Ex Parte 6374180 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201690013187 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 90/013, 187 04/03/2014 118756 7590 Han Santos Reich, PLLC 1411 4th Ave, Suite 760 Seattle, WA 98101-2231 02/29/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 6374180 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. BN.RE0002US2 8313 EXAMINER SAGER, MARK ALAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2016 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) lJ1..JITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADE~vfARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BEACON NA VIA TI ON GMBH, Appellant, Patent Owner. Appeal2016-000297 Ex parte Reexamination Control 90/013, 187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl Technology Center 3900 Before ERIC B. CHEN, ANDREW J. DILLON, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF CASE Beacon Navigation Gmbh ("Patent Owner") appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,374,180 Bl (the "' 180 patent"). 1 App. Br. 1. 1 We note that the rejection of claims 7 and 8 is the only rejection pending in this appeal. Additionally, we note that claim 1 was cancelled in inter partes reexamination proceeding No. 95/001,852. Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl This reexamination proceeding arose from a third-party request for ex parte reexamination, filed by Timothy J. My on April 3, 2014, of the '180 patent, which issued to Anthony A. Slominski, et al. on April 16, 2002. We have been informed that the '180 patent is the subject of eighteen district court proceedings, all in the Eastern District of Michigan. See App. Br. 3. Additionally, the '180 patent was the subject of inter partes reexamination no. 951001,852. An oral hearing was conducted on February 17, 2016. The transcript of the oral hearing will be made of record in due course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134(b) and 306. We affirm. II. THE '180 PATENT The '180 patent generally relates to "a navigation system that enables a user to search for points of interest across categories." '180 patent, Abstract. Claims 1, 7, and 8 are illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A method of finding a desired destination in a navigation system comprising the steps of: a) entering a character string of a desired destination into the navigation system; b) searching points of interest in a database for the character string; c) sensing vehicle travel information; d) organizing a hit list including the points of interest containing the character string with reference to the vehicle travel information; and e) displaying the hit list. 7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the desired destination is represented by a name, and step b) includes searching for the character string anywhere in the name. 2 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl 8. The method according to claim 1, wherein step c) occurs at predetermined intervals for sensing new vehicle travel information, and the method further includes the steps of: t) updating the hit list including the points of interest containing the character string with reference to the new vehicle travel information; and g) displaying an updated hit list. App. Br., Claims App'x. III. REJECTIONS A. Evidence Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Park Mikkola us 5,627,549 US 6,529,143 B2 May 6, 1997 Mar. 4, 2003 Donald Knuth et al., Fast Pattern Matching in Strings, Siam J. Comput., Vol. 6, No. 2, June 1977. (hereinafter "Fast Pattern") Carin TivI Navigation System, Carin 5221520 User Guide, November 1998. (hereinafter "CARiN"). Garmin®, StreetPilot™ GPS, Owner's Manual and References Guide, June 2000 (hereinafter "Garmin"). B. The Adopted Rejections The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Garmin. 2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garmin and Fast Pattern. 3 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl 3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garmin and Mikkola. 4. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garmin and Park. 5. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by CARiN. 6. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over CARiN and Fast Pattern. 7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over CARiN and Mikkola. IV. ISSUES ON APPEAL We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Patent Owner, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "Any arguments or authorities not included in the briefs permitted under this section or [37 C.F.R.] §§ 41.68 and 41.71 will be refused consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown." 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(l)(vii). are: Based on the contested findings and conclusions, the main issues on appeal ( 1) Did the Examiner err in construing ( 1) entering a character string, (2) represented by a name, and (3) updating the hit list? (2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 7 as anticipated by Garman and unpatentable over Garmin and Fast Pattern? 4 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl (3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 8 as anticipated by Garman and unpatentable over Garmin and Mikkola? V. ANALYSIS Claim Construction During reexamination of a patent, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction "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) (internal citations and quotations omitted). "entering a character string" Patent Owner contends that the recited "entering a character string" requires character by character entry. App. Br. 9. Namely, Patent Owner asserts that "the very phrase 'entering a character string' means that the characters are entered one by one." App. Br. 11. According to Patent Owner, the recited "entering" cannot be "selecting," such as selecting a predefined character string from the list. App. Br. 11. We find this argument unpersuasive. Claim 1 broadly recites "entering a character string" without limiting how the character string is entered. 2 See RAN 25-26. Patent Owner's argument also fails to consider that selecting a predefined character string is merely a way of identifying a character string to enter. In other words, after the user selects a predefined character string, the character string is entered into the navigation system. It is this "entering" of the predefined character 2 We note that "enter" is defined as "1. to come or go into; introduce; insert. 2. to penetrate: pierce. 3. to introduce: insert." Webster's II New College Dictionary 375 (1994). 5 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl string that satisfies the recited limitation, not the selection. Nothing in the claim language precludes this manner of entering a character string. See RAN 16-27. Patent Owner argues that the Examiner's interpretation, which does not require character by character entry, ignores the "specification's definition on what 'entering a character string' is .... " App. Br. 9. Support for Patent Owner's contention, however, is notably absent. In particular, Patent Owner points to Figure 3 and the disclosure at column 3, lines 41--4 7, which describes that a user selects characters by using an eight-way button and enter key to build a search string that represents a portion of the name of the point of interest or desired destination. App. Br. 10. While the Specification includes this exemplary embodiment, where the character string is entered character by character, this disclosure does not limit the broad language of claim 1. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm 't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must clearly express an intent to redefine the term." (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.") According to Patent Owner, the limitations of claim 7, namely searching for the character string anywhere in the name, also support the interpretation that 6 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl entering a character string must be entered character by character. App. Br. 13-15. Specifically, Patent Owner argues: The plain language of this element in the claim as supported by the '180 Patent specification requires that the step of "entering a character string" in claim 1, when read together with claim 7's additional step of "searching for the character string anywhere in the name," means "entering a character string character by character." To read claim 7 otherwise, i.e., to interpret entering a "character string" to include, for example, a selection of an entire name from a drop down list as proposed by the Examiner, would result in "searching for the entire name anywhere in the name"-which makes no sense and improperly renders the further elements of claim 7 meaningless. App. Br. 14. We disagree. In particular, the plain language of claim 7, like claim 1, does not limit how the character string is entered, but instead addresses searching for a character string anywhere in a name. See RAN 29. Moreover, we note that an underlying premise to Patent Owner's argument is that a predefined character string must be "an entire name," compared to a character by character entered character string that would be a partial or truncated name. This premise, though, is wholly unsupported. Neither the claims nor the Specification limit the character string to only partial or truncated names. Patent Owner also fails to provide any persuasive explanation or reasoning for this argument. 3 As such, because neither the claims nor the Specification limit the manner in which the character string must be entered, we agree with the Examiner that 3 Furthermore, we note that under Patent Owner's reasoning, claim 1 's character string then must also exclude full name character strings that are entered character by character. Neither claim 1 nor the Specification provide support for this interpretation. 7 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl entering a character string does not require the characters to be entered character by character.4 "represented by a name" Next, Patent Owner contends that a desired destination represented by a name, cannot include a road. App. Br. 11-13. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the ' 180 patent distinguishes destinations from roads. A "desired destination" may be, for example, "destinations, such as addresses, hotels, restaurants, or previously stored locations:" Col. 2, 11. 4 7--48. While a road may be included in the database to be searched, it is not a "desired destination" "represented by a name." Indeed, the '180 patent specification differentiates between roads and destinations explaining that "a database 36 including a map of all the roads in the area to be traveled by the vehicle 21 as well as locations of potential destinations, such as addresses, hotels, restaurants, or previously stored locations." Col. 2, 11. 46--49. App. Br. 12. According to Patent Owner, a road is instead, "[a] means of arriving at the destination." Reply Br. 5. We find Patent Owner's arguments unpersuasive. The plain language of the claim does not preclude the use of a road as a desired destination represented by a name. Nor does the Specification's description that the database includes roads as well as potential destinations suggest that a road cannot be a desired destination represented by a name. For example, an intersection is a particular destination represented by the name of two intersecting roads. See, e.g., Ans. 6-7. Moreover, as Patent Owner admits, a road is at least a component of an address, i.e. destination. See App. Br. 18 (discussing Garmin and identifying that a street base name is a sub-component of an address). The '180 patent explains 4 Furthermore, as discussed below, even if Patent Owner's narrow interpretation is adopted both Garmin and CARiN disclose this limitation. 8 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl that "a search string [] that represents a portion of the name of the point of interest or desired destination." '180 patent, col. 3, 11. 43--46 (emphasis added); see also col. 3, 11. 46--47 (noting that the user may enter a portion of the name or the entire name). The '180 patent, thus, expressly contemplates searching for desired destinations represented by a name by searching for a part or component of name, such as a road name. As such, because neither the claims nor the Specification limit the recited name limitation to preclude a road name, we agree with the Examiner that a desired destination represented by a name may be a road name. 5 "updating a hit list" Finally, Patent Owner argues that updating the hit list, as recited in claim 8, cannot include a new search, but is limited to refining the current search list. App. Br. 15-16. Specifically, Patent Owner alleges that: [C]laim 8 clearly requires "updating" the existing hit list referred to in claim 1, steps d) and e ), only \vi th respect to the "nev/' vehicle travel information. The plain meaning of "updating" means adding new information or making corrections - not performing an entirely new search. The use of the word "updating" indicates that the hit list already exists and is not newly created with reference to new vehicle travel information." App. Br. 15. Patent Owner additionally asserts that the '180 patent specification supports this interpretation. App. Br. 16. This argument lacks merit. Contrary to Patent Owners assertion, "updating" is defined as "to bring up to date." Webster's II New College Dictionary 1212 5 Furthermore, as discussed below, even if Patent Owner's narrow interpretation is adopted Garmin discloses this limitation, namely Garmin discloses desired destinations represented by a name, including cities, addresses, intersections, etc. See, e.g., Ans. 6-7. 9 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl (1995). As such, "updating" does not require refining an already existing list, but more broadly includes any way to bring the hit list up to date, including for example, performing a new search based on the new vehicle information. Patent Owner's reliance on the '180 patent specification, here, is similarly misplaced. The '180 patent does not define "updating" to be limited to refining an already existing hit list. Instead, the '180 patent simply states that the hit list may be refined. See, e.g., '180 patent, col. 4, 11. 12-14. A skilled artisan would not consider this disclosure to narrow the broad language of the claim. See also Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 ("It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must clearly express an intent to redefine the term." (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, we note the '180 patent expressly states that the invention has been described in an illustrative manner and that "terminology that has been used is intended to be in the nature of words of description rather than of limitation." '180 patent, col. 4, 11. 33-3 7. As such, we agree with the Examiner that updating the hit list does not preclude performing a new search. Rejection of Claim 7 based on Garmin Alone and in Combination with Fast Pattern Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 as anticipated by Garmin and unpatentable over Garmin and Fast Pattern. Patent Owner contends that Garmin fails to disclose that the desired destination is represented by a name and searching for the character string anywhere in the name. App. Br. 18. According to Patent Owner, Garmin's 10 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl searching for a street base name is only a sub-component of an address and, thus, not a desired destination represented by a name. App. Br. 18-19. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Not even Garmin itself discloses that a street 'base name', by itself, is a desired destination that might be "represented by a name." But Garmin does disclose that complete "addresses" are desired destinations, and that a street 'base name' is just one sub-component of an "address" which has multiple parts. Garmin, page 48. For example, Garmin's discloses a "Find Address" search feature requiring a user to enter a "Number" and a "Street" ("City" and "Zip" text fields are noted as optional) .... App. Br. 19. Patent Owner also maintains that Garmin only searches for the character string at the beginning of a name, not anywhere in the name. App. Br. 19-20. First, we note that a street base name is not the only desired destination represented by a name searched for by Garmin, but is merely an example provided by the Examiner. Notably; Garmin also performs searches for cities; addresses; locations, intersections, etc. See e.g., RAN 6-8; RAN 32-33. As such, even if a street base name is not a "name" as required by claim 7, Garmin still discloses the recited limitations. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that Garmin' s street base name is outside the scope claim 7' s name. First, as discussed above, claim 7 does not require the "name" to be the entire name. 6 Specifically, the '180 patent explains that "a search 6 Patent Owner's argument that a subcomponent of an address, i.e. destination, cannot satisfy the recited name limitation is inconsistent with Patent Owner's argument regarding how searching anywhere in the name requires character by character entry. See App. Br. 14 (" ... to interpret entering a 'character string' to include, for example, a selection of an entire name from a drop down list as 11 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl string [] that represents a portion of the name of the point of interest or desired destination." '180 patent, col. 3, 11. 43--46 (emphasis added); see also col. 3, 11. 46- 47 (noting that the user may enter a portion of the name or the entire name). As Patent Owner admits, Garmin' s street base name is at least a "sub- component" of an address and as such may be part of a desired destination name. See App. Br. 19 ("Garmin does disclose that complete 'addresses' are desired destinations, and that a street 'base name' is just one sub-component of an 'address' which has multiple parts. Garmin, page 48."). Moreover, Patent Owner fails to persuade us that a street base name is not a destination represented by a name. For example, an intersection is a particular destination represented by the name of two intersecting streets. Patent Owner, thus, fails to persuasively argue that a street base name cannot be the recited desired destination represented by a name.7 Patent Owner's contention that Garmin fails to search anywhere in the name is similarly unavailing. Garmin expressly discloses that "Streets are searched accordingtotheir"basenames". For example, 'Hwy 10', 'I-10', 'SW 10th St', and 'Co Rd 10' would all be found by entering 10." Garmin, p. 49; see also Ans. 34. As such, Garmin discloses the recited searching "anywhere in the name." While proposed by the Examiner, would result in "searching for the entire name anywhere in the name "-which makes no sense and improperly renders the further elements of claim 7 meaningless.")( emphasis added). In other words, according to Patent Owner, the entered character string cannot be an entire name because it would not make sense to search for an entire name anywhere in the name. 7 We additionally note that neither the claims nor Specification identify a patentable distinction between searching for a character string for a desired destination that represents a name as opposed to a character string for a desired destination that does not represent a name. 12 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl this example applies specifically to street base names, a skilled artisan would recognize this exemplary teaching to equally apply to other searches, such as city and intersection searches. As such, even if a base street name is not considered to be the claimed name, Garmin still discloses the limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, the Examiner points out that searching "anywhere in the name" does not require searching everywhere in the name. Ans. 33-34. In other words, because Garmin searches for the character string at the beginning of the name, this satisfies the claimed limitation. We are not persuaded of error in these findings. With respect to the combination of Garmin and Fast Pattern, the Examiner additionally relies on Fast Pattern for teaching searching anywhere in the name. See Ans. 35-38. Patent Owner does not challenge Fast Pattern's teaching of searching for a character string anywhere in the name, but instead argues that "[t]he proposed combination of Garmin and Fast Pattern provides no guidance as to how Fast Pattern's base algorithm might be adapted and implemented as part of a navigation system, or how this might be done to produce a hit list including complete names based on only the identification of shared short character strings." App. Br. 20. However, "[t]he 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." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As the Examiner explains, "since both Garmin and Fast Pattern Matching in Strings both regard a technique/method involving character" it would have been obvious at the time of the invention "to modify Garmin to include searching for the character string 'anywhere in the name"', as taught by Fast 13 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl Pattern, to provide an improved search method. Ans. 9; see also Ans. 9 (discussing alternative reasoning to support the combination of Garmin and Fast Pattern). Patent Owner also contends that the Examiner erred in combining Garmin with Fast Pattern. App. Br 20-21. Notably absent, however, is any persuasive explanation as to why this combination is in error. Instead, Patent Owner makes generic assertions, such as for example, contending that a skilled artisan would have no reasonable expectation of success. To the contrary, as discussed above, Garmin already teaches a navigational search system that searches for character strings at least at the beginning of destination names. Fast Pattern simply provides the incentive to search not only the beginning, but any portion of the name. We agree with the Examiner, then, that "it would have been obvious to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of searching a database for a desired location for an entered character string including 'anywhere in the name'." Ans. 40. Accordingly, based on the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of clam 7 as anticipated by Garmin and unpatentable over Garmin and Fast Pattern. Rejection of Claim 8 based on Garmin Alone and in Combination with Mikkola Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's rejections of claim 8 as anticipated by Garmin and unpatentable over Garmin and Mikkola. 14 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl Patent Owner argues that Garmin fails to disclose the recited updating the hit list. App. Br. 23-25. 8 In particular, Patent Owner maintains that claim 8 relates to "updating previously searched points of interest with new vehicle information, not performing a new points of interest search or providing new points of interest information." App. Br 25. As discussed above, we find this argument unpersuasive. As the Examiner explains, Garmin describes that "the hit list is updated periodically for the new vehicle location by re-searching the character string of desired destination for the new position to display desired destinations to user as they travel." Ans. 10, 41 (citing Garmin pp. 41, 42, 45-53). As such, Garmin discloses updating the hit list, as required by claim 8. With respect to claim 8, Patent Owner presents similar arguments as addressed above regarding updating the hit list. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that "Mikkola newly searches the relevant points of interest data and new points of interest data is displayed" and thus Mikkola fails to teach the updating limitation of claim 8. App. Br. 25-26 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 11 (providing cites to Mikkola for the disputed limitation). For the reasons discussed above, we find this argument unavailing. Patent Owner also argues that the combination of Garmin and Mikkola would render Mikkola inoperable for its intended purpose. In particular, A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Patentee's invention would have readily appreciated and understood that adapting Mikkola's generalized search pre-settings to accommodate the specific partial identification "target name" search of Garmin would 8 We note that Patent Owner presents arguments regarding Mikkola's failure to teach the limitations of claim 7. Claim 7, though, does not appear to be rejected based either on Mikkola alone or in combination with additional prior art. See, e.g., Ans. 2-9; 15-20. 15 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl render Mikkola's unidentified POI's push system inoperable for its intended purpose. This is because adapting Mikkola's pre-set user search criteria to search based on Garmin's name entry would limit Mikkola's POI's search to recover only known (or partially specifically identified) and would be expected to result in pushing irrelevant POis to the user. App. Br. 25. We find this argument unpersuasive. The Examiner merely relies on Mikkola for teaching, at predetermined time intervals, updating the hit list with reference to new vehicle invention and displaying the updated hit list. Ans. 11. As the Examiner explains, Garmin and Mikkola both are directed to navigation systems that performs a method for searching. Ans. 11. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify Garmin's search method to update the hit list at predetermined intervals based on new vehicle information, as taught by Mikkola, given the well-known advantage that current or the most recent information would be most useful to the user. Ans. 11-12; see also Ans. 11-12 (outlining additional support for the combination of Garmin and Mikkola). Moreover, even if Patent Owner's blanket, unsupported assertions are correct, a limited search scope does not render Mikkola inoperable. See Ans. 42. As such, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the time to combine Garmin and Mikkola to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above and identified by the Examiner, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claim 8 as anticipated by Garmin and unpatentable over Garmin and Mikkola. 16 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl Remaining Rejections Because our decision is dispositive regarding patentability of all appealed claims based on the foregoing prior art references, we need not reach the merits of the Examiner's decision to reject the claims based on the additionally cited combinations of prior art. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching other rejections after upholding an anticipation rejection); see also Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (approving ITC's determination based on a single dispositive issue, and not reaching other issues not decided by the lower tribunal). VI. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 7 and 8. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 17 Appeal2016-000297 Control 90/013,187 Patent 6,374,180 Bl FOR PATENT OWNER: Timothy J. May FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HAN SANTOS REICH, PLLC 1411 4TH Ave, Suite 760 Seattle WA 98101-2231 18 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation