Epoch Lacrosse, LLC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 7, 2020

2019003349 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 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.
15/399,662 01/05/2017 James Miceli 13981.0001-00000 4733
22852 7590 07/07/2020
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
PENG, RAYSHUN K.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2020 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES MICELI, JASON DANIEL, and PAOLO FERABOLI
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, 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 1–15 and 21. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as EPOCH
LACROSSE, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a lacrosse head with fiber reinforcement.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A lacrosse head comprising:
a scoop;
a throat;
a pair of unbroken opposed sidewalls arranged to
interconnect the scoop to the throat, each sidewall having an
average thickness of about 0.020 inches to 0.20 inches, the pair
of unbroken opposed sidewalls being continuous, and having an
interior edge and an exterior edge; and
a hub connected to the throat, the hub including a socket
configured to receive a stick,
wherein at least one of the scoop, throat, pair of opposed
sidewalls, and hub comprise a matrix material embedded with a
plurality of substantially randomly dispersed reinforcing fibers.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Guibaud US 6,440,009 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
Filice US 7,238,128 B1 July 3, 2007
Velasquez US 2006/0154755 A1 July 13, 2006
Tucker US 7,491,141 B1 Feb. 17, 2009
Hayden US 2011/0136599 A1 June 9, 2011
Janisse US 2014/0103566 A1 Apr. 17, 2014
Goldstein US 2015/0018136 A1 Jan. 15, 2015
Boggs US 2016/0310809 A1 Oct. 27, 2016
REJECTIONS
1. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2.
2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

3
3. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Boggs and Janisse. Final
Act. 3.
4. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, Velasquez, and
Guibaud. Final Act 8.
5. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, and Hayden. Final
Act. 10.
6. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, and Filice. Final
Act. 11.
7. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, Velasquez, Guibaud,
and Tucker. Final Act. 12.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Written Description
The Examiner rejects claim 15 for failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 2. Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and
recites “further including a plurality of bores within at least one of the scoop,
throat, and pair of sidewalls, wherein the plurality of bores are filled with an
elastomeric material.” Appeal Br. 29, Claims App.
As to the recitation “elastomeric material,” the Appellant argues, inter
alia, that support is provided by the Specification, which discloses that “the
hollow void space may be filled with an alternate matrix, such as a
rubberized epoxy.” Appeal Br. 8, citing Spec. ¶ 80; see also Reply Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

4
The Examiner concedes that paragraph 27 of the Specification discloses an
“exemplary matrix” formed from various materials that are a thermoset or
thermoplastic, and that “one of ordinary skill may recognize that ‘an
elastomeric material’ is a thermoset or thermoplastic,” but finds that “there
is no factual evidence providing a nexus that the disclosed ‘exemplary
matrix’ is the same thing as the claimed ‘elastomeric material.’” Ans. 3.
However, the Examiner addresses the “exemplary matrix” disclosed
in paragraphs 27 and 40 pertaining to the matrix for the lacrosse head, rather
than the “alternate matrix” for the hollow void space. As pointed out by the
Appellant, the Specification discloses an alternate matrix specifically for
filling the hollow void space, namely “rubberized epoxy, with excellent
flexural properties.” Spec. ¶ 80. Accordingly, we agree with the Appellant
that this disclosure provides adequate written descriptive support for the
“elastomeric material” recited in claim 15.
As to the recitation “plurality of bores,” the Appellant argues that the
Specification disclose “precision drilling” to form the hollow void space,
and “[o]ne of ordinary skill would have recognized that processes such as
drilling result in bores.” Appeal Br. 8–9, citing Spec. ¶ 78. In response, the
Examiner points out that the Specification discloses “a hollow void space,”
which is singular, and not a plurality. Ans. 3. However, as the Appellant
correctly points out, the Specification “states that the ‘hollow void space’
may be formed by ‘removal of material at discretely controlled locations,’
where [‘]locations[’] is plural.” Reply Br. 5, citing, Spec. ¶ 78. Accordingly,
we agree with the Appellant that this disclosure provides written descriptive
support for the recited “plurality of bores.”
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

5
Therefore, in view of the above, we reverse the written description
rejection of claim 15.

Rejection 2: Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claim 14 as being indefinite. Final Act. 3.
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and recites “further including a pair of arms
dimensioned to receive the stick such that the pair of arms facilitates flexural
bending in a region corresponding to a junction between the pair of arms and
the lacrosse stick.” Appeal Br. 29, Claims App. The Examiner determines
that “it is unclear how the pair of arms structurally facilitates flexural
bending between the arms and the stick.” Final Act. 3. We agree.
The Appellant argues that the Specification discloses that “‘a natural
flex location may be created by way of the discontinuity and arms 83, 85’. .
. . Accordingly, ‘the pair of arms facilitates flexural bending’ by the
placement of the arms with respect to the discontinuity.” Appeal Br. 9,
citing Spec. ¶ 84. However, we agree with the Examiner that “it appears,
that the arms in claim 14 would be an alternate embodiment of the hub
including a socket of claim 1, [but] claim 14, which is dependent on claim 1
would require both when the claim is read as whole, thereby making the
metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.” Ans. 4; see Spec. ¶ 84 (“Fig. 8C
is a representation of an alternate lacrosse head.”).
The Appellant explains that “Paragraph [0084] refers to ‘the hub 11
and socket 13 of FIG. 3’ being ‘modified’ (emphasis added) but does not
remove the hub and socket. Because claim 1 only requires ‘a hub connected
to the throat, the hub including a socket configured to receive a stick,’ and
because the embodiment of FIG. 8C still includes these features, the
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

6
Examiner’s interpretation is improper.” Reply Br. 6. However, Figure 8C
does not illustrate a hub or a throat. Nor is it apparent how the recited arms
would facilitate flexural bending between the arms and the stick when the
arms are connected to the throat and hub as apparently alleged by the
Appellant, and the stick is received in the socket (as required by claim 1), as
well as the pair of arms (as required by claim 14).
Therefore, in view of the above ambiguities, we affirm the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection of claim 14.

Rejection 3: Goldstein in view of Boggs and Janisse
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–13 are rejected as being unpatentable over
Goldstein in view of Boggs and Janisse. Final Act. 3. As to independent
claim 1, the Examiner finds that Goldstein discloses the invention
substantially as claimed, except for the recited “average thickness of about
0.020 inches to 0.20 inches” for each sidewall, and the reinforcing fiber
being “substantially randomly dispersed.” Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner
relies on Boggs to conclude that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the lacrosse head of Goldstein to
use substantially randomly dispersed reinforcing in order “provide
lightweight reinforcement and provide a faster swing speed.” Final Act. 4,
citing Boggs ¶¶ 41, 43. The Appellant does not dispute this aspect of the
rejection.
The Examiner also concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the lacrosse head
of Goldstein in view of Janisse to provide sidewalls having an average
thickness of about 0.02 to 0.2 inches to attain the desired flexibility and
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

7
strength characteristics as taught in Janisse. Final Act. 4, citing Janisse ¶ 99.
The Examiner also explains that the thickness range is a matter of
determining a workable or optimal range attainable by routine
experimentation, which would not have produced unexpected results. Final
Act. 4–5. The Appellant challenges this aspect of the rejection. We agree
with the Examiner.
The Appellant argues that in Janisse, the sidewall support rails are
separate from the sidewalls, and are disclosed as being “along the
sidewalls” such that they cannot be a “pair of unbroken opposed sidewalls”
as recited. Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 8 (the Examiner “conflates the
support rail with a sidewall.”). The Appellant argues that the portion of
Janisse relied upon discloses thickness of support rails, but does not disclose
thickness of the sidewalls themselves. Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 6–
7. Thus, the Appellant argues that the rejection “applies the thickness of the
support rails of Janisse to a distinct component of Janisse––the sidewalls
themselves.” Appeal Br. 12.
However, we agree with the Examiner that “the sidewall support rails
are part of the sidewall structure and are one continuous molded piece and
not broken into pieces.” Ans. 4; see also Ans. 5 (“the sidewall support rails
can be interpreted as part of the sidewall since the plain and ordinary
meaning of sidewall is given to the term and since the support rail is part of
the sidewall region, it is interpreted to be a part of the sidewall, since a
sidewall is just a wall that serves as the side of a structure, in this case the
lacrosse head and since the sidewall rail serves as the side of the structure, it
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

8
is therefore interpreted to be part of the sidewall.”).2 Indeed, Janisse itself
alternatively refers to the support rails 14 and 16 as “sidewall 14 . . .
sidewall 16.” Janisse ¶ 110. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
the support rails of Janisse is just a specific part of the sidewall.
In addition, the support rails of Janisse are joined to the lacrosse head
to form the lacrosse head with a continuous, unbroken sidewall structure.
Janisse ¶¶ 89 (“the [molded] pocket can include . . . support rail 14, 16”); 91
(“the pocket 10 is joined with the lacrosse head 20”); see also id. at ¶ 90
(describing the pocket being “molded over by a lacrosse head to join to the
lacrosse head” or “molding the molded pocket 10 to a lacrosse head or frame
with a particular mold.”).
The Appellant argues that “even if the Examiner [was] correct that the
support rails are part of the sidewall, this does not result in the claimed . . .
average thickness . . . because Janisse only discloses a thickness for the
support rails, an alleged part of the sidewall.” Appeal Br. 13. Accordingly,
the Appellant argues that “there is no disclosure or suggestion of what the
average thickness for the whole sidewall would be, because there is no
disclosure or suggestion identifying the average thickness for the other
parts.” Appeal Br. 13. The Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s
conclusion as to the thickness of the sidewall is “conclusory” and “without
any evidentiary support or citation to the references.” Reply Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Appellant’s arguments
are essentially premised on requiring explicit disclosure stating that the
entire sidewall has the recited thickness, and does not consider what would

2 We note that Goldstein also supports this plain and ordinary interpretation
in its identification of sidewall 115. See Goldstein, Fig. 1.
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

9
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19 (2007) (“the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim” and “obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis
on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued
patents.”).
As the Examiner concludes, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have used the thickness disclosed for the support
rails, which is part of the sidewall, as the thickness for the entirety of the
sidewall. Ans. 4. Indeed, it cannot be reasonably disputed that in
implementing the lacrosse head of Goldstein, a person of ordinary skill
would have to consider what the thickness of the sidewall should be, and in
view of the thickness disclosed in Janisse with respect to a part of the
sidewall, it would make sense for one of ordinary skill in the art to have
made the thickness of the entirety of the sidewall accordingly as well.
Moreover, as the Examiner also explains, the thickness range is a
matter of determining a workable or optimal range, which is attainable by
routine experimentation. Final Act. 4–5. Indeed, as the Examiner points
out, “motivation of applying a certain thickness is to acquire the desired
flexibility and strength characteristics.” Ans. 4, citing Janise ¶ 99; see also
Ans. 5. This cited portion of Janisse discloses that the thickness can be
predetermined “depending upon the desired flexibility and/or strength
characteristics around the perimeter 15 of the molded pocket 10,” thereby
establishing that it was well-known that thickness is a variable that impacts
flexibility and strength, and that it was well-known to select the thickness
based on the desired flexibility and/or strength. See Janisse ¶ 99. In that
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

10
regard, the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable is
ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276
(CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); see also In re
Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Therefore, in view of the above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. The Appellant relies on dependency on claim 1 for
patentability of claims 2–15. Appeal Br. 14. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 2, 4, and 6–13, which are subject to this rejection, is also affirmed.

Rejection 4: Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, Velasquez, and Guibaud
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected as being unpatentable over Goldstein in
view of Boggs, Janisse, Velasquez, and Guibaud. Final Act 8. Claims 3 and
5 require at least one sacrificial weight embedded within the scoop, throat,
and/or pair of sidewalls, “the sacrificial weight being integrally embedded
with the matrix material such that the sacrificial weight orients a center of
gravity of the lacrosse head relative to the central portion of the mesh
webbing.” Appeal Br. 27, Claims App.
The Examiner finds that Velasquez teaches that “it is known to have a
weight positioned on a lacrosse head,” and that although Velasquez does not
explicitly disclose embedding the sacrificial weight, such embedding would
have been a matter of making the weights integral instead of it being
separate, which is a matter of obvious engineering choice. Final Act. 9. The
Examiner also finds that although Velasquez does not teach the weight being
embedded to orient the center of gravity, Guibaud nonetheless “teaches the
sacrificial weight being integrally embedded with the matrix material such
that the sacrificial weight orients a center of gravity (Col. 5 Lns. 51–55) of
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

11
the lacrosse head relative to the central portion of the mesh webbing.” Final
Act. 9. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the lacrosse head of
Goldstein in view of Velasquez and Guibaud “to properly orient the center
of gravity using a weight.” Final Act. 9, citing Guibaud, col. 5, ll. 51–55.
The Examiner explains that “an embedded weight or a separable weight
would provide the same function of weighting the lacrosse head in a desired
manner, and therefore would be a matter of obvious engineering choice,”
and that embedding would have “simplif[ied] the construction of the
device.” Ans. 6.
The Appellant points out that “Velasquez is directed to a strength-
training device that is temporarily attached to a lacrosse stick for training
purposes––i.e., not ‘integrally embedded,’” and that the rejection ignores
Velasquez’s teachings as a whole that disclose a removable weight, which
allows the player to use their own stick, and use different weights for
training purposes. Appeal Br. 15. The Appellant further argues that
Guibaud does not suggest integrally embedding the weight within the
lacrosse head as recited by these claims because the weights in Guibaud are
not embedded in the golf club head, but are embedded in a housing that is
removably mounted to the golf club head. Appeal Br. 18.
We find the Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Velasquez discloses a
training weight attachable to a lacrosse head using hook/loop fastening
straps, and which is removable from the lacrosse head when not being used.
See Velasquez, Abstract; Fig. 1; ¶ 2. It is not apparent why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have considered embedding such a training
weight to a lacrosse head such that it is no longer removable. In addition, as
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

12
the Appellant argues, the weight in Guibaud is embedded in a housing 13
that is removably mounted to the golf club head 1, and not within the golf
club head itself. Guibaud Abstract; Figs. 6, 11.
The Examiner responds that “the term embedded simply means that
an object is within a surrounding mass, and does not limit to the object being
non-removable.” Ans. 6. Even if this definition is correct, Guibaud is clear
that its weights are embedded in the removably mounted housing 13, and not
in the golf club head 1. The Examiner also explains that “Guibaud is not
necessarily physically combined,” and that it “discloses the concept of using
a weight to adjust a center of gravity of a sports device, and one of ordinary
skill in the art would readily recognize that this concept can be applied to
orienting a center of gravity of a lacrosse head.” Ans. 6–7. However, such
explanation is not sufficient to address the claim language, considering that
the disclosure of Velasquez discloses a non-embedded weight and Guibaud
discloses weights not embedded in the head of the golf club. In summary,
the Examiner’s reliance on Velasquez further in view of Guibaud, and the
articulated reasoning is strained and appears to be based on impermissible
hindsight.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 5. The remaining arguments of the
Appellant, relative to Velasquez (that the rejection changes the principle of
operation of Velasquez and renders it inoperable) and Guibaud (that it is not
analogous art, and does not orient the center of gravity of a lacrosse head)
are moot. Appeal Br. 16–18; Ans. 6–7; Reply Br. 9–10.

Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

13

Rejection 5: Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, and Hayden
Claim 14 depends from claim 1, and is rejected as being unpatentable
over Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, and Hayden. Final Act. 10. The
Examiner relies on Hayden for disclosing a pair of arms to conclude that
claim 14 would have been obvious. Final Act. 10–11. However, because
claim 14 fails to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, we are constrained to reverse, pro forma, this prior art
rejection because it is necessarily based on speculative assumptions as to the
scope of the claim. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962)
(holding that the Board erred in affirming a rejection of indefinite claims
because the rejection was based on speculative assumptions as to the
meaning of the claims). The Appellant’s arguments regarding the function
of Hayden’s arms and asserted lack of discontinuity are moot. Appeal Br.
21; Reply Br. 11–12.

Rejection 6: Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, and Filice
Claim 15 depends from claim 1, and is rejected as being unpatentable
over Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, and Filice. Final Act. 11. The
Examiner finds that Filice discloses the recited plurality of bores that are
filled with an elastomeric material as recited by claim 15, and concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
modified the lacrosse head of Goldstein in view of Filice “to provide
increased flexibility and resilience while retaining lateral stiffness.” Final
Act. 11, citing Filice, col. 7, l. 60–col. 8, l. 13. The Examiner explains that
“Filice discloses tendons 346 preferably made of rubber or the like
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

14
stretchable and compressible elastomeric material (Col. 6 Lns. 35-30) and
caps which fill in the void space are also made of elastomeric material (Col.
6 Lns. 52-55) and therefore, do suggest the void spaces are filled with
elastomeric material as claimed.” Ans. 7–8.
The Appellant argues that “even if recessed regions of a sidewall were
‘bores,’ . . . nothing in Filice discloses or suggests that [] recessed regions
‘are filled with an elastomeric material,’ as recited in claim 15.” Appeal Br.
23. In particular, the Appellant argues that “[t]he caps of Filice do not fill
‘recessed or depressed frame/sidewall regions 370 and 380’ but instead are
‘seated and snapped over the top of the respective recessed aft
frame/sidewall regions 370 and 380.’” Reply Br. 13, quoting Filice, col. 6,
ll. 20–21 and 65–67.
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument. The Examiner
has explained that the elastomeric tendons and elastomeric caps together fill
the void space. Accordingly, the Appellant’s argument does not adequately
address the actual rejection made. Therefore, we affirm this rejection of
claim 15.

Rejection 7: Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, Velasquez, Guibaud, and
Tucker
Independent claim 21 is rejected as being unpatentable over Goldstein
in view of Boggs, Janisse, Velasquez, Guibaud, and Tucker. Final Act. 12.
In addition to relying on these references as discussed above, the Examiner
further relies on Tucker for its teaching of “the exterior edge being coated
with a resilient material” to conclude that claim 21 would have been
obvious. Final Act. 13–14, citing Tucker, col. 4, ll. 55–60.
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

15
The Appellant relies on the limitations regarding sidewall thickness,
and at least one sacrificial weight recited in claim 21. Appeal Br. 24. The
Examiner’s application of Tucker in this rejection does not address the
deficiency of the application of Velasquez and Guibaud as discussed above
relative to Rejection 4. Therefore, we reverse this rejection of claim 21 for
reasons discussed above relative to Rejection 4.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part. More specifically,
1. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is reversed.
2. The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is affirmed.
3. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Boggs and Janisse is
affirmed.
4. The rejection of claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, Velasquez, and
Guibaud is reversed.
5. The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, and Hayden is
reversed.
6. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, and Filice is
affirmed.
7. The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Boggs, Janisse, Velasquez, Guibaud,
and Tucker is reversed.
Appeal 2019-003349
Application 15/399,662

16
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
15 112 Written
Description
15
14 112 Indefiniteness 14
1, 2, 4, 6–13 103 Goldstein, Boggs,
Janisse
1, 2, 4, 6–13
3, 5 103 Goldstein, Boggs,
Janisse, Velasquez,
Guibaud
3, 5
14 103 Goldstein, Boggs,
Janisse, Hayden
14
15 103 Goldstein, Boggs,
Janisse, Filice
15
21 103 Goldstein, Boggs,
Janisse, Velasquez,
Guibaud, Tucker
21
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 6–15 3, 5, 21

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