
Two International Place
Boston, MA 02110
EXAMINER
GAY, JENNIFER HAWKINS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2021 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):
jnease@choate.com
patentdocket@choate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

___________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

___________________

Ex parte SAMEEH ISSA BATARSEH

____________________

Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
Technology Center 3600

____________________

Before JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
2

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–22. Appeal Br. 5.2,3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s purported invention generally relates to laser tools
configured to generate and output a laser beam downhole in a wellbore.
Spec. ¶ 1. According to Appellant, “[a]s the laser beam travels along the
optical transmission medium, the optical power of the laser beam
decreases,” thereby “resulting [in] optical power loss increases as the
distance the laser beam travels increases.” Id. ¶ 2. “In some downhole
applications, the optical power loss may be considerable” and “may
adversely affect use of the laser beam downhole.” Id.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Saudi
Arabian Oil Company. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Although the Examiner initially rejected dependent claim 14 in the Final
Action under appeal as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings of Faircloth, Batarseh, and Batarseh
’778 (Final Act. 1, 14–16), the Examiner withdrew the obviousness rejection
of this claim in the Answer (Ans. 3). Dependent claim 14, however, still
remains the subject to an indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
because its underlying base claim recites the relative term “about.”
Final Act. 4, 7.
3 Claim 12 was objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Final Act. 17.
Dependent claim 12, however, still remains the subject to two indefiniteness
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because (1) this claim recites a range
with an unbounded lower limit; and (2) its underlying base claim recites the
relative term “about.” Id. at 4–5, 7.
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
3

To address this problem, Appellant provides “laser tools for ablating
structures located downhole” in a wellbore, where the laser tools each
include “a laser generator” that “generate[s] the laser beam from within the
wellbore.” Spec. ¶ 19. Figure 3, reproduced below, illustrates “a cross-
sectional side view of components of an example laser tool downhole in a
wellbore.” Id. ¶ 16.

Figure 3, reproduced above, illustrates laser tool 46 that includes, among
other things, control system 49, generator 50 with an optical power ranging
from 4 kilowatt (“kW”) to 10kW, optical assembly 48, and housing 56. Id.
¶¶ 40–42. Housing 56 contains purging knife 58 configured to clear a path
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
4

to target 60 and purging nozzle 62 configured to expel dust or vapor from
inside optical assembly 48. Id. ¶ 41.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1 and 17 are independent claims. Independent claim 1 is
directed to “[a] laser tool configured to operate within a wellbore,” whereas
independent claim 17 to “[a] method” for operating the laser tool. Appeal
Br. 25, 30 (Claims Appendix). Claims 1–11, 13, 15, and 16 directly or
indirectly depend from independent claim 11, and claims 18–22 directly or
indirectly depend from independent claim 17. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative of the disclosed invention and this claim is reproduced below:
1. A laser tool configured to operate within a wellbore,
the laser tool comprising:
a generator to generate a laser beam, the generator being
configured to fit within the wellbore, to withstand at least some
environmental conditions within the wellbore, and to generate
the laser beam from within the wellbore, the laser beam having
an optical power from about one kilowatt (1kW) to about ten
kilowatts (10kW);
an optical assembly fitting within the wellbore;
a housing holding the optical assembly, the housing
comprising a purging nozzle and a purging knife that are
configured to cool the optical assembly and to clear a path for the
laser beam to a target; and
a control system to control movement of at least part of the
laser tool to cause the laser beam to move within the wellbore.
Id. at 25 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
5

Prior Art Relied Upon
Inventor4 Patent or Publication No. Relevant Dates
Schultz U.S. Patent Application
Publication No.
2010/0326659 A1
published Dec. 30,
2010; filed June 29,
2010
Batarseh
’778
U.S. Patent Application
Publication No.
2014/0360778 A1
published Dec. 11,
2014;
filed June 10, 2013
Batarseh U.S. Patent Application
Publication No.
2016/0160618 A1
published June 9,
2016;
filed Dec. 4, 2014
Faircloth U.S. Patent Application
Publication No.
2017/0191314 A1
published July 6,
2017;
filed Feb. 28, 2017
Rejections on Appeal
References/Basis 35 U.S.C. § Claims Rejected
Indefiniteness (for reciting the
relative term “about”)
112(b) 1–22
Indefiniteness (for reciting a
range with an unbounded lower
limit)
112(b) 9, 12
Faircloth, Batarseh 103 1–11, 15–17, 19–22
Faircloth, Batarseh, Batarseh
’778
103 13
Faircloth, Batarseh, Schultz 103 18
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. Upon reviewing the specification, the Examiner finds that the
range associated with “a maximum lateral diameter of less than five-and-a-
half (5.5) inches” recited in dependent claim 9 has an unbounded lower limit
that includes a lateral diameter of zero inches. Final Act. 4; Ans. 15 (citing

4 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
6

Spec. ¶ 55). The Examiner concludes that the range of dependent claim 9 is
indefinite under § 112(b), because in the scenario where the lateral diameter
is zero inches, the laser tool would cease to exist. Final Act. 4; Ans. 15.
2. Upon reviewing the specification, the Examiner finds that the
range associated with “the pressure within the wellbore has been reduced to
25,000 kilopascals or lower” recited in dependent claim 12 has an
unbounded lower limit that includes a pressure of zero kilopascals. Final
Act. 5; Ans. 12–13 (citing Spec. ¶ 27). The Examiner concludes that the
range of dependent claim 12 is indefinite under § 112(b), because in the
scenario where the pressure is zero kilopascals, the pressure would be
inconceivably low. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that “[i]t is not
possible for a well to have a wellbore pressure of zero or no pressure as a
well will always have a pressure due to the pressure of the earth itself and
the hydrostatic pressure [of] the fluid within the well.” Ans. 13.
3. The Examiner finds that Faircloth’s laser tool, particularly
certain features associated with the embodiments illustrated in Figures 13
and 35, teach all of the limitations of independent claim 1, except “a purging
nozzle . . . configured to cool the optical assembly and to clear a path for the
laser beam to a target.” Final Act. 8 (citing Faircloth ¶¶ 22, 89–93, 140,
141, 154, 232, Figs. 1, 13, 35); Ans. 5–7 (clarifying that the Examiner relies
on Faircloth’s air knife 1301 illustrated in Figure 13—not Batarseh’s fluid
knife 46 illustrated in Figures 3 and 4—to teach the claimed “purging
knife”). The Examiner turns to Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 illustrated in
Figures 3 and 4 to teach the claimed “purging nozzle.” Final Act. 9 (citing
Batarseh ¶¶ 37, 38). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Faircloth’s laser tool that
operates downhole in a wellbore to include Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
7

within the housing of the optical manipulator “in order to . . . deflect debris
and dust away from and cool the optical assembly.” Final Act. 9 (citing
Batarseh ¶¶ 37, 38); Ans. 6 (concluding the same).
With the exception of a “purging knife,” independent claim 17 recites
similar limitations to those of independent claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 30
(Claims Appendix), with id. at 25. The Examiner relies on essentially the
same findings and conclusion to support the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 17 based on the combined teachings of Faircloth and
Batarseh. Compare Final Act. 13, with id. at 7–9.
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection
of dependent claim 9 is improper because, according to Appellant, a range
that includes an upper bound without specifying a lower bound is not per se
indefinite. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant further argues that a person of ordinary
skill in the art, upon reviewing the specification, would have understood that
“a minimum diameter” is required for a laser tool “to function properly,”
“have sufficient structural integrity,” and “to be compatible with other
downhole tools and components, among other possible design
considerations.” Reply Br. 7.
2. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection
of dependent claim 12 is improper because, according to Appellant, a range
that includes an upper bound without specifying a lower bound is not per se
indefinite. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues that the requirement in
dependent claim 12 of outputting purging media when the wellbore pressure
is equal to or lower than 25,000 kilopascals is not the same as stating that the
well may be operational at zero pressure. Id. at 16–17. Appellant further
argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing the
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
8

specification, would have understood that, “if the pressure in the wellbore
has gone from a pressure above 25,000 kilopascals to a pressure lower than
25,000 kilopascals, purging media is output.” Reply Br. 6.
3. Appellant contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have combined the teachings of Faircloth and Batarseh because Faircloth
already discloses a cooling system and first flow path 9117 that function to
cool the laser tool and clear debris from the optical path, thereby eliminating
any motivation to incorporate the same features from Batarseh. Appeal Br.
10–12 (citing Faircloth ¶¶ 90, 91, 94, 149). Stated differently, Appellant
argues that the Examiner fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have incorporated Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 into
Faircloth’s laser tool that operates downhole in a wellbore, especially
because Faircloth already discloses a cooling system and first flow path
9117 that function to cool and clean. Reply Br. 4–5 (citing Faircloth ¶¶ 90,
91, 94, 149).
II. ISSUES
Based on the record before us, the issues presented are as follows:
1. whether the Examiner erred in concluding that a person of
ordinary skill in the art, having read the specification, would have been
apprised of the lower bound of the lateral diameter of a laser tool where the
range includes “a maximum lateral diameter of less than five-and-a-half
(5.5) inches,” as recited in dependent claim 9;
2. whether the Examiner erred in concluding that a person of
ordinary skill in the art, having read the specification, would have been
apprised of the lower bound of wellbore pressure for outputting purging
media where the range is “25,000 kilopascals or lower,” as recited in
dependent claim 12; and
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
9

3. whether the Examiner presents a sufficient rationale to combine
the teachings of Faircloth with those of Batarseh?
III. ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness Rejections
Claims 1–22
As an initial matter, we note that the Examiner rejects both
independent claims 1 and 17 as unpatentable under § 112(b) for being
indefinite because each claim recites the term “about,” which, according the
Examiner, is a relative term that is “not defined by the claim” and “the
specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining [the term’s]
requisite degree.” Final Act. 4, 6–7. In its Appeal Brief, Appellant states
that “[it] is not appealing any of the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112[b], with the exception of claims 9 and 12.” Appeal Br. 16 n.2.
Based on the record before us, Appellant does not present arguments
with respect to the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of independent claims
1 and 17 because each claim recites the relative term “about,” nor did the
Examiner withdraw these indefiniteness rejections in the Answer.
Consequently, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness
rejections of independent claims 1 and 17. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (“MPEP”) § 1205.02 (9th ed., R-08.2017, Jan. 2018) (“If a
ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s
brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the
Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew
the rejection in the examiner's answer.”); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d
1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground
of rejection to the Board, . . . the Board may treat any argument with respect
to that ground of rejection as waived.”).
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
10

By virtue of their dependency, claims 2–16 and 18–22 also include the
same relative term “about” that is recited in each of independent claims 1
and 17. Accordingly, we also summarily sustain the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejections of dependent claims 2–16 and 18–22. See Final
Act. 4–8.
For the sake of completeness, we address the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejections of dependent claims 9 and 12 for reciting a range
with an unbounded lower limit in the interest of responding to all the
arguments presented and developed in the Appeal Brief, Answer, and Reply
Brief.
Claim 9
Based on the record before us, we discern error in the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection of dependent claim 9, which recites the lateral
diameter of a laser tool where the range includes “a maximum lateral
diameter of less than five-and-a-half (5.5) inches.”
Pursuant to § 112(b), claims must “particularly point[] out and
distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
regards as the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (2011). “As the statutory
language of ‘particular[ity]’ and ‘distinct[ness]’ indicates, claims are
required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—
terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in
original). The test for determining the question of indefiniteness may be
formulated as whether the claims, when considered in light of the
specification and what is known in the art, “set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.”
In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971); see Packard, 751 F.3d at
1310, 1313.
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
11

According to the specification, some of the stated objectives of the
disclosed invention include, among other things, a “laser tool [that] is
operable within a wellbore” and “configured to fit within the wellbore.”
Spec. ¶¶ 3, 6. The specification further states that “the laser tool [h]as a
maximum lateral diameter of less than 5.5 inches (about 14 centimeters),
allowing the laser tool to fit within downhole pipes or other structures
having a minimum diameter of 5.5 inches.” Id. ¶ 55. Based on these cited
disclosures, we agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably understood that the laser tool must have at least some
lateral diameter, but the maximum lateral diameter must not exceed 5.5
inches, for the laser tool “to function properly,” “have sufficient structural
integrity,” and “to be compatible with other downhole tools and
components, among other possible design considerations.” Reply Br. 7.
We disagree with the Examiner that the lateral diameter of the laser
tool encompassed by dependent claim 9 is indefinite because the claimed
range includes a lateral diameter of zero inches. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 15.
As a practical matter, if the laser tool has a lateral diameter of zero inches it
would cease to exist and, therefore, it would be incapable of functioning at
all. Qualifying the lower bound of the range of dependent claim 9 in this
way would be unreasonable. Accordingly, it follows that the Examiner erred
in concluding that the subject matter of dependent claim 9 is indefinite.
Claim 12
Based on the record before us, we discern error in the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection of dependent claim 12, which recites outputting the
purging media when the wellbore pressure falls within a range of “25,000
kilopascals or lower.”
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
12

According to the specification, purging media (e.g., liquid or gas) is
“based on the type o[f] rock in the formation and the pressure of a reservoir
associated with the formation.” Spec. ¶ 27. The specification further states
that “[a] gas purging medium may be appropriate when fluid pressure in the
wellbore is reduced.” Id. The specification then provides a number of
examples by which purging media is output when the fluid pressure in the
wellbore is reduced, including “less than 25000 kilopascals.” Id. Based on
these cited disclosures, we agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably understood that purging media (i.e.,
gas) may be output when wellbore pressure is reduced to 25,000 kilopascals
or lower.
We disagree with the Examiner that the range of pressure
encompassed by dependent claim 12 is indefinite because it includes a
scenario where the wellbore pressure is zero kilopascals, which, according to
the Examiner, is impossible practically. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 12–13. The
Examiner, however, appears to undermine her initial position by finding that
“a well will always have a pressure due to the pressure of the earth itself and
the hydrostatic pressure [of] the fluid within the well.” Ans. 13 (emphasis
added). Based on this finding, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that there will always be at least some pressure within the
wellbore such that setting a higher bound of wellbore pressure at or below
25,000 kilopascals circumscribes a particular range with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity for triggering the output of purging media.
Accordingly, it follows that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
subject matter of dependent claim 12 is indefinite.
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
13

Obviousness Rejection Over Faircloth and Batarseh
Claims 1–11, 15–17, and 19–22
Based on the record before us, we do not discern error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 17. Nor do
we discern error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 2–11, 15, 16, and 19–22, each of which depends directly or indirectly
from either independent claims 1 or 17.
As we explained above, the Examiner relies on the combined teaching
of Faircloth and Batarseh to teach the limitations of independent claims 1
and 17. See Final Act. 8–9, 13–14; Ans. 5–7. The Examiner then asserts
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Faircloth’s laser tool that operates downhole in a wellbore to include
Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 within the housing of the optical manipulator
“in order to . . . deflect debris and dust away from and cool the optical
assembly.” Final Act. 9 (citing Batarseh ¶¶ 37, 38); Ans. 6 (concluding the
same). The Examiner’s rationale for combining the teachings of Faircloth
with those of Batarseh suffices as articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion. Indeed, the Examiner’s stated
motivation of modifying Faircloth’s laser tool to include Batarseh’s purging
nozzle 48 for cleaning and cooling purposes comes directly from Batarseh
itself, which states, in relevant part, purging nozzle 48 “direct[s] a purging
fluid” that “can clean the penetration 22 [illustrated in Figure 1], remove
debris, clear the path for the laser beam 38, and cool the penetration 22.”
Batarseh ¶ 38.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner fails
to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated
Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48 into Faircloth’s laser tool, especially because
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
14

Faircloth already discloses a cooling system and first flow path 9117 that
function to cool and clean. See Reply Br. 4–5. As the Examiner correctly
notes in the Answer, Faircloth “discloses many different embodiments of the
laser bottom hole assembly (LBHA) including [those] shown in Figures 8–
11, 14, and 27–36.” Ans. 7. The Examiner, however, relies on specific
features found in the laser tool embodiments illustrated in Figures 13 and 35
to formulate the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 17. See
Final Act. 8, 13. Appellant does not explain how Faircloth’s laser cooling
system, which is described at a high level of generality, applies to the
specific laser tool embodiments illustrated in Figures 13 and 35 of Faircloth.
See Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing Faircloth ¶¶ 90, 91, 94); Reply Br. 4 (citing the
same). Even if we were to treat Faircloth’s laser cooling system as applying
to the laser tool embodiments illustrated in Figures 13 and 35 of Faircloth,
Appellant does not explain why incorporating Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48
into these particular embodiments would not serve to further supplement, or
provide the requisite detail, for the cooling function performed by
Faircloth’s laser cooling system.
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s reliance on first flow path
9117 illustrated in Figure 9 of Faircloth to rebut the Examiner’s rationale to
combine the teachings of Faircloth with those of Batarseh. See Appeal Br.
11; Reply Br. 4–5. As the Examiner correctly notes in the Answer, first flow
path 9117 appears to be a feature that is specific to the laser tool
embodiment illustrated in Figure 9 of Faircloth. See Ans. 7. Faircloth’s first
flow path 9117 does not appear to apply to the laser tool embodiments
illustrated in Figures 13 and 35 because these particular embodiments do not
include a flow path for purging fluid and, therefore, they do not implicate the
existence of a purging nozzle. See id. As the Examiner explains in the
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
15

Answer, admittedly absent from the various laser tools embodiments
disclosed in Faircloth is the existence of both a purging knife and purging
nozzle in the same embodiment. See id. at 9. As supported by the evidence
of record, the Examiner’s proposed modification to Faircloth’s laser tool that
operates downhole in a wellbore, which already discloses a laser tool
embodiment with air knife 1301 as illustrated in Figure 13, to include
Batarseh’s purging nozzle 48, properly accounts for all the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 17, and effectively results in a laser tool that has
both a purging knife and purging nozzle for cleaning and cooling purposes.
See Final Act. 9 (citing Batarseh ¶¶ 37, 38).
It follows that the Examiner has not erred in determining that the
combined teachings of Faircloth and Batarseh render the subject matter of
independent claims 1 and 17 obvious. Appellant does not address separately
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to dependent claims
2–11, 15, 16, and 19–22. See Appeal Br. 10–13; Reply Br. 4–5. We,
therefore, group these dependent claims with their underlying base claim.
Consequently, dependent claims 2–11, 15, and 16 fall with independent
claim 1, and dependent claims 19–22 fall with independent claim 17.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Obviousness Rejection Over Faircloth, Batarseh, and Batarseh ’778
Claim 13
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 13 as unpatentable under § 103
as being obvious over the combined teachings of Faircloth, Batarseh, and
Batarseh ’778. Final Act. 14–15. Apart from its arguments with respect to
the Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Faircloth and Batarseh,
which are not persuasive for the reasons identified above, Appellant does not
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
16

present separate arguments for dependent claim 13. See Appeal Br. 10–15;
Reply Br. 4–5.
Based on the record before us, Appellant does not present arguments
with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 13,
nor did the Examiner withdraw the obviousness rejection of this claim in the
Answer. Consequently, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 13. See MPEP § 1205.02.
Obviousness Rejection Over Faircloth, Batarseh, and Schultz
Claim 18
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 18 as unpatentable under § 103
as being obvious over the combined teachings of Faircloth, Batarseh, and
Schultz. Final Act. 16–17. Apart from its arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Faircloth and Batarseh,
which are not persuasive for the reasons identified above, Appellant does not
present separate arguments for dependent claim 18. See Appeal Br. 10–15;
Reply Br. 4–5.
Based on the record before us, Appellant does not present arguments
with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 18,
nor did the Examiner withdraw the obviousness rejection of this claim in the
Answer. Consequently, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 18. See MPEP § 1205.02.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting:
(1) claims 1–22 as unpatentable under §112(b) as being indefinite for
reciting the relative term “about”; (2) claims 1–11, 15–17, and 19–22 as
unpatentable under § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings of
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
17

Faircloth and Batarseh; (3) claim 13 as unpatenable under § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings of Faircloth, Batarseh, and Batarseh
’778; and (4) claim 18 as unpatentable under § 103 as being obvious over
the combined teachings of Faircloth, Batarseh, and Schultz. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject these claims.
The Examiner, however, erred in separately rejecting claims 9 and 12
as unpatentable under § 112(b) as being indefinite for reciting a range with
an unbounded lower limit. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s decision
to reject these claims.
V. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–22 112(b) Indefiniteness
(for reciting the
relative term
“about”)
1–22
9, 12 112(b) Indefiniteness
(for reciting a
range with an
unbounded lower
limit)
9, 12
1–11, 15–
17, 19–22
103 Faircloth,
Batarseh
1–11,
15–17,
19–22

13 103 Faircloth,
Batarseh,
Batarseh ’778
13
18 103 Faircloth,
Batarseh, Schultz
18
Overall
Outcome
1–22
Appeal 2021-000197
Application 16/056,669
18

VI. 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