UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 20, 2020

15213491 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020)

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.
15/213,491 07/19/2016 Pellegrino J. Pisacreta 94118US01;
67097-3412 PUS
7039
54549 7590 03/20/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2020 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PELLIGRINO J. PISACRETA
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 4. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification is titled “Method and Apparatus for Variable
Supplemental Airflow to Cool Aircraft Components.” Spec. 1, Title.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Appeal Br. 13–17 (Claims App.).
We reproduce claim 1, below, with emphasis added to a particular limitation
discussed in this Decision:
1. A cooling system for an aircraft comprising:
at least one moveable member configured to cover an
opening formed within an aircraft outer skin;
an actuator to move the at least one moveable member
between a fully open position where external atmosphere air
can be directed through the opening to an internal passage
enclosed by the aircraft outer skin and a fully closed position
where the opening is covered; and
a controller that selectively controls the actuator to move
the at least one moveable member between the fully open
position and the fully closed position, and wherein the
controller opens the at least one moveable member to direct
external atmosphere air through the internal passage and to a
desired cooling location within an aircraft engine.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Klees US 5,269,139 Dec. 14, 1993
Rudolph US 5,826,794 Oct. 27, 1998
Sokhey US 2014/0238043 A1 Aug. 28, 2014
Simmons GB 2,001,136 A Jan. 24, 1979

Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
3
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 3, 4, 6, 8–11, 15,
16
102 Rudolph
2, 13, 17–20 103 Rudolph, Sokhey
1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14 103 Simmons, Rudolph
5, 12 103 Rudolph, Klees
Final Act. 2–14.
OPINION
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–11, 15, 16 – Rudolph
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–11, 15, and 16 as anticipated
by Rudolph. Final Act. 2.2
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 as a group. See Appeal Br.
4–5. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, with claims 3, 4, 8, and 9
standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant also presents separate arguments for claims 6, 10, 11, 15,
and 16. See Appeal Br. 6–7. We address these arguments separately.

a. Analysis Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9
The Examiner finds that Rudolph discloses the structure of claim 1,
citing in part Rudolph’s Figure 3. Final Act. 2–3. We reproduce Rudolph’s
Figure 3, below:

2 The heading of the rejection lists claims 17–20 as also being rejected as
anticipated by Rudolph. See Final Act 2. Upon reviewing the rejection,
however, we understand this to be a harmless and inadvertent typographical
error. See id. at 2–6 (rejecting only claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–11, 15, and 16).
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
4

Figure 3 depicts a side view of a scoop ejector nozzle “configured for non-
noise suppression.” Rudolph, 4:21–22. Rudolph discloses that ambient air
40 enters scoop ejectors 38 and the air is mixed with engine exhaust gases
42, which results in a lower combined airflow velocity, which in turn
reduces jet exhaust noise. Id. at 5:8–17.
The Examiner finds that Rudolph’s ejector nozzle 38 satisfies the
claimed “moveable member” and that it is “configured to cover an opening”
(between Rudolph’s elements 66 and 113) and is “formed within an aircraft
outer skin” (Rudolph’s element 46). Final Act. 2. The Examiner also finds
that Rudolph discloses an “actuator” (element 94) that moves “moveable
member” 38 between a fully open and closed position to direct air through
the opening and “to an internal passage” (elements 73, 74, 75) enclosed by
the aircraft’s outer skin. Id. at 2–3. The Examiner further finds that
Rudolph discloses a controller that selectively controls the actuator between
the fully open and fully closed position and that the controller “opens the at
least one moveable member (38) to direct external atmosphere air (40)
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
5
through internal passage (73, 74, 75) and to a desired cooling location (the
location at 60) within an aircraft engine (10).” Id. at 3.
Appellant argues, “Rudolph does not disclose or teach using the
external air for cooling purposes” (Appeal Br. 4) and that “there is nothing
found in Rudolph to suggest that element 60 corresponds to a desired
cooling location” (id. at 5).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); see also Ans. 5 (explaining the same). We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Rudolph discloses all of the structural limitations of
the claim. See Ans. 5. Although the purpose of Rudolph’s scoop ejector 38
is to reduce noise (see, e.g., Rudolph 5:8–17), it also reduces the temperature
of the exhaust gases (see, e.g., id. at 1:28–31). In reducing the temperature
of the exhaust gases, Rudolph’s ejector 38 also provides cooling to the
exhaust system’s components that lie downstream of the mixed airflow. See,
e.g., id. at 2:32–34 (“The increased bypass ratio also lowers the mixed flow
gas temperature and makes the materials choice for the exhaust system
simpler.”).
As to Appellant’s argument that Rudolph’s element 60 cannot be
construed as the “desired cooling location” (Appeal Br. 5), we disagree.
Element 60 is downstream and in fluid communication with the mixed
ambient air/exhaust gas airflow. See, e.g., Rudolph Figs. 2, 3. Rudolph also
discloses a desirability for cooling the materials that make up these
downstream components for simplifying material choice selection. See, e.g.,
id. at 2:32–34.
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
6
In its Reply Brief, Appellant further argues that claim 1 requires “the
moveable member to direct air through an internal passage that is enclosed
by the aircraft outer skin.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends that Rudolph
does not disclose such structure. See id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner finds that Rudolph’s elements 73, 74, and 75 satisfy the
claimed “internal passage” (see Final Act. 2), and we are not persuaded that
these elements are not enclosed by the aircraft outer skin, as required by
claim 1. Appellant’s argument is premised on a narrow construction of
“aircraft outer skin” that would exclude ejector 38 (and elements 73, 74, and
75), yet we find nothing in the record to support such a narrow construction.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error, and we
affirm the rejection of claim 1, and each of claims 3, 4, 8, and 9, which fall
with representative claim 1, as anticipated by Rudolph.

b. Analysis Claim 6
Claim 6 depends indirectly from claim 1 and further recites, inter alia,
“wherein the internal passage comprises an aircraft engine interface duct
that extends from an outlet of the at least one moveable member at the
opening in the aircraft outer skin to an engine outer casing.” Appeal Br. 14
(Claims App.) (emphasis added).
To address this limitation, the Examiner finds that Rudolph’s “internal
passage (73, 74, 75) comprises an aircraft engine interface duct (see Figures
2–3 and 7) that extends from an outlet of the at least one moveable member
(38) at the opening in the aircraft outer skin (46) to an engine outer casing
(114).” Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
7
In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues that Rudolph’s “internal
passage” (73, 74, 75) does not comprise “an aircraft engine interface duct
that extends from the outlet of the moveable member” (38). Appeal Br. 6.
We agree with Appellant. To illustrate our point, we reproduce
Rudolph’s Figure 7, below:

Figure 7 depicts scoop ejector 38 having a tubular, generally rectangular,
shape. Rudolph, 6:56–57. Scoop ejector 38 includes forward inlet 71, aft
outlet 72, parallel sides 73, and outer and inner walls 74, 75, respectively.
Id. at 6:5–60.
Claim 6 requires that the “internal passage comprises . . . [a] duct that
extends from an outlet of the . . .moveable member . . . to an engine outer
casing.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Rudolph’s
scoop ejector 38 for satisfying the claimed “moveable member” and the
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
8
sides and walls (73, 74, 75) for satisfying the “internal passage.” See Final
Act. 3. Yet under the Examiner’s findings, Rudolph’s “internal passage”
(73, 74, 75) is itself the “moveable member” (38), and does not have a
“duct” that “extends from an outlet of the . . .moveable member,” as required
by claim 6.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 as anticipated
by Rudolph.

c. Analysis Claims 10, 11, 15, 16
Independent claim 10, and its dependent claims 11, 15, and 16, recite
an aircraft engine comprising, inter alia, “at least one moveable member
configured to cover an external opening configured to be formed within an
aircraft outer skin” and “an aircraft engine interface duct in fluid
communication with the at least one casing opening.” Appeal Br. 15
(Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Rudolph discloses “moveable member” (38)
and “aircraft engine interface duct” (73, 74, 75). Final Act. 4–5. In response
to Appellant’s argument that the claim requires two distinct components
(Appeal Br. 7), the Examiner apparently agrees, finding that “Rudolph’s
duct within the moveable member (the airflow passageway defined within
walls (73, 74, 75) is distinct from the outer structural surface of the
moveable member (38).” See Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
Appellant reiterates its position that claim 10 requires two distinct
components: (1) a moveable member; and (2) an aircraft engine interface
duct. Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that
Rudolph’s “moveable member” is distinct from its “interface duct” (73, 74,
75).
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
9
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
As discussed above in connection with claim 6, components 73, 74,
75 are simply the walls of “moveable member” 38. Rudolph, 6:56–60. We
cannot support the Examiner’s finding that components (73, 74, 75) are
structurally distinct from ejector 38. See Ans. 6.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
10, 11, 15, and 16 as anticipated by Rudolph.

II. Claims 2, 13, 17–20 – Rudolph, Sokhey
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 13, and 17–20 as obvious over
Rudolph and Sokhey. Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues claims 2, 17, and 18 as a group. See Appeal Br. 8–
9.3 We select claim 2 as the representative claim, with claims 17 and 18
standing or falling with claim 2. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant also presents separate arguments for claims 19 and 20. See
Appeal Br. 9–10. We address these arguments separately.
We also address claim 13 separately.

a. Analysis Claims 2, 17, 18
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the
controller is configured to control the actuator to hold the at least one
moveable member between a plurality of different positions between the

3 Although Appellant’s Appeal Brief presents arguments under the heading
“Claims 17, 18,” we find that Appellant’s argument under this heading is
based on a misunderstanding of the rejection, namely, whether Rudolph
anticipates these claims. See Appeal Br. 9 (“Thus, claim 17 and the
associated dependent claims are not anticipated by Rudolph”).
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
10
fully open position and the fully closed position.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims
App.).
To address this limitation, the Examiner relies on Sokhey’s teaching
of “moveable members” (variable-position doors 98) whose opened position
“may vary with the needs of the application.” Final Act. 6–7 (citing Sokhey
¶ 29). Like Rudolph, Sokhey teaches that its doors 98 selectively vary the
gap, or opening, to vary the amount of ambient air. Sokhey ¶ 29; see also
Ans. 7.
In combining Rudolph with Sokhey, the Examiner reasons that a
skilled artisan would have modified Rudolph’s ejector opening, as taught by
Sokhey, in order to vary the amount and direction of air flow. See Final Act.
7.
Appellant argues that Rudolph teaches away from the proposed
modification, citing Rudolph’s disclosure: “Because the scoops have only
two basic positions, closed or open, modulation between positions is not a
problem.” Rudolph, 8:42–43; see also Appeal Br. 8 (citing the same).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s modification would render Rudolph’s
“synchronization of the plug and scoop infinitely more complicated” and
that “there would be no reason to provide multiple positions as this would
not confer any benefit to Rudolph.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
As to Appellant’s teaching away argument, a reference teaches away
from a modification when the reference, taken as a whole, criticizes,
discredits, or otherwise discourages the modification. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although Rudolph cites a benefit to its specific
design—easy modulation between the open and closed positions (Rudolph,
8:42–43)—we do not find this disclosure as criticizing, discouraging, or
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
11
otherwise discrediting the modification of providing variable opening
positions.
As to Appellant’s argument that modification would have added
complexity and discouraged a skilled artisan from making the modification
(see Appeal Br. 8), it is not sufficient to obviate a reason to combine when a
different course of action would have advantages over another. Winner Int’l
Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact
that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however,
should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference
with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained,
should be weighed against one another”)). In other words, even if the
proposed modification would have added some complexity to Rudolph’s
system (see Appeal Br. 8), the modification would have improved Rudolph’s
system by providing for variable opening of ejector 38, allowing for
reduction of varying noise levels, as taught by Sokhey (see Sokhey ¶ 29; see
also Ans. 7). We find that the benefit provided by the modification
outweighs the benefit lost.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error, and we
affirm the rejection of claim 2, and each of claims 17 and 18, which fall with
representative claim 2, as unpatentable over Rudolph and Sokhey.

b. Analysis Claim 13
Although Appellant does not present separate arguments for claim 13
(see Appeal Br. 8–10), we do not sustain the rejection of this claim. Claim
13 depends from independent claim 10 and the rejection relies on the same
unsupportable findings presented in rejecting claim 10 as anticipated by
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
12
Rudolph. See Final Act. 6 (“Rudolph teaches the invention as claimed and
as discussed above [in connection with independent claim 10]”).
Accordingly, for consistency in this Decision, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over Rudolph and Sokhey.

c. Analysis Claim 19
Appellant argues that claim 19 is also allowable for the same reasons
that claim 10 is allowable. Appeal Br. 9.
We are not persuaded. Claim 19 does not depend from claim 10 (see
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.)) and Appellant’s arguments as to claim 10 do
not appear to apply to claim 19 (compare id. at 7, with id. at 9). As
distinguished from the rejection of claim 10, the Examiner does not rely on
Rudolph’s ejector walls (73, 74, 75) for satisfying any structure of claim 19.
Compare Final Act. 4–5, with id. at 9.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error, and we
affirm the rejection of claim 19 as unpatentable over Rudolph and Sokhey.

d. Analysis Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from independent claim 17 and further recites the
step of “directing the external atmosphere air into a dedicated cooling
system duct or ring to be directed to a desired location within the aircraft.”
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
To satisfy the claimed “dedicated cooling system duct or ring,” the
Examiner finds that Rudolph teaches “directing the external atmosphere air
(40) into a dedicated cooling system duct (at 85).” Final Act. 9 (citing
Rudolph Figs. 1–8).
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
13
Appellant argues that Rudolph’s element 85 does not satisfy the
claimed “duct or ring.” See Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing in part Rudolph, Figs. 4,
6, 8).
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. To illustrate this point, we
reproduce Rudolph’s Figure 6, below.

Figure 6 depicts outwardly bulged portions 85. Rudolph, 6:45–46.
Based on the record before us, the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained the finding that Rudolph’s outwardly-bulged portions 85 satisfies
a dedicated cooling system duct. Final Act. 9.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20
as unpatentable over Rudolph and Sokhey.

III. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14 – Simmons, Rudolph
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 14 as unpatentable
over Simmons and Rudolph. Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
14
Appellant argues claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 14 as a group.4 See Appeal Br.
10. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, with claims 4, 6, 7, and 14
as standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant also presents separate arguments for claim 10. See Appeal
Br. 11. We address these arguments separately.

a. Analysis Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 14
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Simmons discloses the
structure of claim 1, with the exception of an actuator controlled by a
controller to move the moveable member. Final Act. 9–10 (referencing in
part Simmons’s Fig. 1). We reproduce Simmons’s Figure 1, below, to
illustrate the Examiner’s findings:

Figure 1 depicts a gas turbine powerplant with compressors 12, 13 and jet
pipe 17. Simmons 1:81–86. Valves 26, 42 are provided to allow draw air
into the engine and mix with the exhaust gases, thereby reducing noise. See
id. at 2:10–35.

4 Although the heading of Appellant’s argument does not include claim 14
(see Appeal Br. 10), we understand Appellant’s arguments pertain to this
claim.
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
15
The Examiner finds that Simmons discloses “moveable member” 26
configured to cover “opening” 22 in “aircraft outer skin” 26 and, when open,
directs external atmosphere air through “internal passage” 25 to “desired
cooling location” (the surface of 17). Final Act. 9–10.
The Examiner acknowledges that Simmons does not teach that the
moveable member is moved by an actuator controlled by a controller, and
cites to Rudolph’s teaching of this structure. Id. at 10 (citing Rudolph Figs.
1–8). The Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan would have added a
controller-controlled actuator, as taught by Rudolph, to Simmons’s system in
order “to modulate the moveable members between an open and closed
position.” Id. (citing Rudolph, 10:35–47).
In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues that the “location of
cooling surface 17 is not linked in any way to a desired cooling location”
and a skilled artisan would not consider the location “to correspond to the
claimed desired cooling area.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed above in
connection with the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Rudolph,
apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-
Packard, 909 F.2d at 1469. We agree with the Examiner that Simmons’s
structure, as modified by Rudolph, satisfies all of the structural elements of
claim 1. Final Act. 9–10. Furthermore, when Simmons’s “moveable
member” 26 opens, ambient air will mix with the exhaust gases to cool the
gas mixture, thereby cooling the surface of Simmons’s structure 17, as also
found by the Examiner. Id. at 10.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error, and we
affirm the rejection of claim 1, and each of claims 4, 6, 7, and 14, which fall
with representative claim 1, as unpatentable over Simmons and Rudolph.
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
16

b. Analysis Claim 10
Appellant simply contends that “claim 10 is allowable as neither
reference discloses a cooling circuit.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner relies on the
space between Simmons’s structure 24 and 26 to satisfy the claimed
“cooling circuit” (Final Act. 12) and Appellant does not explain why this
structure fails to meet the claimed limitation (see Appeal Br. 11; see also
Reply Br. 9).
Because Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner
error, we affirm the rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Simmons and
Rudolph.

IV. Claims 5, 12 – Rudolph, Klees
Claims 5 and 12 depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, and
further recite, “a plurality of moveable members that are axially spaced apart
from each other along a length of the aircraft outer skin in one or more of a
plurality of different locations dependent on where cooling flow is to be
directed within an aircraft engine.” Appeal Br. 13–15 (Claims App.).
In addressing these limitations, the Examiner relies on Klees for
teaching this structure (Final Act. 13 (citing Klees, Fig. 11, 8:22–34)) and
reasons that a skilled artisan would have modified Rudolph—as discussed
above in connection with Appellant’s anticipation argument—to include
axially spaced apart moveable members (id.).
As to claim 5, Appellant argues that neither Rudolph nor Klees
discloses “axially spacing apart movable members from each other along a
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
17
length of the aircraft in different locations dependent on where cooling flow
is to be directed within an aircraft engine.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As explained correctly by the
Examiner, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references.
Ans. 9 (citing in part In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). The
Examiner’s proposed modification of Rudolph, based on Klees’s teaching,
satisfies the claimed limitation. See Final Act. 13.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 5 as
unpatentable over Rudolph and Klees.
As to claim 12, Appellant relies on the same argument presented in
connection with independent claim 10 as anticipated by Rudolph. See
Appeal Br. 12.
As discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 10 as anticipated by Rudolph. See supra Part I.c. For the same
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 12 as
unpatentable over Rudolph and Klees.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–10, 14, and 17–19 are
affirmed. We reverse the rejections of claims 11–13, 15, 16, and 20.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Reversed Affirmed
Appeal 2019-005558
Application 15/213,491
18
1, 3, 4, 6,
8–11, 15,
16
102 Rudolph 6, 10, 11,
15, 16
1, 3, 4, 8, 9
2, 13,
17–20
103 Rudolph, Sokhey 13, 20 2, 17–19
1, 4, 6, 7,
10, 14
103 Simmons, Rudolph 1, 4, 6, 7,
10, 14
5, 12 103 Rudolph, Klees 12 5
Overall
Outcome
11–13, 15,
16, 20
1–10, 14,
17–19
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART