Ex Parte Busse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2017

13750298 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2017)

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.
13/750,298 01/25/2013 Martin A. Busse 20120939 1090
25537 7590
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
SITTA, GRANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN A. BUSSE, JIMENA
VELARDE CHOCANO, and GAURAV MEHTA
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5—12, 14, 16—18, 21, 23, and 24, i.e., all pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Verizon Communications
Inc. and its subsidiary companies. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to “fingerprint
driven profiling by a computer device.” Spec. 116.2 The Specification
explains that a method “performed by a computer device” may include
“detecting a finger on a touchscreen,” “determining a finger pattern based on
a contact area of the finger with the touchscreen,” “selecting content based
on the determined finger pattern,” and “presenting the selected content on
the touchscreen.” Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
1. A method, performed by a computer device, the method
comprising:
displaying, via a touchscreen of the computer device, a
plurality of application icons;
detecting, by the computer device, a finger on the
touchscreen;
determining, by the computer device, a finger pattern
based on a contact area of the finger with the touchscreen,
wherein determining the finger pattern includes determining a
size of the finger;
selecting, by the computer device, a user age group based
on the determined size of the finger;
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed January 25, 2013; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed August 13, 2015; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action,
mailed October 23, 2015; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
December 31, 2015; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 1,
2016; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed July 20, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
detecting, by the computer device, an activation of an
application based on the finger touching one of the plurality of
application icons, wherein the application includes different
content associated with different user age groups;
selecting, by the computer device, application content
from the different content based on the selected user age group;
and
presenting, by the computer device, the selected
application content on the touchscreen.
App. Br. 23 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Weintraub et al.
(“Weintraub”)
US 2008/0128495 Al June 5, 2008
Anson et al.
(“Anson”)
US 2010/0097324 Al3 Apr. 22, 2010
Herz et al.
(“Herz”)
US 2010/0233996 Al Sept. 16,2010
Weber et al.
(“Weber”)
US 2010/0302212 Al Dec. 2, 2010
Forutanpour et al.
(“Forutanpour”)
US 2013/0109369 Al May 2, 2013
(filed Apr. 5, 2012)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Forutanpour, Weintraub, and Herz. Final
Act. 2—12; App. Br. 7.
3 The Final Action contains a typographical error when listing the
publication number of Anson, which we have corrected.
3
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 14, 16, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Forutanpour, Weintraub, Herz, and Anson.
Final Act. 12—15; App. Br. 7.
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Forutanpour, Weintraub, Herz, Anson, and Weber. Final
Act. 15—17; App. Br. 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5—12, 14, 16—18, 21,
23, and 24 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For
the reasons explained below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions
regarding error by the Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the
Final Office Action (Final Act. 2—17), Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2—12),
and the Answer (Ans. 2—8). We add the following to address and emphasize
specific findings and arguments.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 11, 12,
18, and 21 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
“Detecting ... an Activation of an Application”
|and “Selecting ... Application Content”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 because Forutanpour, Weintraub, and Herz:
do not disclose detecting, by a computer device, an activation of
an application based on the finger touching one of the plurality
of application icons, wherein the application includes different
content associated with different user age groups and selecting,
by the computer device, application content from the different
content based on the selected user age group, as recited in
claim 1.
App. Br. 9; see Reply Br. 7; see also App. Br. 10-11.
4
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
Appellants point out that the Examiner does not rely on Forutanpour
for “detecting ... an activation of an application based on the finger
touching one of the plurality of application icons” according to claim 1.
App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4. Appellants then contend that Weintraub does not
disclose: (1) “application icons being displayed”; (2) “detecting a finger
touching an application icon”; and (3) “detecting an activation of an
application based on a finger touching one of a plurality of application
icons.” App. Br. 9—10 (emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 5—6. According to
Appellants, Weintraub discloses “different user profiles associated with
different whitelists and/or blacklists,” but no part of Weintraub “can be
reasonably construed as corresponding to an application, as recited in
claim 1.” App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 5. In addition,
Appellants contend that Herz “does not overcome the deficiencies” of
Weintraub because Herz does not disclose or suggest (1) “application
content that includes different content associated with different age groups”
or (2) “selecting application content from different application content based
on a selected user age group.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted); see Reply
Br. 6. According to Appellants, Herz “merely disclose[s] that access to an
application can be disabled for an inappropriate age group.” App. Br. 11
(emphasis omitted).
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error
because, as the Examiner notes, the contentions address the references
individually. Ans. 2. Where a rejection rests on a combination of
references, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the
references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, “the test for combining references is not what
5
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination
of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); see In re
Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the combination of disclosures in Forutanpour, Weintraub, and
Herz teaches or suggests “detecting ... an activation of an application based
on the finger touching one of the plurality of application icons, wherein the
application includes different content associated with different user age
groups” and “selecting . . . application content from the different content
based on the selected user age group” according to claim 1. See Final
Act. 3—6; Adv. Act. 3—10; Ans. 2—10. The Examiner finds that Forutanpour
teaches (1) configuring or customizing a mobile device based on a user’s
finger length and (2) permitting and prohibiting access to content based on a
user’s finger length. Ans. 2-4 (citing Forutanpour || 2, 3, 29, 33, Abstract);
see Final Act. 3—5 (citing Forutanpour || 33, 42, 43, Figs. 1, 4, 5); Adv.
Act. 3^4 (citing Forutanpour || 27, 29-31, 59). For instance, Forutanpour
discloses that (1) “finger length may be used to determine how [the]
configuration of a mobile device ... is to be customized for use by a
particular user”; (2) the “functions (e.g., applications) [that] are available . . .
on a display to a user may be customized”; and (3) “only functions [e.g.,
applications] approved for the child may be displayed if the child’s . . .
finger length is detected” but “[f]or the mother, all applications may be
displayed.” Forutanpour || 27, 28, 32. Forutanpour explains that “parental
restrictions” may “prevent a child from accessing inappropriate applications
and/or websites.” Id. 142. Forutanpour also explains that a user profile
may correspond to a class or category of users based on age group (e.g.,
6
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
young child, child, adult) and “[a]ge groups may be able to be estimated
based on . . . finger length.” Id. Tflf 42, 43.
Further, the Examiner finds that Herz teaches: (1) a mobile device
with a touchscreen displaying a plurality of application icons; (2) activating
an application program based on a finger touching an application icon; and
(3) limiting children’s access to inappropriate application programs, e.g., by
graying out the associated application icons. Final Act. 6—7 (citing Herz
till, Fig. 2B); see Adv. Act. 8—10 (citing Herz || 78, 92, 111, Abstract,
Fig. 2B); Ans. 8—9 (citing Herz till, Fig. 2B). Herz Figure 2B is
reproduced below:
Herz Figure 2B depicts a mobile device with a touchscreen displaying a
plurality of application icons corresponding to a plurality of application
programs. In addition, Herz discloses: (1) downloading an application
program based on “age-ranking of the application program and a parental-
7
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
control status of the mobile device”; (2) implementing “[pjarental-control
mechanisms ... to restrict access to certain application programs”; and
(3) associating “application programs with ... an appropriate age group
(e.g., 4+, 9+, 12+, or 17+, etc.).” Herz 192. Moreover, the Examiner finds
that “incorporating an application icon for a touchscreen device ... is well
within the purview” of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Ans. 9—10. In the Reply
Brief, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s finding concerning the level
of ordinary skill in the art. Reply Br. 4—7.
Further, the Examiner finds that Weintraub teaches: (1) a mobile
device that receives media content; (2) customizing the media content
displayed to a user based on a user profile corresponding to an acquired
fingerprint image; and (3) limiting children’s access to inappropriate media
content. Ans. 4—8 (citing Weintraub 2—5, 23—25, 28, 30, 34, 87, 90-99,
111); see Final Act. 5 (citing Weintraub Tflf 3—6, Figs. 5, 7, 10-13); Adv.
Act. 4—7 (citing Weintraub Tflf 34, 43, 46, 53, 56, 57, 66, 67, 76, 77, Fig. 9).
For instance, Weintraub discloses that “a user profile may include
a ‘whitelist’ specifying one or more accessible media content instances, [or]
a ‘blacklist’ specifying one or more media content access restrictions . . . .”
Weintraub 1 56. Weintraub additionally discloses that a user with a
fingerprint assigned to a user profile including a blacklist “may be blocked
from accessing” media content according to the blacklist, such as media
content having the rating PG-13 for material inappropriate for children
under 13 or the rating NC-17 for material inappropriate for children
under 17. Id. 1 111.
The Examiner finds that Weintraub also teaches a program guide
application that includes different content associated with different user age
8
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
groups, e.g., different television or movie content. Ans. 5, 7—8 (citing
Weintraub Tflf 23—25, 28, 34, 111, Fig. 12 (whitelist 210), Fig. 13 (blacklist
230); see Final Act. 5 (citing Weintraub Figs. 5, 7, 10-13); see also
Weintraub Fig. 3 (program guide application 142). The Examiner reasons
that “an application is merely a program” or a piece of software. Ans. 6; see
Adv. Act. 7. Appellants’ arguments have not apprised us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
Appellants assert that the Examiner apparently relies on “personal
video recording (PVR) application 141 of Fig. 3 of WEINTRAUB as
allegedly corresponding to the application that includes different content
associated with different user age groups, as recited in claim 1.” Reply
Br. 6. Appellants then assert that PVR application 141 does not include
“different content associated with different user age groups . . . .” Id.
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of error because program guide
application 142 in Figure 3 includes different content associated with
different user age groups. Weintraub teaches that: (1) the “program guide
application 142 [is] configured to generate a program guide that is
displayed”; (2) “a user profile may specify a particular” program guide
layout and contents; and (3) “a parent or other user may desire to limit the
program information displayed within the program guide” when “accessed
by a child.” Weintraub H 55, 111—113.
Appellants seek to distinguish Weintraub from claim 1 by arguing that
Weintraub discloses a blacklist for blocking media content, and “[i]n
contrast, claim 1 requires that application content is selected based on a user
age group and presented on the touchscreen.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis
omitted). But that argument disregards Weintraub’s disclosure of a whitelist
9
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
for allowing media content. See, e.g., Weintraub 56, 105—109, Fig. 11
(whitelist 210 with allowable channel listing 211), Fig. 12 (whitelist 210
with allowable content rating 222); see also App. Br. 9; Ans. 5. Moreover,
“selecting . . . application content” according to claim 1 encompasses
“selecting” using inclusion criteria or exclusion criteria (or both). “[DJuring
examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Motivation to Combine
Forutanpour, Weintraub, and Herz
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the Examiner’s rationale for combining Forutanpour, Weintraub, and Herz
lacks articulated reasoning and instead “is merely a conclusory statement
providing an alleged benefit of the combination.” App. Br. 12. Appellants
also argue that the Examiner “does not explain why one of ordinary skill in
the art would look to” Weintraub to modify the mobile devices of
Forutanpour and Herz. Reply Br. 7; see App. Br. 12.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds that Forutanpour, Weintraub, and Herz each concern
“limiting content to children on mobile devices” and “capacitive touch
elements.” Ans. 8; Adv. Act. 11. The Examiner also finds that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Weintraub
with Forutanpour based on Weintraub’s disclosure of a mobile device and
the desirability of “restrict[ing] or blocking] certain media content instances
deemed inappropriate to minors and others” based on a user’s fingerprint
and corresponding profile. Final Act. 5 (citing Weintraub 3—5); Ans. 4—5
10
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
(citing Weintraub Tflf 2—5, 23—25, 87, 90, Figs. 8, 9, 12, 13); see Adv.
Act. 11—12 (citing Weintraub Figs. 6, 9); see also Weintraub 2-4, 30
(“wireless device, mobile phone”), 34 (“mobile phone, handheld device”).
The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine Herz with Forutanpour and Weintraub based on
Herz’s disclosure of a convenient layout of application icons for controlling
mobile device content. Adv. Act. 12; see Final Act. 6—7 (citing Herz till,
Fig. 2B); Ans. 8—10 (citing Herz till, Fig. 2B).
Accordingly, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning for why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
would have combined Forutanpour, Weintraub, and Herz, including
identifying benefits obtained with the combination. “[T]he law does not
require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the
inventor.” In re Beattie, 91A F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[A]ny need
or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining” references.
KSRIntI Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). “[T]he desire to
enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is
universal. . . .” DyStar Textilfarben GmbHv. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330
(Fed. Cir. 2003). “[A]n implicit motivation to combine” may result from a
desire to make a product or process “stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster,
lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.” DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1368.
In addition, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that:
[a]ll the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one
skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed
by known methods with no change in their respective functions,
11
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
and the combination yield[s] nothing more than predictable
results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Ans. 10.
Appellants also argue that the combination of Weintraub and Herz
“does not appear to make any sense” because Weintraub’s fingerprint
scanner lacks display functionality and Herz’s display lacks finger-scanning
functionality. App. Br. 12. Appellants further argue that incorporating
Weintraub into Herz “would merely result in the implementation of a
program whitelist or blacklist for a particular user . . . rather than selecting
different application content based on a selected user age group based on a
determined size of a finger touching the application icon, as required by
claim 1.” Id. at 12—13 (citing Weintraub Figs. 11—13).
Appellants’ arguments regarding the secondary references do not
persuade us of Examiner error. “Combining the teachings of references does
not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt,
482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Obviousness does not depend on
“whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
“Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Here, the Examiner
relies on Forutanpour as the primary reference. Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 9. As
explained above, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
the secondary references with Forutanpour.
Also, Appellants’ argument regarding Weintraub’s fingerprint scanner
lacking display functionality and Herz’s display lacking finger-scanning
12
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
functionality does not respond to the rejection. The Examiner finds that
Herz teaches a touchscreen and touchscreen controller that detect contact
using a capacitive technology. Adv. Act. 8 (citing Herz 178); see Herz 178.
Further, the Examiner finds that Weintraub teaches “a capacitive sensing
means.” Adv. Act. 6 (citing Weintraub Fig. 9); see Ans. 5—6, 10 (citing
Weintraub 90—99, Fig. 9). Weintraub discloses that a fingerprint
scanning subsystem is “configured to capacitively acquire a fingerprint
image when a finger touches or presses” a control surface. Weintraub 1 90.
No incompatibility results from using Herz’s touchscreen control surface
with Weintraub’s fingerprint scanning subsystem. Consistent with Herz and
Weintraub, Forutanpour teaches detecting contact using a capacitive
technology. Adv. Act. 3^4 (citing Forutanpour || 29-31); Ans. 3 (citing
Forutanpour 129). Consequently, the references do not contain incongruous
disclosures. See Ans. 5—6, 10; Adv. Act. 11.
Summary for Independent Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Forutanpour, Weintraub, and Herz. Hence, we sustain the rejection
of claim 1.
Independent Claims 12 and 18
and Dependent Claims 5 and 11
Appellants do not make any separate patentability arguments for
independent claims 12 and 18 or dependent claims 5 and 11. App. Br. 8—15;
Reply Br. 4—7. For example, Appellants assert that claims 12 and 18 are
patentable over the references “for at least reasons similar to the reasons set
forth above with respect to claim 1.” App. Br. 14—15. Because Appellants
13
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 11,
12, and 18 for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Dependent Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 18 and recites:
wherein the one or more instructions to detect the finger
on the touchscreen include: one or more instructions to detect
an unlocking of the touchscreen; and
wherein the one or more instructions to identify content
based on the selected user age group includes: one or more
instructions to identify the plurality of application icons
associated with the selected user age group.
App. Br. 28 (Claims App.).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21
because Forutanpour, Weintraub, and Herz “do not disclose or suggest one
or more instructions to identify the plurality of application icons associated
with the selected user age group, as recited in claim 21.” App. Br. 16.
Referring to Forutanpour paragraph 92, Appellants assert that it “does not
even mention user age groups” but instead “discloses customizing a user
profile.” Id. Appellants then assert that “[a] user profile does not
correspond to a user age group, because different users of the same age
group will be associated with different user profiles.” Id.
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner cites several parts of Forutanpour along with Weintraub and
Herz for claim 21 and base claim 18. See, e.g., Final Act. 3—5, 9-10, 12
(citing Forutanpour || 3, 40-45, 72, 74, 86, 92, 93, Figs. 1, 4, 5); Ans. 2—3,
11 (citing Forutanpour || 2, 3, 29, 92). An obviousness analysis should
consider “what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” McLaughlin, 443 F.2d at 1395.
14
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
Forutanpour paragraphs 42 and 43 teach that a user profile may correspond
to a class or category of users based on age group (e.g., young child, child,
adult). Forutanpour || 42, 43. In addition, Herz teaches application icons
associated with a selected user age group. See Final Act. 6—7; Adv.
Act. 8—10; Ans. 8—10. For instance, Herz discloses implementing
“[pjarental-control mechanisms ... to restrict access to certain application
programs,” e.g., by graying out application icons for “application programs
that are in inappropriate age groups . . . .” Herz H 92, 111. Differentiating
grayed-out icons from non-grayed-out icons requires associating icons with
age groups. Hence, the combination of disclosures in Forutanpour and Herz
teaches or suggests instructions to identity a plurality of application icons
associated with a selected user age group. Consequently, we sustain the
rejection of claim 21.
The Rejection of Claims 3, 6, 7, 10,
14, 16, and 23 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Dependent Claims 3 and 14
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites:
wherein detecting the finger on the touchscreen includes:
detecting an unlocking of the touchscreen; and
wherein selecting the content includes: selecting the
plurality of application icons based on the selected user age
group.
App. Br. 23 (Claims App.). Appellants assert that “claim 14 recites features
similar to the features” recited in claim 3. Id. at 20.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 because
Forutanpour does not “disclose or suggest identifying a plurality of
application icons associated with a selected user age group” or “even
15
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
mention user age groups.” App. Br. 19 (emphasis omitted). Appellants then
argue that Forutanpour “disclose[s] customizing a user profile.” Id.
Appellants next argue that “[a] user profile does not correspond to a user age
group, because different users of the same age group will be associated with
different user profiles.” Id.
Appellants make essentially the same patentability arguments for
claims 3 and 14 as for claim 21. Compare App. Br. 18—20, with id. at 15—
17. For the reasons discussed above for claim 21, we sustain the rejection of
claims 3 and 14.
Dependent Claims 6,7,10,16, and 23
For the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 6, 7, 10, 16, and 23
based on Forutanpour, Weintraub, Herz, and Anson, Appellants assert that
each claim is patentable over the references “for at least the reasons set
forth” for the associated independent claim. App. Br. 17—18. Appellants do
not make any separate patentability arguments for these dependent claims.
Id. Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the
rejections of claims 6, 7, 10, 16, and 23 for the same reasons as the
associated independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Rejection of Claims 8, 9, 17,
and 24 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
For the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 8, 9, 17, and 24
based on Forutanpour, Weintraub, Herz, Anson, and Weber, Appellants
assert that each claim is patentable over the references “for at least the
reasons set forth” for the associated independent claim and any intermediate
dependent claim. App. Br. 20—21. Appellants do not make any separate
patentability arguments for these dependent claims. Id. Because Appellants
16
Appeal 2016-007416
Application 13/750,298
do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the rejections of claims 8, 9,
17, and 24 for the same reasons as the associated independent claim and any
intermediate dependent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5—12, 14,
16-18,21,23, and 24.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
17