Ex Parte Avery et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 16, 2012

11093487 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC.
__________

Appeal 2010-007176
Application 11/093,487
Technology Center 3700
___________

Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and SALLY C.
MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 12-14, 16, 17, and 22-24. The real party in interest is Warsaw
Orthopedic, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Applied Prior Art
Combs Pat. 0,143,669 Oct. 14, 1873
Richelsoph Pat. 6,328,740 Dec. 11, 2001
Krag Pat. 4,987,892 Jan. 29, 1991
Taylor Pat. 5,653,707 Aug. 5, 1997
Appeal No. 2010-007176
Application 11/093,487

2

The Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 12, 16, and 17 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Combs, and Richelsoph.
2. Claims 13 and 14 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Combs, Richelsoph, and Taylor.
3. Claims 22-24 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Combs, Krag, and Richelsoph.
The Invention
The invention is about a spinal implant claimed as a spinal rod
connection system. The specification explains that elongated rigid plates,
rods and other external stabilization devices are helpful in the stabilization
and fixation of a spinal motion segment in correcting abnormal curvatures
and alignments of the spinal column and for treatment of other conditions.
(Spec. 1:11-15). The specification states that in spinal rod fixation
procedures of the prior art, the surgeon frequently had to bend the rod to
match the patient’s spine and that bending the rod induces stress to the rod
and decreases the fatigue strength of the material. (Spec. 1:16-18). The
specification also states that a long, one-piece rod was difficult to bend and
maneuver into position within the patient. (Spec. 1:21-23).
The independent claims are claims 12 and 22, each of which recites a
first rod, a second rod, and a coupling mechanism which positions the two
rods in an end-to-end fashion. The coupling mechanism of claim 12
includes first and second bodies which are moveably connected together
with a fastener. The coupling mechanism of claim 22 includes an
articulating connector having a first end including a first coupling body and
Appeal No. 2010-007176
Application 11/093,487

3

an opposing second end including a second coupling body. Both claims 12
and 22 specify that the angle between the longitudinal axis of each of the
first and second rods can be temporarily varied and thereafter fixed so that
the coupling mechanism axially and torsionally constrains the first and
second rods relative to one another.
Claim 12 is reproduced below:
12. A spinal rod connection system, comprising:

a first elongated rod for attachment to the spinal column
extending along a longitudinal axis between a first end and an
opposite second end, said first rod including a first
characteristic and a first coupling member at said first end;

a second elongated rod for attachment to the skull
extending along a longitudinal axis between a first end and an
opposite second end, said second rod including a second
characteristic and a second coupling member at said first end;
and

a coupling mechanism that positions the elongated rods
in an end-to-end fashion with the longitudinal axes of the rods
intersecting, the coupling mechanism including first and second
bodies with substantially the same shape and configuration and
that are moveably connected together with a fastener, each of
the first and second bodies including a first section with a
first bore to receive an end of one of the first and second
elongated rods and a single second section with a second
bore to receive the fastener, the second sections positioned at
an offset from the first sections such that the second section of
the first body is offset from the longitudinal axis of the first
elongated rod and the second section of the second body is
offset from the longitudinal axis of the second elongated rod,
the first body further including a first locking bore in
communication with the first bore and the second body
including a second locking bore in communication with the
second bore;
App
App

cente
first
an en
secti

illus
conn
eal No. 20
lication 11

a
locking b

a
second l
end;

w
of said f
thereafte
torsional
another.

The bold
red in this
and secon
d of one o
on” (with
Figure 7
trates an ex
ection sys
10-007176
/093,487
first lockin
ore to cap
second loc
ocking bor
herein an a
irst and se
r fixed so
ly constra
(Emphasi
ed text hig
appeal w
d bodies in
f the first
a second b
of Appell
ploded vi
tem:

g mechan
ture the fi
king mech
e to captu
ngle betw
cond rods
that said c
ins said fir
s added.)
hlights th
ith respect
cludes “a
and secon
ore to rece
ant’s speci
ew of an e
4
ism sized t
rst rod to t
anism size
re the seco
een said lo
can be tem
oupling m
st and sec
e feature a
to claim 1
first sectio
d elongate
ive the fas
fication is
mbodimen
o mount w
he first en
d to moun
nd rod to
ngitudina
porarily v
echanism
ond rods r
bout whic
2. It recit
n” (with a
d rods) an
tener).
reproduce
t of Appe
ithin the f
d;
t within th
the second
l axis of ea
aried and
axially and
elative to o
h the main
es that eac
first bore
d “a single
d below, w
llant’s spin
irst
e

ch

ne
dispute is
h of the
to receive
second
hich
al rod

Appeal No. 2010-007176
Application 11/093,487

5

DISCUSSION
A. Combs Is Not Nonanalogous Art
We address first Appellant’s argument that Combs cannot properly be
relied on in a rejection of any of Appellant’s claims because it is
nonanalogous art. The determination that a reference is from an
nonanalogous art is a two-fold analysis. If the reference is within the field of
the inventor’s endeavor, then it is not nonanalogous art, and if the reference
is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
involved, it is also not nonanalogous art. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 559 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). Stated
another way, a reference is analogous art if it is either in the field of the
applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor was concerned. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987
(Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We agree with Appellant that Combs’s disclosure is not within the
same field of endeavor as that of Appellant’s invention. Combs is directed
to an improved carriage-top joint assembly. Appellant’s invention is
directed to a spinal implant for use within a patient. Appellant further
asserts that Combs’s disclosure is not reasonably pertinent to the problem
with which Appellant’s inventors were concerned. For reasons discussed
below, the argument is unpersuasive.
The problem with which Appellant’s inventors were concerned about
- pre-existing spinal implants - is discussed in the BACKGROUND portion
of Appellant’s disclosure (Spec 1:16-24):
In spinal rod fixation procedures extending to the base of
the skull, the surgeon contours the rod to match the angle of the
Appeal No. 2010-007176
Application 11/093,487

6

occiput and sub-axial spine. Bending the rod induces stress to
the rod and decreases the fatigue strength of the material. In
addition, the geometric and dimensional features of these rod
systems and patient anatomy constrain the surgeon during
surgery and prevent optimal placement and attachment along
the spinal column and the occiput. For example, elongated, one
piece rods can be difficult to bend and maneuver into position
between the upper end of the cervical spine and the occipital
bone of the skull, and also provide the surgeon with only
limited options in sizing and selection of the rod system to be
placed during surgery.

Rather than discussing what features in Combs’s disclosure might or
might not have been regarded as reasonably pertinent to the above-indicated
problem with which Appellant’s inventors were concerned, Appellant in its
revised appeal brief from page 11, line 15, to page 12, line 9, merely makes
statements essentially urging that that the field of invention of Combs is
different from and unrelated to that of Appellant’s invention. That issue,
however, pertains to the first prong but not the second prong of the test for
determining analogous or nonanalogous art.
While it is true that Combs is directed to a device for use with
carriages and Appellant’s invention is directed to spinal implants, that does
not answer the question whether some feature disclosed in Combs would
have been reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Appellant’s
inventors, i.e., providing a way to vary the shape of a rod without having to
bend it, and providing an easy way to change the contour of a rod.
Appellant has not shown that the Combs disclosure is not reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which Appellant’s inventors were concerned.
In any event, for reasons discussed below, we find that the Combs disclosure
App
App

is rea
were

struc
inclu
Com
a joi

parts
angl
angl
agre
prob
the s
Vary
end e
rod.
prior
techn
attem
907
eal No. 20
lication 11
sonably p
concerne
Combs d
tures D co
ding two p
bs is repro
nt assembl

The Exa
A and B c
e between
e. (Ans. 3
e with that
lem with w
hape and c
ing and th
ssentially
That teach
art refere
ology and
pting to p
(Fed. Cir.
10-007176
/093,487
ertinent to
d.
iscloses a
nnected in
arts A and
duced bel
y includin
miner dete
onnected
the two ro
:25 to 4:3.
determina
hich App
ontour of
ereafter fi
provides a
ing is not
nce must b
is not lim
rotect. EW
1985).

the proble
carriage-t
an end-to
B connec
ow, which
g parts A a
rmined th
by joint C
ds D conn
) That find
tion. Tha
ellant’s inv
a rod with
xing the an
bend in t
limited to
e consider
ited to the
P Corp. v
7
m with w
op assemb
-end mann
ted togeth
illustrates
nd B conn
at the joint
, is effectiv
ected end-
ing is not
t disclosur
entors we
out having
gle betwe
he rod wit
applicatio
ed for eve
particular
. Reliance
hich Appe
ly includin
er through
er at joint
two rods
ected by j
assembly
e to temp
to-end and
disputed b
e is reason
re concern
to physic
en two rod
hout physi
n in any s
rything it
invention
Universa
llant’s inv
g two rod
a joint as
C. Figure
D connect
oint C:
of Combs
orarily cha
to later fi
y Appella
ably perti
ed, i.e., h
ally bend
s arranged
cally bend
pecific con
teaches by
it is descr
l Inc., 755
entors
-like
sembly
1 of
ed through

, having
nge the
x that
nt, and we
nent to the
ow to vary
the rod.
end-to-
ing the
text. A
way of
ibing and
F.2d 898,

App
App

cons

B.

first
recei
illus
34 ea
recei
show

mean
in ea
faste
eal No. 20
lication 11
For the f
titutes non
The Obv
16, and
Appellan
and secon
ve a fasten
trated in F
ch with a
ve a fasten
ing an exp
Appellan
ing only o
ch of first
ner. In tha
10-007176
/093,487
oregoing r
analogous
iousness R
17 over Co
t asserts t
d bodies e
er. (Brief
igures 7 an
single sec
er. (Brief
loded vie
t asserts t
ne. We a
and secon
t context,

easons, w
art.
ejection o
mbs and R
hat claim
ach with a
. 7:1-2.) A
d 8 with c
tion 370, 3
7:2-4.) F
w of an em
hat the term
gree. The
d bodies 3
“the fasten
8
e reject Ap
f Claims
ichelsoph
12 requires
single sec
ppellant s
oupling m
71 having
igure 7 is
bodiment
“single”
re should b
4, which i
er” refers
pellant’s
12,

a couplin
ond sectio
tates that
echanism
a bore 30
again repr
of Appell
should be
e only a s
ncludes a b
to a fasten
argument t
g mechani
n with a b
the feature
328 includ
4 and 306
oduced be
ant’s inven

construed
ingle seco
ore for re
er which
hat Comb
sm with
ore to
is
ing bodie
sized to
low
tion:
as
nd section
ceiving th
connects
s
s

e
App
App

the f
each
end o
each

desig
beca
first
secti
and B
conn
B.1

bodi
inclu
bodi
Com
show

1 W
A an
eal No. 20
lication 11
irst and se
of the firs
f one of t
of its first
Appellan
n with a s
use for rea
and secon
on. Appe
includes
ects to rod
That is not
What is
es of the c
des a bore
es. Appel
bs. In any
s an eleva

e do not
d B.
10-007176
/093,487
cond bodie
t and seco
he first and
and secon
t argues th
ingle secti
sons discu
d bodies o
llant point
a pair of s
D and on
excluded
required b
oupling m
for receiv
lant has no
event, we
tion view

see any ot

s. Also, c
nd bodies,
second ro
d bodies t
at Combs
on. (Brief
ssed abov
f the coupl
s out (Brie
paced-apa
e section t
by claim 1
y claim 12
echanism t
ing a faste
t meaning
reproduc
of the Com

her pair of
9
laim 12 al
which inc
ds. Claim
o include o
does not
7:14; 7:22
e claim 12
ing mecha
f 7:7-8) th
rt sections
hat connec
2.
is that in
here be on
ner that co
fully expla
ed Figure
bs invent
spaced-ap
ready reci
ludes a fir
12 explic
nly a sing
disclose or
.) The ar
does not r
nism to in
at in Com
, presuma
ts to the o
each of the
ly a single
nnects the
ined why
1 of Comb
ion:
art section
tes a first s
st bore to r
itly does n
le section
make obv
gument is
equire eac
clude only
bs each of
bly one se
ther of bod
first and
section w
first and
that is not
s again be
s in each
ection in
eceive an
ot require
overall.
ious a
misplaced
h of the
a single
bodies A
ction that
ies A and
second
hich
second
the case in
low, which

of bodies

,

App
App

conn
inclu
rod,
end o
there
a sin
conn
one f
No o
bodi

hing
requ
prov
expl

seco
in th
term
very
eal No. 20
lication 11
As can b
ecting two
des a first
and body B
f a second
in to recei
gle second
ects bodie
rom body
ther sectio
es A and B
In case A
ed joint C
irement of
ided by th
oded view
To the e
nd section
e above an
“single” i
broad. Ap
10-007176
/093,487
e seen in F
rods D is
section at
includes
rod. Bod
ve a fasten
section h
s A and B
B, togethe
n of either
.
ppellant i
as providi
claim 12,
e Examine
of hinge j
xtent Appe
but two se
notated Fi
s narrow a
pellant’s

igure 1 of
disclosed
one end th
a first sec
y A includ
er that con
aving a bo
. The sing
r with the
body A a
ntended to
ng multipl
we now re
r on page
oint C:
llant argu
cond secti
gure 2, the
nd require
pairing of
10
Combs, a
, which inc
ereof whi
tion at one
es a singl
nects bod
re therein
le second
fastener r
nd B recei
refer to th
e second s
fer to ann
9 of the An
es that bod
ons identi
argumen
s unity in
the broad
coupling
ludes bod
ch receive
end there
e second s
ies A and
for receivi
sections, o
eceived th
ves the fas
e compon
ections co
otated figu
swer, wh
y B includ
fied as “Pr
t is mispla
number, th
term “sect
mechanism
ies A and
s an end o
of which r
ection hav
B. Body B
ng the fast
ne from b
erein form
tener that
ent parts o
ntrary to th
re 2 of Co
ich shows
es not a s
ojections
ced. Altho
e term “se
ion” with
for
B. Body A
f a first
eceives an
ing a bore
includes
ener that
ody A and
joint C.
connects
f the
e
mbs as
an

ingle
of Body B
ugh the
ction” is
the narrow

”

Appeal No. 2010-007176
Application 11/093,487

11

term “single” effectively eliminates the limiting effect of the latter, as a wide
latitude exists for drawing the boundaries of a section of a whole. Appellant
has not used language which limits the claim to having but only a single
projection including a bore to receive a fastener connecting the first and
second bodies of the coupling mechanism.
The question is not whether each of the two above-annotated
projections of body B constitutes a “section” and therefore body B includes
more than one second section in contravention of the requirement of claim
12. Rather, the question is whether it is reasonable of the Examiner to
regard the entirety of the bulging end structure of body B including both
projections as one “section” of body B. The answer is YES, under the
broadest reasonable rule of claim interpretation.
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Icon Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321
(Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We agree with the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 9:2-3) that claim 12 does
not further limit how many projection elements can be contained within a
single second section.
For the foregoing reasons, we reject Appellant’s argument that Combs
does not satisfy the requirement of claim 12 that each of the first and second
bodies of the coupling mechanism includes a single second section which
receives the fastener.
Claim 12 further requires that the first and second bodies of the
coupling mechanism have “substantially the same shape and configuration.”
Appellant’s specification nowhere defines the meaning of “substantially the
App
App

same
subs
incon

cylin
exten
exten
hing
reaso
conf
“sub

figur
and B
App
exten
hing
whic

2 tha
same
eal No. 20
lication 11
.” The Ex
tantially th
sistent wi
Both Par
drical end
sion on th
sion ends
e joint C.
nable that
iguration,
stantially t
Appellan
e 2 that th
do not h
ellant argu
sion porti
e. (Brief 8
h shows th
We unde
t the parti
because t
10-007176
/093,487
aminer’s
e same sh
th Appella
t A and Pa
ostensibly
e other en
on Parts A
Based on
Parts A a
given that
he same.”
t refers to
e particula
ave substa
es that it i
ons to be p
:15-16; 8:
e internal
rstand Ap
cular exten
hey have t

determinat
ape and co
nt’s speci
rt B in Co
having th
d evidentl
and B ali
Combs’s F
nd B have
Appellant

Figure 2 o
r structure
ntially the
s the differ
laced in a
19-22). F
structure o
pellant’s a
sion struc
o be stagg
12
ion that Pa
nfiguratio
fication.
mbs’ coup
e same dim
y with a bo
gn and ov
igure 1, th
substantia
’s specific
f Combs
s within th
same shap
ent config
n overlapp
igure 2 of
f hinge jo
rgument to
tures of Pa
ered or pla
rts A and
n is reason
ling mech
ensions,
re hole th
erlap each
e Examin
lly the sam
ation does
and argues
e extensio
e and con
uration tha
ing arrang
Combs is r
int C:
be that it
rts A and
ced in san
B of Com
able and i
anism hav
and a bulg
erein. The
other to c
er’s determ
e shape a
not specia
that it app
n portions
figuration
t allows th
ement to
eproduced
appears fr
B are not
dwich for
bs have
s not
e a hollow
ing
bulging
reate a
ination is
nd
lly define
ears from
of Parts A
.
e
form a
below,

om Figure
exactly the
m in order

Appeal No. 2010-007176
Application 11/093,487

13

to overlap and form a hinge much like the case on a door hinge which allows
the door to swing open and close. The argument is misplaced and rejected.
The claim limitation requires only substantial sameness in shape and
configuration, not identical shape and configuration. As is noted earlier,
Appellant’s specification does not specially define “substantially the same.”
Notwithstanding the lack of identity in the internal structure of component
pieces together forming hinge joint C, bodies A and B overall and in general
have substantially the same shape and configuration as is clearly evident
from Figure 1 of Combs. Moreover, even the component pieces within the
bulging extension portion that together form joint C have substantially the
same shape and configuration. The hinge components are just staggered and
offset from each other to collectively form a hinge. Given that during
examination claim terms are properly construed according to their broadest
reasonable interpretation not inconsistent with the specification, we agree
with the Examiner that bodies A and B in Combs have substantially the
same shape and configuration.
Claims 16 and 17 both depend indirectly from independent claim 12.
Appellant has not separately argued the merits of claims 16 and 17 from that
of claim 12.
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded that there is error in
the obviousness rejection of claims 12, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Combs and Richelsoph.

Appeal No. 2010-007176
Application 11/093,487

14

C. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 13
and 14 over Combs, Richelsoph, and Taylor

Claims 13 and 14 each depend directly from claim 12. Appellant does
not separately argue the merits of claims 13 and 14 from that of claim 12.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that there is error in the obviousness
rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Combs,
Richelsoph, and Taylor.
D. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims
22-24 over Combs, Krag, and Richelsoph

Claim 22 is independent. Claim 23 depends on claim 22 and claim 24
depends on claim 23.
Appellant asserts that claim 22 recites a coupling mechanism which
includes (Brief 9:16 to 10:1):
a single first extension portion connected to a first
coupling body, and

a single second extension portion connected to a second
coupling body.

In that regard, Appellant states (Brief 10:1-4):
This structure can be seen in Figures 5-8 with the coupling
mechanism 228 or 328 including a first coupling body 34 with a
single first extension portion 271 or 371 and a second coupling
body 34 with a single second extension portion 270 or 370.

For illustration purposes, Appellant’s Figure 5 is reproduced below,
which shows a first coupling body 34 with a single first extension portion
271 and a second coupling body 34 with a single second extension portion
270:
App
App

conn
App
and B

by a
eal No. 20
lication 11
Appellan
C
extensio
orientati
single ex

The argu
ection wit
ellant is re
, which t
We repr
respective
10-007176
/093,487
t argues (
ombs discl
ns that ext
on to form
tension po
ment is w
h the rejec
ferring to t
ogether fo
oduce Figu
extension

Brief 10:5
oses socke
end outwa
a joint. N
rtion.
ithout mer
tion of ind
he interna
rm the hin
re 1 of Co
portion fr
15
-7):
t bodies A
rd and are
either soc
it, for reas
ependent
l structure
ge joint C.
mbs whic
om both b
, B each w
placed in
ket body i
ons we ex
claim 12.
of the end

h illustrate
odies A an

ith multip
an overlap
ncludes a
plained ab
It is evide
portion o
s a joint C
d B:
le
ping
ove in
nt that
f bodies A
formed

App
App

exten
paire
expl
effec
in dr

that
exten
the e
joint
singl
there
prov

proje
more
claim
regar
proje
broa
eal No. 20
lication 11
With res
sion porti
d the broa
ained abov
tively elim
awing the
For insta
bulging en
sion porti
ntirety of
C as an ex
e extensio
in such as
ided by th
The que
ctions of b
than one
22. Rath
d the entir
ctions as o
dest reason
10-007176
/093,487
pect to cla
on” and “a
d term “po
e in the co
inates the
boundarie
nce, it is r
d part of b
on of body
that bulgin
tension po
n portion m
the multip
e Examine
stion is no
ody B con
extension
er, the que
ety of the
ne “portio
able rule

im 22, at i
single sec
rtion” wit
ntext of th
narrowne
s of the ter
easonable
ody A wh
A, and it
g end part
rtion of b
ay in turn
le project
r and agai
t whether e
stitutes a
portion in
stion is w
bulging en
n” of bod
of claim in
16
ssue is the
ond exten
h the narro
e rejection
ss of “sing
m “portio
for the Ex
ich forms
is reasona
of body B
ody B. It
contain m
ions shown
n reproduc
ach of the
“portion”
contraven
hether it is
d structur
y B. The a
terpretatio
meaning
sion porti
w term “s
of claim
le,” as the
n.”
aminer to
a compone
ble for the
which fo
does not m
ultiple pr
in annota
ed below:
two abov
and theref
tion of the
reasonab
e of body
nswer is Y
n which a
of “a singl
on.” Appe
ingle.” A
12, such a
re is a wid
regard the
nt of joint
Examiner
rms a com
atter that
ojection c
ted Figure

e-annotate
ore body B
requireme
le of the E
B includin
ES, unde
pplies dur
e first
llant has
s we
pairing
e latitude
entirety o
C as an
to regard
ponent of
one such
omponents
2
.
d
includes
nt of
xaminer to
g both
r the
ing patent
f

Appeal No. 2010-007176
Application 11/093,487

17

examination. Claim 22 does not further limit the structural components that
may be contained within each single extension portion.
In the absence of claim language carrying a narrow meaning, a claim
should only be so limited based on the specification when the specification
expressly disclaims the broader scope. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324-25
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant has identified no such express disclaimer.
In the final analysis, Appellant’s difficulty stems from its pairing of
the term “single” with the very broad terms “section” and “portion.”
Appellant has not used language which limits the claim to having but only a
single projection in each coupling body, which includes a bore perpendicular
to a contact surface that is parallel to a connected rod.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
obviousness rejection of claims 22-24.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 12, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Combs and Richelsoph is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Combs, Richelsoph, and Taylor is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Combs, Krag, and Richelsoph is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
KMF