Ex Parte Chila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2016

12422536 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/422,536 04/13/2009
15118 7590
Ronald M, Kachmarik
Cooper Legal Group LLC
6505 Rockside Road
Suite 330
Independence, OH 44131
03/08/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald James Chila
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.
GEEP-44171 6873
EXAMINER
GOYAL,ARUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2016 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):
patdoc@cooperlegalgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD JAMES CHILA and
KEVIN WESTON MCMAHAN
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER,
and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-11under35 U.S.C. §103(a). 1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE and ENTER NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 Appellants submit that the real party in interest for this appeal is General
Electric Company. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1,2 reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter. The italicized portion of the claim
language highlights selected claim limitations at issue:
1. A turbine engine comprising:
a combustion section;
an air discharge section downstream of the
combustion section;
a single-piece transition region between the
combustion section and air discharge section;
a single-piece combustor transition piece defining the
combustion section and transition region, said transition
piece adapted to carry combusted gas flow to a first stage of
the turbine engine corresponding to the air discharge
section, the transition piece defining an interior space for
combusted gas flow inlet; and
a sleeve surrounding the combustor transition piece
so as to form a flow annulus between the sleeve and the
transition piece, said sleeve including a first set of apertures
for directing cooling air from compressor discharge air
approaching the transition region from a relatively
downstream area of the turbine engine, with respect to the
combusted gas flow, into the flow annulus,
wherein the transition piece includes an outer surface
bounding the flow annulus and an inner surface bounding
the interior space, the transition piece includes a second set
of apertures for directing cooling air in the flow annulus to
the interior space, and each of the second set of apertures
extends from an entry portion on the outer surface to an exit
portion on the inner surface, with the exit portion of each
aperture being located further downstream, with respect to
the combusted gas flow, than the respective entry portion to
2 We note Appellants' Claims Appendix in the Appeal Brief is incomplete.
Claim 1 reproduced herein corresponds to the version included in the last
entered claim amendment filed April 19, 2012 (hereinafter "Amendment").
2
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
cause a reversal of direction of the compressor discharge
air as the compressor air proceeds into the interior space.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-11 of Application No. 12/350,423
("the '423 application") and claims 1-14 of Application No.
12/222,781 ("the '781 application"). Final Act. 3.
2) Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bunker (US 7,373,778 B2, iss. May 20,
2008) in view of Widener (US 7,082,766 Bl, iss. Aug. 1, 2006).
Id. at 4.
3) Claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bunker in view of Widener and Alkabie (US
6,964, 170 B2, iss. Nov. 15, 2005). Id. at 7.
4) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bunker in view of Widener, Alkabie and Enzaki (US
4,695,247, iss. Sept. 22, 1987). Id. at 8.
DISCUSSION
Double Patenting
We note that the '423 application and the '781 application have been
abandoned, as indicated in the Notices of Abandonment dated December 14,
2012, and November 8, 2013, respectively. Accordingly, the provisional
rejections of claims 1-11 on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type
3
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
double patenting as being unpatentable over certain claims of the '423
application, and also over certain claims of the'78 l application, are moot.
Obviousness
In rejecting claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-11, the Examiner
found that all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in Bunker, except that
Bunker "does not teach that both the combustor transition piece and the
sleeve are made as a single piece." Final Act. 5. The Examiner found that
Widener teaches "a single-piece transition piece (120) and a single-piece
sleeve (129)." Id. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious
to combine the teachings of Bunker and Widener "to prevent cooling flow
leakage at the joint and prevent pressure losses." Id. The Examiner
alternatively determined that converting Bunker's two part transition piece
into one integral part would have been an obvious extension of prior art
teachings. Id. at 6.
Appellants focus on the combination of Bunker and Widener in
response to all obviousness rejections, and submit that this combination has
"several large deficiencies."3 Appeal Br. 6. In support of their arguments,
Appellants frame two primary factual issues on which they contend the
Examiner erred. First, Appellants contend that the "second set of apertures"
in the transition piece are not disclosed in Bunker. Id. Second, Appellants
contend that, even if Bunker does disclose the "second set of apertures,"
Bunker does not disclose "the exit portion of each being located further
3 In addition to alleging error in the Bunker and Widener combination for
all claims, Appellants submit a separate argument for patentability of
dependent claims 5, 6 and 11. Appeal Br. 22.
4
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
downstream, with respect to the combusted gas flow, than the respective
entry portion," as recited in claim 1. Id. at 8. Appellants present numerous
inquiries relating to the two primary factual issues (id. at 6-10), which
Appellants deem "sub-issues." All of these sub-issues are subsumed and,
thus, addressed in the resolution of the two primary factual issues discussed
below.
The present dispute is centered on the gas turbine combustor shown in
Figure 1 of Bunker. In particular, the Examiner found that the curved lines
with small solid arrowheads located near to and over the numeral 24 on the
left side of Figure 1 represent a second set of apertures through the liner 24.
Ans. 3. Appellants dispute this finding. Appeal Br. 4.
Bunker discloses that the larger unshaded arrowheads extending from
the thin line that begins near numeral 11 on the right side of Figure 1 are
apertures in outer sleeve 28 that allow the compressor discharge air 11 to
flow into the annular gap 30. See Bunker, col. 3, 11. 15-18. Appellants do
not dispute that the larger unshaded arrowheads represent apertures in the
outer sleeve 28 and that compressor discharge air 11 flows into the annular
gap 30 through the apertures. See Appeal Br. 11, 13.
The Examiner explained that
any air which flows in the flow annulus [30] has to enter the
combustion chamber even if they flow on the outside surface.
Therefore these arrows represent flow through the outside
surface 26. Furthermore, Bunker teaches "discharge air 11 []
reverses direction as it passes over the outside of the
combustors (one shown at 14) and again as it enters the
combustor en route to the turbine[,]" col. 2, 11. 58-62.
Final Act. 9. The Examiner elaborated "that it is apparent to a person of
ordinary skill in the art that these arrows represent air flow 11 entering the
5
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
combustion section (annotated) from the gap between sleeve 28 and liner 24
and therefore a second set of apertures are present in liner 24." Ans. 3. The
Examiner continued that "Bunker's Fig. 1 and Col. 2 lines 58-62 taken
together, leads a person of ordinary skill to conclude that the cooling air
enters the combustion section through the apertures marked with curved
arrowheads." Id. at 4.
Appellant's Sub-Issue 1 G asks whether the combustion discharge air
could exit the annular gap 30 and enter the combustor "via some other
passage rather than through apertures in the liner 24." Appeal Br. 7.
Appellants answer their own query affirmatively, but then do not explain
how or where the compressor discharge air 11 exits the annular gap 30. Id.
at 7, 14.
Appellants first contend that Bunker's large unshaded arrowheads
"are associated with penetration of flow through apertures, versus the use of
solid, thin-line arrowheads, which are for flow that does not penetrate
through apertures." Appeal Br. 13. Appellants do not, however, provide
any persuasive evidence to support this contention. We disagree with the
second part of this contention for three reasons. First, the contention that
solid thin-line arrowheads are for flow that does not penetrate through
apertures is unsupported attorney argument. Our review of Bunker reveals
that it contains no disclosure that supports a distinction between the two sets
of arrowheads based solely on their respective sizes and shading and,
Appellants do not direct us to any disclosure in Bunker to support this
position. Second, the contention is contrary to Figure 1 of Bunker, which
uses the same solid, thin-line arrowheads to represent flow into the annular
gap 30 near the top of the figure. See Bunker, col. 3, 11. 15-18. Third, to the
6
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
extent Appellants' argument that solid arrowheads "are for flow that does
not penetrate through apertures" may be based on a general rule or
convention known in the art, Appellants have not provided evidence to
support such a position. In fact, we note Appellants' Figures 1 and 3 use
essentially the same curved thin line with solid arrowheads to illustrate flow
through apertures. See Spec. iii! 13, 16; Figs. 1, 3.
Appellants next contend the Examiner's reliance on the description at
column 2, lines 5 8-62, of Bunker for support that the solid arrowheads
represent flow through apertures is erroneous. Appeal Br. 13. In support of
this contention, Appellants offer two arguments about what the solid
arrowheads represent based on their reading of two separate portions of
Bunker. First, Appellants contend that the curved arrowheads "represent
annular flow over the annular surface 26 of the liner 24."4 Id. at 15.
Appellants cite to Bunker at column 3, lines 7-9, in support of this
contention. Id. Second, Appellants contend that the arrowheads "represent
annular flow vortices" and refer us to the passage at column 1, line 53, to
column 2, line 4, of Bunker. Reply Br. 2. We note Bunker uses the term
"vortices" in this passage, but not "annular flow vortices."
Without adequate explanation, Appellants equate flow over a surface
with flow vortices. Absent such explanation, we tum to a technical treatise
for the definition of flow vortices to determine if there is a difference.
A flow vortex is defined as:
a fluid motion dominated by rotation about an isolated curved line in
space, as in a tornado, a whirlpool, a hurricane, or a similar natural
phenomenon. The importance of vortices is due to two
4 Bunker describes item 26 as "an outside surface" not an annular surface.
Bunker, col. 3, 1. 4.
7
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
characteristics: general fluid flows can be represented by a
superposition of vortices; and vortices, once created, have a
persistence that increases as the effects of viscosity are reduced. The
aerodynamic lift forces and most other contributors to the forces and
moments on aircraft and other bodies moving through fluids do not
exist in the absence of vortices.
Leibovich, Sidney, "Vortex," AccessScience (McGraw-Hill Education,
2014), http:/ldx.doi.org/10.1036/1097-8542.737100. This definition is
consistent with our understanding of Bunker's use of the term "flow
vortices."
The flow over the outside surface 26 is represented in Bunker by
straight lines inside the annular gap 30 that indicate flow parallel to the
walls. The flow over the outside surface 26 is not described as rotational
inside the annular gap 30, which would appear to be indicative of flow
vortices. Thus, we find that Figure 1 does not disclose flow vortices in the
annular gap 3 0.
Figure 1 of Bunker is captioned as prior art. The Examiner submits
that "[Figure] 1 represents prior art which comprises a film cooled liner,"
while "[Figures] 2-8 represent improvements to the combustor where there
is no film cooling." Ans. at 5. The Examiner's finding that Figure 1 of
Bunker represents a film-cooled liner is supported by other prior art of
record. Particularly, Enzaki discloses that film cooling is one of three
known methods for coping with the high temperatures during operation of
the combustor of a gas turbine. See Enzaki, col. 1, 11. 11-34, col. 3, 11. 28-
55; Fig. 2. Likewise, Alkabie discloses that apertures in a double wall
combustor are well known for cooling the outer surfaces of the combustion
chamber. See Alkabie, col. 3, 11. 63-65; Fig. 3. BothAlkabie and Enzaki
disclose two walls forming an annular gap with two sets of apertures for
8
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
cooling purposes. Based upon this evidence, Appellants do not apprise us of
any error in the Examiner's finding that Figure 1 of Bunker discloses a film-
cooled liner.
Bunker's "Background of the Invention" section teaches that film
cooling is impractical for gas turbines with advanced combustors that
"premix the maximum possible amount of air with the fuel for NOx
reduction, [as] little or no cooling air is available." Bunker, col. 1, 11. 37-39.
The only effective way to cool such a combustor is by convection where the
compressor air is passed over "the outer surface of the combustor liner and
transition piece prior to premixing the air with the fuel." Id. at col. 1, 11. 50-
52 (emphasis added). Convection cooling is different than Appellants' use
of compressor discharge air for cooling. Appellants' specification states that
the cooling air, "Flow C, [is] made up of compression discharge air which is
cooler than combusted hot gas" and "Flow I, also [is] made up of
compressor discharge air." Spec. iJ 18 (emphasis added); see also Fig. 3.
Bunker describes the prior art for convection cooling and that one of
the three known methods of convection cooling "create[ s] flow vortices that
act to enhance heat transfer." Bunker, col. 2, 11. 1-2. Figures 2-8 of Bunker
relate to convection cooling and illustrate structures that generate "vortices
in the flow immediately adjacent to the surface to be cooled." Id. at col. 4,
11. 59-60.
Appellants' reliance on Bunker's reference to flow vortices is not
persuasive, as the cited text does not refer to a film-cooled liner, and thus,
9
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
appears to be unrelated to the solid thin-line arrowheads in the film-cooled
liner of Bunker's Figure 1.
We disagree with Appellants' proffered conclusion in connection with
the first primary factual issue. We adopt the Examiner's finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the solid arrowheads in
Figure 1 of Bunker represent a second set of apertures in the liner for film-
cooling. See In re Preda, 401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (Noting that "in
considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not
only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.")
(citation omitted).
However, we agree with Appellants' contention that Bunker does not
disclose "the exit portion of each being located further downstream, with
respect to the combusted gas flow, than the respective entry portion."
Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). A preponderance of the evidence does not
support the Examiner's finding that Bunker discloses the limitation in claim
1 that the exit portion of the second set of apertures are "located further
downstream, with respect to the combusted gas flow, than the respective
entry portion to cause a reversal of direction of the compressor discharge
air." See In re Caveney, 761F.2d671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (preponderance
of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making
decisions.). We cannot adopt this finding based on only the disclosure in
Bunker relied on by the Examiner, as we perceive there to be a plurality of
possible orientations of the second set of apertures, not just the claimed
orientation. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("The
Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its
10
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable,
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.") (emphasis added).
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1, and claims 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 depending therefrom, as unpatentable
over Bunker and Widener.
The Examiner's application of Alkabie to the rejection of claims 2, 3,
8 and 9, and Enzaki to the rejection of claim 7, fails to cure the deficiencies
of the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 as unpatentable over Bunker, Widener and Alkabie, and
claim 7 as unpatentable over Bunker, Widener and Enzaki.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
First New Ground of Rejection
We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 1, 4-7, 10
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bunker in view of
Widener and Enzaki for the following reasons.
In regard to claim 1, we adopt the Examiner's finding that Widener
discloses "a single-piece transition piece (120) and a single piece sleeve
(129)." Final Act. 5. We also adopt the Examiner's determination that it
would have been obvious to combine this teaching with Bunker "to prevent
cooling flow leakage at the joint and prevent pressure losses," or,
alternatively, that converting Bunker's two part transition piece into one
integral part would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Id. at 5-6.
11
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
Enzaki discloses a structural orientation for film cooling a gas turbine
combustor comprising two parallel plates 15 and 16, an annular gap 19
between plates 15, 16, and cooling air inlet apertures 21 in plate 16 and
cooling air outlet apertures 22 in plate 15. See Enzaki, Fig. 2; col. 3, 11. 28-
30; 11. 39--40 and 51-52; col. 4, 11. 44-51. The arrows passing through the
cooling air inlet apertures 21 in Figure 2 of Enzaki show that the cooling air
enters the annular gap 19 through air inlet apertures 21, travels in both
directions after entering the annular gap 19, and, at least in part, reverses
direction as it passes through the cooling air outlet apertures 22. Figure 2
also shows that the exit portions of the cooling air outlet apertures 22 are
further downstream than the entry portions.
We conclude that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify Bunker's turbine engine to incorporate the orientation of
Enzaki's cooling air outlet apertures 22 for Bunker's second set of apertures.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the orientation of
Enzaki's apertures would reduce the vertical component of the cooling air
flow velocity and thereby "facilitate the flow of cooling air on the inner
surface of the inner plate 15" in Bunker's turbine engine. See Enzaki col. 4,
11. 59-60. Thus, the orientation of the second set of apertures recited in claim
1 would have been merely the result of combining familiar elements from
Bunker and Enzaki according to known methods, thereby yielding no more
than predictable results. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398,
416-17 (2007). Accordingly, we enter a new ground of rejection of claim 1
over Bunker in view of Widener and Enzaki.
Alternatively, even if we were to accept Appellants' contention that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that the solid
12
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
arrowheads in Figure 1 of Bunker represent a second set of apertures, we
would still conclude that it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Bunker, Widener, and Enzaki to result in the claimed subject
matter. As noted above, Appellants do not identify any error in the
Examiner's finding that Figure 1 of Bunker represents a prior art film-cooled
liner. Further, although admitting that compressor discharge air enters
Bunker's annular gap 30, Appellants do not direct us to any disclosure in
Bunker that, according to Appellants, indicates where the compressor
discharge air exits Bunker's annular gap 30. Figure 2 ofEnzaki represents a
film-cooled liner and teaches the use of a second set of apertures, cooling air
outlet apertures 22, and the specific orientation thereof claimed by
Appellants. The teaching of Enzaki supplies the second set of apertures for
the exit of the cooling air from Bunker's annular gap, thus, rendering claim 1
obvious.
Claim 4 recites, with respect to the second set of apertures, that "one
of the entry portion and the exit portion is located further downstream from
the other of the entry portion and the exit portion." Appeal Br. 25 (Claims
App.). Figure 3 ofEnzaki discloses that the exit portion of the air outlet
apertures 22 is further downstream than the entry portion.
Claim 5 recites that the "longitudinal axes through the second set of
apertures form an acute angle with a direction of combusted gas flow and an
obtuse angle with a direction of compressor discharge air flow." Appeal Br.
25 (Claims App.). Figure 3 of Enzaki discloses an angle 8 formed by the
longitudinal axis that is an acute angle with respect to the direction of
combusted gas flow, and is an obtuse angle with respect to the direction of
air flow.
13
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
Claim 6 recites that the "longitudinal axes through the second set of
apertures are oriented to form an acute angle with a downstream tangent to
the outer surface." Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). The angle e in Figure 3 of
Enzaki is an acute angle with respect to a downstream tangent of the outer
surface of plate 15.
For claim 7, Appellants do not apprise us of any error in the
Examiner's finding that Enzaki discloses the claimed feature that the acute
angle ranges from 20 to 35 degrees. Final Act. 7. We adopt the Examiner's
finding that Enzaki discloses an acute angle of 30 degrees, which is within
the claimed range. See Enzaki Abstract.
For claim 10, we adopt the Examiner's finding that Bunker in view of
Widener "teaches that the turbine engine does not include a combustion liner
and a flow sleeve located upstream of the single-piece combustor transition
piece." Final Act. 7.
Claim 11 recites "the first set of apertures being oriented at a different
angle than an orientation of the second set of apertures." Amendment 4.
Figure 3 of Enzaki discloses the cooling air inlet apertures 21 are oriented at
a different angle than the cooling air outlet apertures 22.
Consequently, we hereby exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 1, 4-7,
10 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bunker in view of
Widener and Enzaki.
14
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
Second New Ground ofRejection
We also enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 2, 3, 8
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bunker in view of
Widener, Enzaki, and Alkabie for the following reasons.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 8 and 9, the Examiner found
that Alkabie discloses a first set of apertures normal to the sleeve (claim 2)
and substantially normal to the outer surface (claim 9), the first set of
apertures having a constant diameter ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 inch (claim 3);
and a second set of apertures having a constant diameter of 0.02 to 0.04 inch
(claim 8). Final Act. 7-8. Appellants did not dispute these findings or
provide separate arguments for the patentability of these claims. In addition,
Alkabie discloses a double wall combustor with two sets of apertures for
film cooling. See Alkabie Fig. 3; col. 3, 11. 63-65. Alkabie teaches that the
size of the apertures is determined based on variables related to cooling and
noise reduction. Id. col. 7, 1. 59 - col. 8, 11. 1-5; col. 3, 1. 65 - col. 4, 1. 5.
Thus, Alkabie discloses a known method of determining the size and
orientation of apertures in a double wall combustor yielding the predictable
results of cooling as well as noise reduction. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416
("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
Consequently, it would have been obvious to combine the particular
orientation and sizes of the first and second apertures of the film-cooled liner
disclosed in Alkabie with the teachings of Bunker, Widener and Enzaki to
result in the subject matter of claims 2, 3, 8 and 9.
15
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
Consequently, we enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims
2, 3, 8 and 9 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) as unpatentable over Bunker in
view of Widener, Enzaki and Alkabie.
DECISION
We do not address the Examiner's provisional rejections of claims 1-
11 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is REVERSED.
We ENTER a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 1, 4-7, 10
and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bunker in view of
Widener and Enzaki.
We ENTER a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 2, 3, 8 and
9 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) as unpatentable over Bunker in view of
Widener, Enzaki, and Alkabie.
Section 41.50(b) provides that, "[a] NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for
judicial review." Section 41.50(b) further provides that Appellants,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION, must
exercise one of the following two options with respect to the NEW
GROUNDS OF REJECTION to avoid termination of the appeal as to the
rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence
relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the
16
Appeal2014-001206
Application 12/422,536
matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding
be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same
record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
17