Ex Parte Cloft et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 4, 2013

11754455 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2013)

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.
11/754,455 05/29/2007 Thomas G. Cloft PA0004172US;67097-814PUS 7448
54549 7590 09/05/2013
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
PRAGER, JESSE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2013 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
____________

Ex parte THOMAS G. CLOFT and ASHOK K. JAIN
____________

Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12-16, and 19-26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to “a gas turbine engine, and more
particularly[,] to a nacelle inlet for a turbofan gas turbine engine.” Spec. 1,
para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
subject matter.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a nacelle defining an interior space;
a fan section, a compressor section and a turbine section
positioned within said nacelle, an inner cowl surrounding said
compressor section and said turbine section, and said fan
section delivering air to said compressor section, and bypass air
between said cowl and an interior surface of said nacelle;
an air inlet for capturing air and communicating the air
into the interior space of said nacelle, said interior space
defining a plenum, the air leaving said air inlet, flowing through
the interior space of said nacelle, and into a passage, said
passage communicating the air to a location adjacent an
upstream end of said nacelle; and
a flow control for selectively blocking or allowing the
flow of air through said passage to the location adjacent to the
upstream end of said nacelle, and said flow control allowing the
flow when it is desirable to create a thicker boundary layer at
the upstream end of the nacelle.

Independent claim 10 is directed to a nacelle for a gas turbine engine
including, inter alia, “a nacelle body defining an interior space, and . . . said
interior space defining a plenum.”

Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
I. claims 21 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement;
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

3
II. claims 22 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which Appellants regard as the invention;
III. claims 10, 12, 14, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tindell ʼ611 (US 5,934,611, issued Aug. 10, 1999);
IV. claims 1, 3, 5, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tindell ʼ611 and Aitchison (US 6,851,255 B2, issued Feb.
8, 2005);
V. claims 1, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lindner (US 5,568,724, issued Oct. 29, 1996), Aitchison, and Tindell
ʼ283 (US 5,447,283, issued Sep. 5, 1995);
VI. claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lindner,
Aitchison, Tindell ʼ283, and Rosenthal (US Re. 36,215, reissued Jun. 1,
1999);
VII. claims 10, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lindner and Tindell ʼ283;
VIII. claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lindner, Tindell ʼ283, and Rosenthal;
IX. claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lindner, Tindell ʼ283, and Hocking (US 2005/0045774 A1, published Mar.
3, 2005);1

1 We have deleted “an Engineer[ing] Expedient” from the Examiner’s
statement of the rejection, because while this is evidence relied upon in
support of the rejection, it is not part of the ground of rejection. See Ans. 12.
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

4
X. claims 1, 3-6, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mani (US 2005/0060982 A1, published Mar. 24, 2005),
Aitchison, and Tindell ʼ283; and
XI. claims 10, 12-15, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mani and Tindell ʼ283.2

OPINION
Rejection I – Lack of Written Description
Claim 21 depends indirectly from claim 1, claim 25 depends directly
from claim 10, and each of claims 21 and 25 recite that “a fan control belt is
mounted within said plenum.” App. Br., Clms. App’x.
The Examiner determines that the above-quoted recitation in claims
21 and 25 lacks written description within the Specification. Ans. 4. The
Examiner notes that “[a]lthough the specification and drawings include[] the
term ‘fan control belt,’ there is nothing about mounting the fan control belt
and it appears that one of ordinary skill would not know how to mount a fan
control belt.” Id.
Appellants argue that a fan control belt is disclosed and illustrated,
and is a known component that is known to be mounted within a nacelle.
App. Br. 4.

2 The Examiner withdrew the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of:
claim 7 as unpatentable over Mani, Aitchison, Tindell ʼ283, and Lindner;
claim 16 as unpatentable over Mani, Tindell ʼ283, and Lindner; claim 20 as
unpatentable over Lindner, Aitchison, Tindell ʼ283, and Shmilovich (US
6,763,651 B2, issued Jul. 20, 2004); claim 21 as unpatentable over Lindner,
Aitchison, Tindell ʼ283, Shmilovich, and Hocking; and claim 24 as
unpatentable over Lindner, Tindell ʼ283, and Shmilovich. Ans. 3; see also
Final Rej. 13-14 and 19-20.
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

5
“[T]he test for sufficiency [of the written description under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph,] is whether the disclosure of the application relied
upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad
Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
“The content of the drawings may also be considered in determining
compliance with the written description requirement.” In re Kaslow, 707
F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, Figure 2 shows a fan control belt
199 mounted within the plenum 120 of the nacelle 100. In our view, the
content of drawing Figure 2 is sufficient disclosure to reasonably convey to
a person of ordinary skill in the art that Appellants possessed the claimed
subject matter of a fan control belt mounted within the plenum of a nacelle
as of the filing date.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21
and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.

Rejection II – Indefiniteness
Claims 22 and 26 depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, and
recite that “there are a plurality of passages receiving air from a common
plenum and a plurality of air inlets delivering air into a common plenum.”
App. Br., Clms. App’x.
The Examiner determines that it is unclear whether “a plurality of
passages,” “a common plenum,” and “a plurality of air inlets” are the same
elements as the passage, plenum, and air inlets introduced in independent
claims 1 and 10. Ans. 4. The Examiner also determines that the second
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

6
recitation of “a common plenum” within the claims lacks antecedent basis.
Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that “[i]t is clear from the overall scope of the
independent claims 1 and 10, and their dependent claims 22 and 26, that it is
simply a recitation of plural ones of the element found in the independent
claim,” because “[a]ny worker of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
[that] this is what is being disclosed, particularly when read in light of the
specification.” App. Br. 5.
We agree with Appellants. The failure to provide explicit antecedent
basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope of a
claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the
claim is not indefinite. See Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006; see also Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144,
1145 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Independent claims 1 and 10 recite “a
passage,” “a plenum,” and “an air inlet.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. Claims 22
and 26, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, recite “a plurality
of passages,” “a common plenum,” and “a plurality of air inlets.” Thus, the
scope of claims 22 and 26 would be reasonably ascertainable by those
skilled in the art, in that a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize
that claims 22 and 26 are reciting another passage and another air inlet in
addition to the passage and air inlet already introduced in independent
claims 1 and 10. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also realize that
the “common plenum” is the plenum introduced in independent claims 1 and
10, but that is shared by the plurality of passages and by the plurality of air
inlets. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the scope of claims 22 and
26 would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art and thus, we
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

7
shall not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
Rejection III – Anticipation based on Tindell ʼ611
Appellants argue independent claim 10, and provide no separate
arguments for claims 12, 14, 23, and 26 which depend therefrom. App. Br.
5. We select independent claim 10 as representative, and claims 12, 14, 23,
and 26 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner finds that Tindell ʼ611 discloses a nacelle including,
inter alia, a nacelle body defining an interior space, “said interior space
defining a plenum (46).” Ans. 5. Appellants argue that “Tindell [ʼ611]
discloses dedicated exit portion 46 which must somehow be formed in an
apparently solid nacelle body” and “[n]othing within Tindell [ʼ611] could be
properly termed a ‘plenum.’” App. Br. 5. More particularly, Appellants
argue that “[t]he exit portion 46 formed within Tindell [ʼ611] is not defined
by the nacelle body, but rather is a small formed passage drilled or otherwise
formed into the nacelle body,” but “[i]t is not a plenum, and simply cannot
meet the claim.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The specification
does not assign or suggest a particular definition to the claim term “plenum”
and therefore, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of
the word for guidance in determining the ordinary and customary meaning
of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See
Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The
ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “plenum” is “an air-filled
space in a structure.” See definition of “plenum,” accessed at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plenum (last visited: Sep. 1,
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

8
2013). In the first embodiment of a turbo engine housing 12 illustrated in
cross-section in Figure 2 of Tindell ʼ611, an air-filled space (exit plenum 34)
is depicted adjacent and to the right of another air-filled space (unnumbered
in Fig. 2, but analogous air-filled space (first exit portion 46) depicted in a
second embodiment in Fig. 3). Tindell ʼ611, col. 4, ll. 31-32, 35-36, and 40-
63, col. 6, ll. 22-25, and Figs. 2 and 3. We see no reason why, and
Appellants have not provided a cogent explanation as to why, the air-filled
spaced (unnumbered in Fig. 2, but analogous air-filled space (first exit
portion 46) depicted in a second embodiment in Fig. 3) of Tindell ʼ611
cannot be considered to be a plenum and is not defined in the nacelle body.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 10, and claims 12, 14, 23, and 26 which fall therewith, under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tindell ʼ611.

Rejection IV – Obviousness based on Tindell ʼ611 and Aitchison
Appellants argue against the Examiner’s rejection based on Tindell
ʼ611 and Aitchison without specifically referring to any of claims 1, 3, 5, 19,
and 22. App. Br. 5. We select independent claim 1 as representative, and
claims 3, 5, 19, and 22 fall therewith.
The Examiner makes similar findings with respect to Tindell ʼ611 and
claim 1 as those discussed supra for claim 10, but also finds that Tindell
ʼ611 lacks fan, compressor, and turbine sections which are taught by
Aitchison. Ans. 6-7. Appellants argue that “nothing within Aitchison would
overcome the deficiencies in Tindell [ʼ611] with regard to the lack of a
plenum.” App. Br. 5. We did not find that Tindell ʼ611 lacks a plenum for
the reasons discussed supra.
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

9
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 3, 5, 19, and 22 which fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tindell ʼ611 and Aitchison.

Rejection V – Obviousness based on Lindner, Aitchison, and Tindell ʼ283
Appellants argue against the Examiner’s rejection based on Lindner,
Aitchison, and Tindell ʼ611 without specifically referring to any of claims 1,
19, and 22. App. Br. 6. We select independent claim 1 as representative,
and claims 19 and 22 fall therewith.
The Examiner finds that Lindner discloses the subject matter of
claim 1 including, inter alia, “a nacelle (5) defining an interior space [(22ʹ)]”
and “said interior space [(22ʹ)] defining a plenum.” Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that “[n]othing within this combination would meet
the requirement of the plenum” and in particular, “Lind[n]er discloses
dedicated flow passages formed within an apparently solid nacelle body,”
whereas “Appellant[s] ha[ve] disclosed and claimed a unique way of
providing flow utilizing the existing hollow nacelle body.” App. Br. 6.
Appellants also argue that Figure 3 of Lindner discloses “a pipe 12ʹ leading
into a space 22ʹ, rather than allowing the flow through the hollow nacelle
body.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Claim 1 does not
recite a hollow nacelle body, but rather recites an interior space defining a
plenum, which the Examiner has found is disclosed by Lindner’s chamber
22ʹ. See App. Br., Clms. App’x. and Ans. 8. It is well established that
limitations not appearing in the claims, i.e., hollow nacelle body, cannot be
relied upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1349 (CCPA
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

10
1982). Additionally, Lindner’s chamber 22ʹ is an air-filled space in the
nacelle body and thus, satisfies the customary and ordinary meaning of the
word “plenum” as discussed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1
and Tindell ʼ611. Thus, Appellants’ arguments do not establish error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants also argue that “Tindell [ʼ283] discloses a control for
specific purposes, and Lind[n]er discloses distinct purposes” such that
“[t]here would be no reason to combine the two references to add a control
to Lind[n]er for some unstated purpose that would have nothing to do with
the function of Lind[n]er.” App. Br. 6.
The Examiner found that although Lindner does not disclose a flow
control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Lindner by adding the flow control (computer 10) of Tindell ʼ283 in
order “to control the boundary layer as a function[] of RPM of the engine,
free stream flight conditions and aircraft attitude (Tindell [ʼ283,] abstract).”
Ans. 9. The Examiner has articulated a reason as to why it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lindner by the
teachings of Tindell ʼ283, and Appellants have failed to explain why the
Examiner’s reasoning is either conclusory or lacks rational underpinning.
See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding that
“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
Thus, Appellants have again failed to show error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

11
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 19 and 22 which fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lindner, Aitchison, and Tindell ʼ283.

Rejection VI – Obviousness based on
Lindner, Aitchison, Tindell ʼ283, and Rosenthal
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that “an outlet of the air
inlet has a diffuser such that the air expands as it leaves the air inlet and
enters the interior space.” App. Br., Clms. App’x.
The Examiner finds that Lindner fails to disclose the subject matter of
claim 5, and turns to Rosenthal for its disclosure of “an outlet (52) of the air
inlet ha[ving] a diffuser (56) such that the air expands as it leaves the air
inlet and enters the interior space (Fig[s]. 3 and 4).” Ans. 10.
Appellants argue that adding Rosenthal to Lindner, Aitchison, and
Tindell ʼ283 produces an improper combination, because “[t]here is nothing
that would suggest modifying the piping of Tindell [ʼ283] in view of
Rosenthal.” App. Br. 7. Appellants’ argument is not addressing the
Examiner’s combination, because the Examiner’s rejection is not modifying
Tindell ʼ283 to include Rosenthal’s diffuser 56, but rather is modifying
Lindner. Therefore, this argument does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants also argue “it is the positioning of the diffuser at the . . .
location” that is being claimed so that “[t]here would be no reason to modify
the Lind[n]er device in view of Rosenthal, and such combination appears to
be based solely on hindsight.” App. Br. 7. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument. The Examiner has articulated a reason why it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lindner to
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

12
have a diffuser by the teaching of Rosenthal, i.e., “to reduce the pressure loss
of the air through the outlet,” since “[r]educing the pressure loss of the air
entering the interior space of the plenum provides the advantage of
increasing air flow into the plenum.” See Ans. 10. Appellants have failed to
convincingly explain why the Examiner’s articulated reasoning either is
conclusory or lacks rational underpinning. Nor have Appellants
convincingly explained why the Examiner’s modification of Lindner by the
teaching of Rosenthal is an impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Thus,
we are also not persuaded of Examiner error by this argument of Appellants.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lindner, Aitchison, Tindell ʼ283, and
Rosenthal.

Rejection VII, IX, and XI – Obviousness based on
Lindner and Tindell ʼ283, Mani and Tindell ʼ283,
and Lindner, Tindell ʼ283, and Hocking
Appellants fail to list these rejections in the “Grounds of Rejection to
be Reviewed on Appeal” section of the Appeal Brief and do not provide any
arguments of error with respect to these rejections. See App. Br. 3-8.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 10,
23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lindner and
Tindell ʼ283; claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lindner, Tindell ʼ283, and Hocking; and claims 10, 12-15, 23, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mani and Tindell ʼ283. See In re
Berger, 279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that Board did not err in
sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when the
Appellant failed to contest the rejection on appeal.).
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

13

Rejection VIII – Obviousness based on Lindner, Tindell ʼ283, and Rosenthal
Claim 14 depends from claim 10 and recites that “an outlet of the air
inlet has a diffuser such that the air expands as it leaves the air inlet and
enters the interior space.” App. Br., Clms. App’x.
The Examiner finds that Lindner discloses the subject matter of claim
10, except for a flow control which is taught by Tindell ʼ283 and a diffuser
which is taught by Rosenthal. Ans. 10-12.
Appellants mistakenly list the Examiner’s rejection as being based on
the combination of Tindell, Aitchison, and Rosenthal; however, the
Examiner’s actual rejection is based on the combination of Lindner, Tindell
ʼ283, and Rosenthal. App. Br. 6; Ans. 12. Appellants argue that “[t]he
combination [of Tindell, Aitchison, and Rosenthal] is improper,” because
“[t]here is nothing that would suggest modifying the piping of Tindell in
view of Rosenthal,” and “[t]here would be no reason to modify the Tindell
device in view of Rosenthal, and such combination appears to be based
solely on hindsight.” Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
because it does not address the Examiner’s rejection that is modifying
Lindner, not Tindell ʼ283.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’ rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lindner, Tindell ʼ283, and Rosenthal.

Rejection X – Obviousness based on Mani, Aitchison, and Tindell ʼ283
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection based on the combination
of Mani, Aitchison, and Tindell ʼ283 is improper without specifically
referring to any of claims 1, 3-6, 19, and 22. App. Br. 5. We select
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

14
independent claim 1 as representative, and claims 3-6, 19, and 22 fall
therewith.
The Examiner finds that Mani discloses a gas turbine engine
including, inter alia, “a nacelle (20) defining an interior space,” and “said
interior space defining a plenum (par[a]. 30).” Ans. 13.
Appellants argue that “Mani . . . does not disclose a plenum,” but
rather “discloses separate piping” so that “[t]here is nothing that would meet
the limitations of the nacelle defining the plenum.” App. Br. 8. Mani
discloses that “fluid duct 80 is structured to provide a plenum,” and “[f]luid
duct 80 is substantially disposed within a fan casing, for example, nacelle
20.” Mani, p. 3, para. [0030], ll. 18 and 27-29, and Fig. 4. Appellants have
failed to cogently explain why Mani’s nacelle 20 and plenum (fluid duct 80)
do not meet the claimed limitations of “a nacelle defining an interior space,”
and “said interior space defining a plenum.” See App. Br., Clms. App’x.
Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error by this argument of
Appellants.
Appellants also argue that Aitchison “does not overcome the
deficiencies with regard to the flow structure.” App. Br. 8. We note that the
Examiner has not relied upon Aitchison to teach a plenum, but rather has
relied upon Mani for this teaching. The Examiner relied upon Aitchison for
its teaching of fan, compressor, and turbine sections (Ans. 14), and
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding with respect to Aitchison,
nor the obviousness of the combination of Mani and Aitchison. Thus,
Appellants’ argument does not set forth error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Finally, Appellants also argue that while “Tindell [ʼ283] does show a
valve control, . . . its valve control is for its specific purpose,” and “Mani is a
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

15
distinct product with a distinct purpose for its flow passages,” so that
“[t]here is no reason to combine these references, other than hindsight
reconstruction.” App. Br. 8. We note that the Examiner has articulated a
reason as to why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Mani by the teachings of Tindell ʼ283, namely, “to control
the boundary layer as a function[] of RPM of the engine, free stream flight
conditions and aircraft attitude.” Ans. 14 (citing Tindell ʼ283, Abstr.).
Appellants have failed to convincingly explain why the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning either is conclusory or lacks rational underpinning.
Nor have Appellants explained why the Examiner’s rejection amounts to an
impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Thus, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 3-6, 19, and 22 which fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mani, Aitchison, and Tindell ʼ283.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, first
and second paragraphs, of: claims 21 and 25 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement; and claims 22 and 26 as indefinite.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and
103(a), of: claims 10, 12, 14, 23, and 26 as anticipated by Tindell ʼ611;
claims 1, 3, 5, 19, and 22 as unpatentable over Tindell ʼ611 and Aitchison;
claims 1, 19, and 22 as unpatentable over Lindner, Aitchison, and Tindell
ʼ283; claim 5 as unpatentable over Lindner, Aitchison, Tindell ʼ283, and
Rosenthal; claim 14 as unpatentable over Lindner, Tindell ʼ283, and
Appeal 2011-008765
Application 11/754,455

16
Rosenthal; and claims 1, 3-6, 19, and 22 as unpatentable over Mani,
Aitchison, and Tindell ʼ283.
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 10, 23,
and 26 as unpatentable over Lindner and Tindell ʼ283; claim 25 as
unpatentable over Lindner, Tindell ʼ283, and Hocking; and claims 10, 12-15,
23, and 26 as unpatentable over Mani and Tindell ʼ283.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh