Ex Parte 6,735,614 et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 11, 201395000631 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 95/000,631 05/03/2011 6,735,614 S057-P11333 9591 33356 7590 09/11/2013 SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP 310 N. WESTLAKE BLVD. STE 120 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/11/2013 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) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED Third Party Requester v. SIMPLEAIR, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant ____________ Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge. Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 2 DECISION ON APPEAL Patent Owner SimpleAir, Inc., (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a)(1) the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6 and 10- 12. See App. Br. 1. 1 Third Party Requester Research In Motion Limited (hereinafter “Requester”) has not submitted any briefs to the Board in this appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 34 and 315. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arose from a request for inter partes reexamination (“Request”) filed on behalf of Requester, on May 3, 2011, of United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 (“the ’614 patent”), issued to John M. Payne, et al., on May 11, 2004, based on United States Application 09/588,515, filed June 6, 2000. Claims 1-6 and 10-12 of the ’614 patent are subject to reexamination. Claims 1-16 were issued with the ’614 patent. Claims 7-9 and 13-16 are not subject to Reexamination. See RAN 1. The Examiner chose to adopt some of the rejections of claims 1-6 and 10-12 proffered by Requester. See RAN 5-7. Our own review of the record shows that the ’614 patent was the subject of litigation, which, according to Appellant’s January 7, 2013, submission, has settled as between Appellant and Requester. See Jan. 7, 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Right of Appeal Notice mailed July 2, 2012 (“RAN”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed October 2, 2012 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 28, 2013 (“Ans.”), and Appellant’s Rebuttal Brief filed April 29, 2013 (“Reb. Br.”). Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 3 2013, Litigation Status submission (attaching April 13, 2012, Notice of Settlement in SimpleAir, Inc. v. AWS Convergence Techs., Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-289-MHS (E.D. Tex.)). THE INVENTION The invention of the ’614 patent relates to initiating contact with a user who is not currently connected to an interactive on-line communications network, such as the Internet. See ’614 patent at col. 1, ll. 17-21. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 1. A method for connecting users to a first communication network, comprising: providing an address service connected to the first communication network on which a user may register a name and an associated address on a second communication network; using the first communication network to access the address service; designating a name registered on the address service; in response to the designation of said registered name, broadcasting a message over the second communication network to the registered address associated with the selected name, said message identifying an interactive activity to be conducted over the first communication network; using a receiving device not connected to the first communication network to receive said message; and in response to the reception of said message by said receiving device, automatically generating a user prompt to alert said user of said message. Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 4 THE REJECTIONS The prior art references relied upon by Examiner include: Wolff US 5,327,486 July 5, 1994 Foladare US 6,343,115 B1 Jan. 29, 2002 (filed Feb. 13, 1996) Sharpe EP 0 212 761 A2 Mar. 4, 1987 Jonsson WO 93/16564 Aug. 19, 1993 The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sharpe and Wolff for essentially the same reasons stated on pages 35-41 of the Request. See RAN 5. The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jonsson and Foladare for essentially the same reasons stated on pages 50-60 of the Request. See RAN 6-7. The Examiner declines to adopt additional proposed rejections. See RAN 4-6. ISSUE The issue arising from the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner, which we consider herein, is whether the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 1-6 and 10-12 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jonsson and Foladare. FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 5 Jonsson FF1. Jonsson describes a technique for allowing a first user (Fig. 3, A) on a first communication network, such as a standard telephone network (Fig. 3, N1), to connect to a second user (Fig. 3, B) on network N1, using a second network, such as a paging network (Fig. 3, N5). See Jonsson, at 17:32-18:34. FF2. When user A, using network N1, wishes to establish communication with user B, user A requests that a paging central (Fig. 3, item 1) page user B. See Jonsson, 17:32-18:4; 20:11-16. The paging central 1 is connected to the first network N1. See Jonsson, Fig. 3. FF3. The paging central is also connected to the second network N5. See Jonsson, 18:6-16; Fig. 3. User B has a paging receiver connected to network N5. See Jonsson, 18:26-27; Fig. 3. The paging central then pages user B, for example on the second communication network N5, providing user B with either an alert or with a message. See Jonsson, 20:11-20; Fig. 3 (paging receiver 8 is only connected to N5). The alert can also include a reference to a place where a message is stored and a reference to the message itself (e.g., user A’s telephone number to call back, or a text message to be retrieved on a packet-switched network (Fig. 3, N3)). See Jonsson, 20:20-23. FF4. The paging central includes a database that stores information on the access points of each user, including users A and B. Users provide this information when they subscribe to the paging service. See Jonsson, 19:27-36. Thus, users may provide an address at which they may be reached on the paging network N5, the second communication network. Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 6 FF5. Jonsson discloses that user B has a receiving device, a paging receiver (Fig. 3, item 8), connected to the second communication network (paging network N5) to receive the page, with the message, from the paging central. See Jonsson, Figs. 3, 13 (item 57); 18:26-27; 35:9-11. FF6. Jonsson discloses that the “alerting service functions to produce an alerting signal which alerts the paged user B to the fact that he is being sought.” Jonsson, 20:18-20. Jonsson discloses that an alerting signal can have the form of various optical and acoustical signals. See Jonsson, 20:35- 21:13. Such optical and acoustical signals alert user B of the message. This teaches automatically generating a user prompt to alert said user of said message. FF7. According to Jonsson, a user can respond to an alert by contacting the paging central. See Jonsson, 21:36-22:5. In one embodiment, user B informs the paging central of a network over which to send the message. See Jonsson, 22:5-9. The paging central then sends the message to user B over the selected network. See Jonsson, 22:9-14. FF8. Jonsson describes another embodiment in which user A makes a call to user B, giving a mobile telephone number of user B. See Jonsson, Fig. 13; 34:1-12. The call is first routed to a paging central at a mobile telephone station, which has user B’s paging number. See Jonsson, 34:12- 17. The mobile telephone station “parks” the call from user A and the paging central sends a paging message to user B. See Jonsson, 34:34-35:11. User B is equipped with a “paging mobile” that includes both a pager and a car telephone. See Jonsson, 34:7-10. The paging apparatus in user B’s paging mobile receives the message and alerts User B’s car telephone. See Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 7 Jonsson, 35:7-11. User B’s telephone then calls the mobile telephone station, which joins the call with the parked call from user A. See Jonsson, 35:11-36:1. FF9. The telephone call from User B to the mobile telephone station is an acknowledgement of the user prompt. FF10. Joining the call from User A to User B with the call from User B to User A in response to the telephone call from User B is connecting an interactive device (User B’s mobile telephone) to the first communication network and commencing the identified interact activity (telephone call). Foladare FF11. Foladare describes a technique for connecting two parties in a voice call over the Internet. See Foladare, col. 2, ll. 2-3. A calling party initiates a call to a called party through an Internet browser. See Foladare, col. 2, ll. 46-49. A centralized service provider receives the calling party’s message and sends a paging message to the called party’s pager. See Foladare, col. 2, ll. 49-57; col. 3, ll. 10-19. The called party’s pager emits an audible alert to the called party. See Foladare, col. 3, ll. 19-24. The called party then turns on a terminal, connects to the Internet, and joins the voice call with the calling party. See Foladare, col. 3, ll. 25-33. FF12. A database at the centralized service maintains a record for each party, including the party’s pager capcode (an address of the party’s pager). See Foladare, col. 2, ll. 58-63. The information in a record for a party, including the capcode, “is addressable through . . . an associated name of the party.” Foladare, col. 2, ll. 63-65. Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 8 PRINCIPLES OF LAW “During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Academy of Science Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Claims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, in reexamination proceedings.’” In re Trans texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). ANALYSIS OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JONSSON AND FOLADARE Claims 1, 3-6, and 10-12 Adopting Requester’s analysis of Jonsson and Foladare “for essentially the same reasons as given in the Request,” the Examiner concludes that “Jonsson’s paging scheme, when considered in view of Foladare’s naming services, render the claimed invention obvious.” RAN 6- 7 (incorporating Request 50-60). Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 9 Appellant contends that, by “essentially” adopting the analysis in the Request, the Examiner has failed to specifically identify the arguments from the Request on which the Examiner relies, and the extent to which the Examiner agrees with those arguments. See App. Br. 10. Appellant also argues that the Examiner has provided no analysis or explanation for why a skilled artisan would have combined Jonsson and Foladare or how that combination would have yielded the invention of claim 1. See App. Br. 11. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner incorporates by reference the detailed reasons for rejecting claim 1 stated in pages 50-55 of the Request, see RAN 6-7, and specifically “agree[s] with the requester that Jonsson’s mechanism for allowing users to register, when modified in view of Foladare’s teachings, yield the claimed address service,” see RAN 10. The Request’s reasons for combining Jonsson and Foladare include that the combination would have yielded a predictable result of enabling addressability of subscriber information by name and would have made a caller’s designation of a subscriber easier and more accurate. See Request 51. Appellant does not persuasively explain why the adopted detailed reasons are insufficient to show obviousness. Moreover, we disagree that the Examiner’s incorporation of the Request’s analysis lacks specificity. As the Examiner explains, Jonsson discloses an address service in which users are registered, although it is not explicitly stated that they register by name; Foladare cures this deficiency by disclosing that users are organized into a database that is addressable by the party’s name. The combined registration process therefore would have a registration by name, as claimed. Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 10 Ans. 9. This explanation, combined with the analysis at page 51 of the Request, provides the Examiner’s reasonable application of the references with a rational underpinning. Appellant also argues that, because Foladare teaches the use of paging mechanisms, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Jonsson for a disclosure of a paging scheme to substitute for Foladare’s paging scheme. See App. Br. 11. However, “a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements”; rather, “the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332- 33 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Examiner does not propose exchanging Foladare’s paging scheme for Jonsson’s. Rather, by incorporating the Request’s reasoning, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to improve Jonsson’s ability to address called parties by incorporating Foladare’s teaching of addressing subscribers by name. See Request 51. Appellant does not persuasively explain why this analysis lacks rational underpinning. We conclude that the combination of Jonsson and Foladare, for the reasons stated in the Request and by the Examiner, would have involved the use of known components for their intended purposes, yielding no more than predictable results. Appellant also contends that neither Jonsson nor Foladare discloses an “address service . . . on which a user may register a name . . . .” See App. Br. 11-14. Appellant first argues that Jonsson does not teach a user registering a name on an address service. See App. Br. 11. However, the Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 11 Examiner does not cite Jonsson for this teaching. Rather, the Examiner finds that Jonsson teaches a user registering an address on an address service and that Foladare teaches organizing users into a database that is addressable using a name, and concludes that it would have been obvious to use Foladare’s names with Jonsson’s designations. See Ans. 9. Appellant does not persuasively explain why these findings and conclusions are erroneous. Appellant next contends that Jonsson does not teach a mechanism for allowing users to register information, whether that information is a name or an address, and that the Request did not identify a mechanism. See App. Br. 11. In response, the Examiner states that Jonsson is relied upon for the registration mechanism in the address service. See Ans. 10. In the RAN, the Examiner also identified Jonsson as providing the mechanism. See RAN 10. The Request, at pages 50-51, which the Examiner adopts, provides detailed analysis identifying a mechanism in Jonsson for allowing users to register an address. We note also that claim 1, a method claim, does not recite a “mechanism” for allowing users to register information. Rather, claim 1 recites “providing an address service,” with one of the characteristics of the address service being “on which a user may register a name and an associated address . . . .” Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Appellant also contends that Foladare does not teach a mechanism for registering a name. See App. Br. 12-13; see also Reb. Br. 7-8. As explained above, claim 1 does not recite such a mechanism. In any case, the Examiner relies on Jonsson to show a registration mechanism in an address service. See Ans. 9. Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 12 Appellant argues that the Examiner, by withdrawing an anticipation rejection based on Foladare, concedes that Foladare does not teach registered names. See App. Br. 12-13. However, the Examiner merely finds that Foladare does not teach a mechanism for registration by a user. See RAN 8. The Examiner still finds that Foladare teaches an address service that links names and addresses, which is all that the Examiner cites Foladare for in the rejection of claim 1 over Jonsson and Foladare. See id. In the Rebuttal Brief, Appellant argues that, in the mid-1990s, a user of a system such as Jonsson’s would have registered information through human agents rather than automatically through software agents. See Reb. Br. 5-7. Thus, Appellant argues, “one of ordinary skill in the art would see Jonsson’s human-based system and understand that employees of the alerting service enter subscriber data into the database - not the users.” Reb. Br. 7. However, claim 1 broadly recites “providing an address service connected to the first communication network” without limiting the address service to software agents or any other particular manner in which a user may register a name. In particular, claim 1 does not restrict such registering to automatic software agents to the exclusion of human agents who collect information from a user and enter it into a database. Jonsson discloses the broadly claimed address service on the first network on which a user may register an associated address on a second network. See FF1-FF4. Appellant also contends that Jonsson and Foladare do not teach “providing an address service connected to the first communication network on which a user may register a name and an associated address on a second communication network.” See App. Br. 13-14. Appellant contends that it Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 13 explained the requirements of this claim element, and how it differed from Jonsson and Foladare, in a February 14, 2012, Patent Owner’s Comments After Action Closing Prosecution (“PO Comments”) at pages 6-11 and 41- 42. See App. Br. 13. However, according to 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(vii), “[a]ny arguments or authorities not included in the brief permitted under this section or §§ 41.68 and 41.71 will be refused consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown.” 2 We do not consider the arguments that Appellant seeks to incorporate by reference. Appellant argues that the Examiner does not contend that either Jonsson or Foladare individually discloses the claimed address service. See App. Br. 14-15. According to Appellant, neither reference requires user registration or the use of names, and the combination of the two would not convert those systems into an address service on which a user may register a name. See App. Br. 15. However, the Examiner finds that Jonsson teaches user registration and Foladare teaches the use of names. See Ans. 9; Request, 50-51. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Jonsson’s disclosure of a paging central that accesses a database with the address of a user on a second communication network and pages the user, see FF1-FF3, is a teaching of an address service connected to the first communication 2 Throughout its 16 page Appeal Brief, Appellant refers to approximately 25 pages from the PO Comments. See App. Br. 6, 8-9, 12-15. According to 37 C.F.R. 1.943(c), “Appellant’s briefs filed by the patent owner and the third party requester shall not exceed thirty pages or 14,000 words in length, excluding appendices of claims and reference materials such as prior art references.” If Appellant were permitted to incorporate 25 pages of material into its 16 page brief, the result would significantly exceed the page limit provided by the Rules. Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 14 network. Jonsson’s disclosure that a user may subscribe to the paging service, and that address information is obtained when the user subscribes, see FF4, is a teaching of a user registering an associated address on a second communication network. Foladare teaches an address service on a first communication network (the Internet) in which a name is used to address, in a database, information, such as a pager number (an associated address of a user on a second communication network). See FF11-FF12. For the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 9) and the Request (at pages 50-51), we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined those teachings. Appellant also contends that Jonsson and Foladare do not teach “designating a name registered on the address service,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 14. Appellant argues that the RAN does not respond to arguments presented in the PO Comments, at pages 13-14 and 42, and that the Examiner does not dispute that Jonsson and Foladare do not teach this claim element. See App. Br. 14. Appellant then argues that the Examiner has not shown or argued that this element would have been obvious to add to Jonsson and Foladare. See id. The Examiner responds that “the using of Foladare’s names with Jonsson’s designations, as pointed to in the grounds of rejection, render that limitation obvious.” Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner does dispute Appellant’s arguments. In rebuttal, Appellant argues that Foladare discloses sending messages using pager numbers rather than names. See Reb. Br. 8. Appellant also argues that, viewing Jonsson and Foladare in historical perspective, it would not have been obvious to provide a service on which users could register a Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 15 name that could be used to contact the user using another piece of information, such as an address on another network. See Reb. Br. 9. Appellant cites no evidence, other than Jonsson and Foladare, for this point. We agree with the Examiner. Jonsson teaches designating a user to be contacted, although it does not explicitly state whether the user is designated by name or by pager number. See FF2-FF3. The paging service uses this information, registered in an address service, to contact the user. See FF4. Thus, Jonsson teaches designating information identifying a user registered on an address service. Foladare teaches that information in an address service, such as a pager number, can be addressed using a name. See FF11- FF12. Combining the teachings of Jonsson and Foladare, designating a name on an address service to address a pager number, rather than designating a pager number directly, would have been a predictable, and thus obvious, use of prior art techniques for their intended purposes. We note that Foladare also states that, “[a]s an alternative to providing the URL address of the called party, the calling party upon being connected to service provider 115 may only need to provide an alphabetical name or alias of the calling party.” See Foladare, col. 3, ll. 34-37. Appellant argues that this passage is ambiguous because of typographical errors. See Reb. Br. 8-9. The Examiner considered the passage ambiguous enough to withdraw an anticipation rejection over Foladare. See RAN 8. In context, however, it is clear that Foladare is teaching designating a name of a party to be contacted, which the address service uses to look up a URL address in a database (i.e., the second “calling party” should read “called party”). For example, Foladare explains that “[t]he calling party . . . chooses from [a] Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 16 provided list, the particular party with which he wishes to communicate by clicking on the selected name.” Foladare, col. 3, ll. 44-46. Nevertheless, the rejection is sustainable upon the reasons stated by the Examiner. Appellant further contends that Jonsson and Foladare do not teach “generating a user prompt.” See App. Br. 14-15. Appellant argues that the RAN does not respond to arguments presented in the PO Comments, at pages 21 and 42-43, and that the Examiner does not dispute that Jonsson and Foladare do not teach this claim element. See App. Br. 14. Appellant then argues that the Examiner has not shown or argued that this element would have been obvious to add to Jonsson and Foladare. See App. Br. 14-15. The Examiner responds that the grounds of rejection (which incorporate the Request), show how Jonsson and Foladare teach this element. See Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner does dispute Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the analysis adopted by the Examiner. See FF3, FF5-FF8. Appellant’s Appeal Brief does not persuasively explain why this analysis is erroneous. Again, we do not consider any additional arguments that Appellant attempts to incorporate but which are not actually contained in Appellant’s Briefs. In sum, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 would have been obvious over Jonsson and Foladare. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in adopting the proposed rejection of claim 1 and claims 3-6 and 10-12, which depend on claim 1 and are not argued separately with particularity. Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 17 Claim 2 Appellant contends that Jonsson and Foladare do not teach “in response to an acknowledgement of said user prompt, connecting an interactive device to the first communication network and commencing the identified interactive activity,” as recited in claim 2. See App. Br. 15. Appellant argues that the recited “connecting” is performed in response to a user’s acknowledgement, and that this requirement is not found in Jonsson or Foladare. See id. Appellant argues that the RAN does not respond to arguments presented in the PO Comments, at pages 22-24 and 43-44, and that the Examiner does not dispute that Jonsson and Foladare do not teach this claim element. See App. Br. 15. The Examiner responds that the grounds of rejection (which incorporate the Request), show how Jonsson and Foladare teach this element. See Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner does dispute Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the analysis adopted by the Examiner. See FF8-FF10. Appellant does not persuasively explain why this analysis is erroneous. As above, we do not consider any additional arguments that Appellant attempts to incorporate but which are not actually contained in Appellant’s Briefs. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in adopting the proposed rejection of claim 2. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHARPE AND WOLFF Because we agree with the Examiner that claims 1-5 are obvious over Jonsson and Foladare, it is unnecessary to reach the propriety of the cumulative rejection involving Sharpe and Wolff. Cf. In re Gleave, 560 Appeal 2013-008777 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,631 United States Patent 6,735,614 B1 18 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching obviousness after finding anticipation). DECISION The rejection of claims 1-6 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained. The Examiner’s decision that claims 1-6 and 10-12 are obvious is therefore affirmed. Requests for extensions of time in this proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.956 and 41.79(e). AFFIRMED cc: PATENT OWNER: Mark A. Goldstein SoCal IP Law Group LLP 310 N. Westlake Blvd. Ste 120 Westlake Village, CA 91362 THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Oblon, Spivak, Mcclelland Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation