Benjamin Savage et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2021001648 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2022)

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. 15/217,547 07/22/2016 Benjamin V. Savage 074716-00038US 1705 27805 7590 03/23/2022 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. 10050 INNOVATION DRIVE SUITE 400 DAYTON, OH 45342-4934 EXAMINER MILLER, BRIAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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): ipdocket@thompsonhine.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BENJAMIN V. SAVAGE and KENT V. SAVAGE Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and ADAM J. PYONIN Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 11-14, 16, 23, 24, 30-32, 35, 36, 38-40, and 43-47. Claims 18-20 and 28 are allowed, and claims 8-10 are objected to, but are otherwise indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apex Industrial Technologies LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The claimed subject matter is directed to “an access and storage system which can accommodate larger items,” where the enclosed storage compartment is “configured to be positioned on a ground surface such that a wheeled conveyance device carrying an item to be transferred is rollable directly into the storage compartment. The system also includes a sensor system configured to track at least one of a placement, removal, presence or absence of the item or the wheeled conveyance relative to the storage compartment, and an access control system configured to control access to the storage compartment.” Spec. ¶ 4. Exemplary Claim 1 Claims 1, 7, 12, 18, 20, and 23 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on Appeal (emphases added to contested prior-art limitations): 1. An access and storage system comprising: a plurality of generally enclosed storage compartments configured to be directly or indirectly positioned on a ground surface, each storage compartment having an opening sized and positioned such that a wheeled conveyance device carrying an item to be dispensed is rollable from the ground surface through said opening and into said storage compartment, 2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Sept. 8, 2020); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 5, 2021); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 5, 2020); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Feb. 5, 2020); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 22, 2016). Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 3 wherein each storage compartment is sized such that a person and said wheeled conveyance can be simultaneously entirely positioned in said compartment so that said person can place said wheeled conveyance and said item into said storage compartment; a sensor system configured to detect, with respect to each compartment, at least one of a presence of said item in said compartment, absence of said item from said compartment, removal of said item from said compartment or placement of said item in said compartment; and an access control system configured to control access to each storage compartment. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence: Name Reference Date Shannon US 2001/0045449 A1 Nov. 29, 2001 Schwendemann US 2011/0012490 A1 Jan. 20, 2011 Gupta et al. (“Gupta”) US 2013/0261792 A1 Oct. 3, 2013 Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 4 REJECTIONS R1. Claim 47 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 4.3 R2. Claims 1, 3-6, 11-14, 16, 23, 24, 30-32, 35, 36, 38-40, 43-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gupta and Shannon. Final Act. 5. R3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gupta, Shannon and Schwendemann. Final Act. 12. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 4-20) and our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we address the written description Rejection R1 of claim 47, infra. We decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 1, 3-5, 11-14, 16, 23, 30-32, 35, 36, 38-40, 43, and 45-47 on the basis of representative claim 1. We address Rejection R2 of separately argued dependent claims 6, 24, and 44, infra. 4 Remaining 3 We note Appellant requested cancellation of claim 47 in the Amendment After Final Office Action, but the Examiner did not enter the amendment. See Appeal Br. 5, n.1. 4 We note Appellant proffers what might appear to be separate arguments for Rejection R2 of claim 12, 31, 36, 38, 40, 46, and 47. However, Appellant merely recites the claim limitations and asserts that the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations similar to arguments made in other claims. Appeal Br. 13-17. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require 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.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 5 claim 7 in Rejection R3, not argued separately, stands or falls with the respective independent claim from which they depend.5 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-7, 11-14, 16, 23, 24, 30-32, 35, 36, 38-40, and 43-47 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 6, 38, 44, 46, and 47 for emphasis as follows. 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Arguments not made are therefore waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 5 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 6 1. § 112(a) Written Description Rejection R1 of Claim 47 The Examiner rejects claim 47 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds the claim limitation "wherein the system lacks any storage compartments stacked on top of each storage compartment that is positioned on the ground surface," is not sufficiently described in the specification, and includes new matter not supported by the originally filed Specification. Final Act. 4-5. The Examiner states that this is because Figure 1 appears to contradict this claim limitation by showing storage compartments where one storage compartment is stacked on top of another storage compartment. Id. Appellant filed an Amendment After Final Office Action attempting to cancel claim 47, but the Examiner did not enter the amendment. Appeal Br. 5, n.1. However, Appellant does not argue this rejection in the Appeal Brief. Accordingly, we pro forma affirm the Examiner’s written description Rejection R1 of dependent claim 47. 2. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claims 1, 3-5, 11-14, 16, 23, 30-32, 35, 36, 38-40, 43, and 45-47 Issue Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 5-13; Reply Br. 2-4) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Gupta and Shannon is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests “wherein each storage compartment is sized such that a person and said wheeled conveyance can be simultaneously entirely positioned in Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 7 said compartment so that said person can place said wheeled conveyance and said item into said storage compartment,” as recited in claim 1? Principles of Law “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425. In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill . . . . [A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 8 legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Analysis We note claim 1 does not provide any particular constraints (such as height or weight) on the size of the recited “person,” and different persons may exhibit large variabilities in size. In any event, we agree with the Examiner’s findings because Gupta’s storage compartments (“varying sizes and number” ¶ 40) teaches or at least suggests “wherein each storage compartment is sized such that a person and said wheeled conveyance can be simultaneously entirely positioned in said compartment.” Final Act. 5 (citing Gupta ¶ 40). Moreover, the Examiner finds Shannon’s delivery storage box, which allows for a handcart 70 to be wheeled into a storage compartment, teaches or at least suggests “wherein each storage compartment is sized such that a person and said wheeled conveyance can Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 9 be simultaneously entirely positioned in said compartment.” Final Act. 5-6, citing Shannon ¶ 31, Fig. 3. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in relying upon the teachings of Shannon because the reference does not disclose a person, but only a wheeled conveyance. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further argues Shannon’s lockbox is too small to accommodate a person and a wheeled conveyance. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant acknowledges, but then dismisses, Gupta’s teaching of storage compartments being “any size and shape.” Appeal Br. 7-8. Appellant's contentions do not persuade us of error because Appellant is responding to the rejection by attacking the references separately, even though the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have included appropriately sized compartments for the purpose of providing ease of use for the retailer/consumer given Gupta’s teaching of a variety of sizes and shapes. Ans. 4-5. We find the Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the references. Id. We note that a reason to combine need not be supported by a finding that the proposed combination is the preferred, or most desirable, combination over other alternatives. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed.Cir.2004). One with ordinary skill in the art is not Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 10 compelled to follow blindly the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed.Cir.1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21 (A person with ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”). Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness Rejection R2 of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 3-5, 11-13, 14, 16, 23, 30-32, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43, and 45, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 3. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claim 6 Issue Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 4-5) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Gupta and Shannon is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests “[t]he system of claim 1 . . . wherein the processor is configured to provide information to said user relating to which of said storage compartments the item to be dispensed is positioned,” as recited in claim 6? Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 11 Analysis Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 over the combination of Gupta and Shannon because Gupta’s “paragraph [0087] makes it clear that the ‘pickup location’ referenced therein is the location of the storage compartment system as a whole, and not an identification of which storage compartment the item to be dispensed is positioned.” Appeal Br. 13. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness Rejection R2 of dependent claim 6 for the same reasons as those explained by the Examiner, which we incorporate herein by reference. Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 5. See also Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). 4. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claim 24 Issue Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 9) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Gupta and Shannon is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests “[t]he system of claim 23 wherein each storage compartment is sized such that a person can entirely enter said compartment through said Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 12 opening to place said wheeled conveyance and said item into said storage compartment,” as recited in claim 24? Analysis The Examiner finds “claim 24 includes the same limitations of claim 30, the reasons for the rejection of claim 30 are incorporated herein, and thus claim 24 is rejected under the same grounds.” Final Act. 8. With respect to aspects of the rejection of claim 30 pertinent to claim 24, the Examiner finds “Gupta in view of Shannon is considered to encompass [‘]wherein said each opening is sized and positioned such that said wheeled conveyance is rollable from said ground surface through said associated opening and directly into said storage compartment,[’] as described with respect to claim 1.” Final Act. 7. With respect to the scope of claim 1 referenced by the Examiner, the Examiner reiterates “[i]t is also noted, however, that the exact sizes of the ‘wheeled conveyance device’ and a ‘person’ is not known, thus is considered to be arbitrary. . . . [and the] originally filed drawings (7/22/16) and notably Fig. 4 does not depict a wheeled conveyance and/or a person inside the storage compartment.” Ans. 4. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24 over the combination of Gupta and Shannon because it is not accurate [to] state that claim 24 includes the same subject matter of claim 30. Claim 30 depends from claim 1 and specifies that each opening is sized and positioned such that the wheeled conveyance is rollable from the ground surface through the associated opening and directly into the storage compartment. Claim 30 includes no reference to size such that “a person can entirely enter the compartment through the Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 13 opening to place the wheeled conveyance and the item into the storage compartment” which provides a frame of reference entirely missing from claim 30. Appeal Br. 17. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments because, as the Examiner points out, Gupta suggests that the storage compartments may be of “varying sizes and number” (Final Act. 5, citing Gupta ¶ 40), and the claim language “such that a wheeled conveyance device carrying an item to be dispensed is rollable from the ground surface through said opening and into said storage compartment” is a statement of intended use because the claim does not positively recite either the “wheeled conveyance device” as part of the claimed subject matter, nor a human as part of the claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we interpret the claim as meaning that the size and position of the opening must be capable of such a use, as stated by the Examiner. Id. We also disagree with Appellant’s arguments because, as cited by the Examiner, “Shannon . . . discloses a delivery lockbox 10a (FIG. 1, 3) that allows for a wheeled conveyance device 70 (FIG. 2, 3) to be wheeled into a storage compartment.” Id. Figure 3 of Shannon is replicated below, illustrating a “wheeled conveyance device.” Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 14 “FIG. 3 illustrates a perspective view of the temporary storage device with the access door in the open position and with the associated handcart therein in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present invention.” Shannon ¶ 17 (emphasis added to demonstrate the teaching of a wheeled conveyance). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and legal conclusions because, as the Examiner finds, [f]rom this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have provided the system of Gupta to have included appropriately sized compartments in order to allow access of larger/heavier objects into the storage compartments, for the purpose of providing ease of use for the retailer/consumer as suggested by Shannon (para [0031]), which convenience, would have been well within the level of a skilled artisan. Final Act. 5-6. Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 15 Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 24, nor do we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness Rejection R2 of dependent claim 24. 4. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claim 44 Issue Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 8) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Gupta and Shannon is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests “[t]he method of claim 12 wherein the placing step including placing said item into one of a plurality of said storage compartments, and wherein the method further includes providing information relating to which of said storage compartments the item is positioned,” as recited in claim 44? Analysis Appellant argues: With respect to the “providing information” step, the Office action cites to step 713 of Fig. 7 of Gupta, and paragraph [0087] of Gupta. However, step 713 of Fig. 7 merely reads “Message Customer That Order Available for Pickup” and does not reference any information relating to any specific storage compartment where the item is positioned. In addition, paragraph [0087] of Gupta merely discusses the location of Gupta's pickup system as a whole, and not any specific storage Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 16 compartment, as addressed above in the discussion of claim 6. Accordingly claim 44 further patentably distinguishes over the cited references. Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner responds: Similar to the rebuttal of claim 6, supra, the Examiner maintains that the system of Gupta has the capability “to providing information relating to which of the storage compartments the item is positioned,” at least at the pickup station, e.g., a unique identifier that is to be used to obtain access to the items securely stored in the storage compartment at the pickup location (Gupta, para [0087]), as without such information, how would the customer pick up their merchandise from the storage compartment. Ans. 7. Paragraph 87 of Gupta discloses a unique identifier used to obtain access to the securely stored items: Upon receipt of a closed-door notification and confirmation that the items have been placed in the storage compartment, a message may be delivered to the customer that the items are available for pickup at the pickup location, as in 713. The message may be delivered using any type of communication means, such as e-mail, telephone, text message, etc. In addition to identifying that the item(s) is available for pickup, the message may also include a location or address of the pickup location, directions to the pickup location, hours of operation, a unique identifier that is to be used to obtain access to the items securely stored in the storage compartment at the pickup location, and/or a summary or list of the items ordered that are available for pickup. Gupta ¶ 87 (emphasis added). Figure 7, referenced in paragraph 87 of Shannon, is replicated below, illustrating associating an order with storage compartment (Step 705). Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 17 “FIG[]. 7 . . . is a flow diagram illustrating an example process for receiving a delivery container at a pickup location.” Shannon ¶ 10 (note Step 705 “Associate Order with Storage Compartment(s)”). Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 44, nor do we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 18 Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness Rejection R2 of dependent claim 44. 5. § 103 Rejection R3 of Claim 7 In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed to obviousness Rejection R3 of claim 7 under § 103, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim. Arguments not made are forfeited.6 REPLY BRIEF To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-11) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections. More specifically: (1) Appellant has not persuasively argued that the Examiner erred with respect to written description Rejection R1 of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), and we sustain the rejection. 6 Appellant apparently ignores Rejection R3 of claim 7 and merely states “Applicants respectfully request that the Honorable Board of Patent Trial and Appeal Board reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 11-14, 16, 23, 24, 30-32, 35, 36, 38-40 and 43-47 and remand the Application with directions to pass the Application to allowance.” Appeal Br. 20. See In re Google Technology Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Appeal 2021-001648 Application 15/217,547 19 (2) Appellant has not persuasively argued that the Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections R2 and R3 of claims 1, 3-7, 11-14, 16, 23, 24, 30-32, 35, 36, 38-40, and 43-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 47 112(a) written description 47 1, 3-6, 11- 14, 16, 23, 24, 30-32, 35, 36, 38- 40, 43-47 103 Gupta, Shannon 1, 3-6, 11- 14, 16, 23, 24, 30-32, 35, 36, 38- 40, 43-47 7 103 Gupta, Shannon, Schwendemann 7 Overall Outcome 1, 3-7, 11- 14, 16, 23, 24, 30-32, 35, 36, 38- 40, 43-47 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED