Ex Parte Harris et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

10553359 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/553,359 02/04/2008
441 7590 03/29/2019
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street
Suite 400
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Harris
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.
034166 R 218 1712
EXAMINER
EMPIE, NATHAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
docketing@sgrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL HARRIS,
DIETER DETTERBECK, EGBERT LOX,
and THOMAS KREUZER
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359 1
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 4--10, 12-21, and 23-29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A hearing was held on March 12, 2019.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The real party in interest is said to be UMICORE AG & CO. KG. Appeal Brief
dated November 16, 2016 ("App. Br."), at 3.
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
The Appellants' invention is directed to a method for coating carriers for
catalysts, such as automotive exhaust-gas catalysts. Spec. 1. Claims 1, 12, and 20
are the independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The claim limitations at issue are
italicized.
1. A method for coating a plurality of ceramic honeycomb carrier
bodies, comprising flow ducts or flow pores, with at least one coating
suspension, wherein the coating suspension comprises solids in a
liquid medium, in a quantity in a wet state that corresponds to at least
a required target quantity, wherein the required target quantity is an
amount necessary to coat the flow ducts or flow pores in order to
achieve a large catalytic activity, and the coating operation includes a
variation in an applied wet coating quantity from one body to the
other, the method comprising, for each carrier body in a production
run:
(a) placing a raw coating onto a body at a coating station by
(i) delivering a quantity of the coating suspension to
the body at the coating station; and
(ii) removing an amount of surplus coating suspension
by pumping or suction to leave a quantity of wet coating
suspension on the body in the form of a raw coating, the
raw coating being present in a quantity that is larger than
the required target quantity;
(b) determining, after step (a)(ii) and prior to any further
removal of coating suspension from the body, a differential
quantity representing a difference between an actual quantity of
the raw coating and the required target quantity, and
( c) reducing the difference between the actual quantity of
raw coating and the target quantity by removing still wet
coating suspension,
wherein the removal of surplus coating suspension performed
in the raw coating step (a) is performed with a pressure and a duration
that has been predetermined to yield, on average for the plurality of
the carrier bodies coated, an overloaded raw coating comprising a wet
2
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
coating suspension that is not less than 102% of the target quantity
and not more than 105% of the target quantity, the amount of the
overloaded raw coating being set to correspond to the sum of the
target quantity plus the variation amount of the coating operation,
wherein the determination of the differential quantity in step (b)
involves a determination of the actual quantity of raw coating
suspension present on each body comprising weighing each body after
coating step (a)(ii),
wherein reducing step ( c) involves reducing the difference
between the actual quantity of raw coating and the target quantity
comprising application of a pressure or suction at an intensity, a
duration, or both an intensity and a duration that is set with reference
to the magnitude of the differential quantity, which differential
quantity is determined based on the weighing of the body in step (b ),
in order to reduce the magnitude of the differential quantity of still
wet coating suspension on the weighed body,
wherein the solids of the coating suspension comprises a high
surface area support material and the liquid medium of the coating
suspension comprises water, with the solids having a concentration
between 20 and 65 wt.-% based on the total weight of the coating
suspens10n,
wherein the removal of still wet coating suspension in step ( c)
is performed for a duration set within a range between 0.5 and 2
seconds at a pressure set within a range between 50 and 500 millibars,
and
wherein the removal of still wet coating suspension in step ( c)
results, on average for the plurality of the carrier bodies coated in the
production run, in an excessive final coating that is within 1 % of the
target quantity.
App. Br. 51-52.
Similarly, claims 12 and 20 recite, in relevant part:
12. A method for coating a plurality of carrier bodies comprising
flow ducts or flow pores, the method comprising, for each carrier
body in a production run: ...
(b) delivering a coating suspension to the carrier body;
3
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
( c) removing surplus coating suspension from said carrier
body ... to leave a quantity of wet coating suspension on the
carrier body in the form of a raw coating that is present in a
quantity greater than a desired target quantity for the carrier
body;
( d) weighing said carrier body, after step ( c) and prior to any
further removal of coating suspension from the carrier body, to
determine the weight of said raw coated carrier body;
( e) determining a differential quantity which is the difference
between the quantity of raw coating on said carrier body and
the desired target quantity of coating on said carrier body ... ,
wherein the delivery step (b) and removal step (c) together yield
... an overloaded raw coating comprising a wet coating suspension
that is not less than 102% of the target quantity and not more than
105% of the target quantity ....
App. Br. 54--55 (emphasis added).
20. A method for coating a plurality of carrier bodies, comprising
flow ducts or flow pores, with at least one coating suspension ... , the
method comprising, for each carrier body in a production run:
(a) placing a raw coating onto a carrier body at a coating
station by
(i) delivering a quantity of the coating suspension to
the flow ducts or flow pores of the body; and
(ii) removing an amount of surplus coating suspension
... to leave a quantity of wet coating suspension on the
carrier body in the form of a raw coating the raw coating
being present in a quantity that is larger than the required
target quantity;
(b) determining, after step (a)(ii) and prior to ... any further
removal of coating suspension from the body, the difference
between a quantity of raw coating on the carrier body and the
required target quantity for the carrier body comprising
weighing the carrier body after a coating step, ...
4
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
wherein the raw coating step (a) yields ... an overloaded raw
coating comprising a wet coating suspension that is not less than
102% of the target quantity and not more than 105% of the target
quantity ....
App. Br. 57-58 (emphasis added).
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1, 4--10, 20, 21, and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite;
(2) claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 23, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Kiessling 5202 in view of Sudo 3 and Watanabe; 4
(3) claims 4, 13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Kiessling 520 in view of Sudo and Watanabe, and further in view of Sulc; 5
(4) claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Kiessling 520 in view of Sudo and Watanabe, and further in view of Williams; 6
(5) claims 7, 10, 16, 19, 21, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Sudo and Watanabe, and further in
view of Kiessling 686; 7
(6) claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Kiessling 520 in view of Sudo, Watanabe, and Kiessling 686, and further in view
ofReed· 8
'
2 US 2003/0044520 Al, to Kiessling et al., published March 6, 2003 ("Kiessling
520").
3 JP 2000-202342 (A), to Sudo et al., published July 25, 2000 ("Sudo").
4 US 5,182,140, to Watanabe et al., issued January 26, 1993 ("Watanabe").
5 US 6,487,869 B 1, to Sulc et al., issued December 3, 2002 ("Sulc").
6 US 6,594,542 Bl, to Williams, issued July 15, 2003 ("Williams").
7 US 2001/0024686 Al, to Kiessling et al., published September 27, 2001
("Kiessling 686").
8 US 4,208,454, to Reed et al., issued June 17, 1980 ("Reed").
5
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
(7) claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 23, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view ofHoyer9 and Watanabe;
(8) claims 4, 13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kiessling 520 in view of Hoyer and Watanabe, and further in view of Sulc;
(9) claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kiessling 520 in view of Hoyer and Watanabe, and further in view of Williams;
(10) claims 7, 10, 16, 19, 21, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Hoyer and Watanabe, and further in
view of Kiessling 686; and
(11) claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kiessling 520 in view of Hoyer, Watanabe, and Kiessling 686, and further in view
of Reed.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
Claims 1 and 20 recite a "high surface area support material." App. Br. 52,
58. The Examiner concludes that the term "high" is a relative term that renders the
claims indefinite. Final Act. 3. 10 The Examiner finds that "[ t ]he term 'high' is not
defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining
the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably
apprised of the scope of the invention." Final Act. 3.
In response, the Appellants argue that "the language 'high surface area
support material' is a well-known term in the art." App. Br. 12. The Appellants,
9 US 3,959,520, to Hoyer et al., issued May 25, 1976 ("Hoyer").
1° Final Action dated June 22, 2016.
6
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
however, do not direct us to any evidence to support their argument. 11 See In re
Schulze, 346 F .2d 600, 602 ( CCP A 1965) ( argument in the brief does not take the
place of evidence in the record).
The Appellants also argue:
[T]he specification provides further understanding of the language
"high surface area support material" by stating that "[a]s high-surface
area support materials for the catalytically active components, typical
coating suspensions for catalytic applications include,/or example,
aluminum oxides, aluminum silicates, zeolites, silicon dioxide,
titanium oxide, zirconium oxide and oxygen-storing components on
the basis of cerium oxide."
App. Br. 12 (emphasis added) (citing Spec. 2, 11. 17-22).
We recognize that the Appellants disclose exemplary "high surface area
support materials." The Appellants, however, do not provide a definition of "high
surface area support material" or disclose a standard for ascertaining the metes and
bounds of the claimed "high surface area support material." See Final Act. 3
( finding that "[ d]ue to the relative nature, it is indefinite as to [the] degree of
surface area ... required to reach a 'high' threshold").
For the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claims 1, 4--10, 20, 21, and
23-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is sustained.
11 To the extent that "high surface area support material" is "a well-known term in
the art" as argued by the Appellants (App. Br. 12), there is no evidence on this
record that the Appellants are using that term consistent with its usage in the art.
To illustrate that point, we note that Hoyer compares materials having "high
porosity and large resulting actual surface areas," such as alumina, with "the more
desne [sic, dense] 'ceramic' monoliths," such as cordierite and aluminosilicates.
Hoyer, col. 1, 11. 30-37, 45--49. The Appellants, on the other hand, disclose that
aluminum oxides and aluminum silicates are both examples of "high-surface area
support materials." Spec. 2.
7
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
2. Rejections (2}--{11)
The dispositive issue in the obviousness rejections on appeal is whether the
Examiner reversibly erred in concluding that the following limitations recited in
claim 112 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the
prior art of record:
(a) placing a raw coating onto a body at a coating station by
(i) delivering a quantity of the coating suspension to
the body at the coating station; and
(ii) removing an amount of surplus coating suspension
... to leave a quantity of wet coating suspension on the
body in the form of a raw coating, the raw coating being
present in a quantity that is larger than the required target
quantity;
(b) determining, after step (a)(ii) and prior to any further
removal of coating suspension from the body, a differential
quantity representing a difference between an actual quantity of
the raw coating and the required target quantity,[ 13] •••
wherein the removal of surplus coating suspension performed
in the raw coating step (a) is performed . .. to yield . .. an overloaded
raw coating comprising a wet coating suspension that is not less than
102% of the target quantity and not more than 105% of the target
quantity ....
App. Br. 51-52 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Kiessling 520 discloses a method for coating a plurality
of carrier bodies comprising flow ducts. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds the
12 The limitations at issue on appeal are recited in each one of independent claims
1, 12, and 20. Therefore, for purposes of framing the issue on appeal, we rely on
the language recited in representative claim 1.
13 Claim 1 recites that "the determination of the differential quantity in step (b)
involves a determination of the actual quantity of raw coating suspension present
on each body comprising weighing each body after coating step (a)(ii)." App. Br.
52.
8
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
method comprises the steps of (1) delivering a raw coating onto a body at a coating
station, (2) removing an amount of surplus coating to leave a quantity of raw
coating that is larger than the required target quantity ( target take-up), and (3)
subsequently performing a second removal step. Final Act. 4--5; see also Kiessling
520, at ,r,r 19-22. As for step (b) recited in claim 1, the Examiner does not find
that Kiessling 520 expressly discloses the claimed "determining" step. Final Act.
5. Rather, the Examiner finds the claimed "determining" step is inherent in the
method of Kiessling 520. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Kiessling 520
necessarily determines, prior to the second removal step, the difference between
the actual quantity of raw coating and the required target quantity (target take-up),
"otherwise the operator would already be at target take up." Final Act. 5. In other
words, the Examiner finds that "excess coating remains after the first removal step,
otherwise there would be no purpose for the second taught removal step . . . . The
presence of excess validates that an identification / determination is made." 14 Final
Act. 30.
The Examiner also finds Kiessling 520 does not expressly disclose an
overloaded amount of from 102% to 105% of the target take-up as recited in claim
1. Final Act. 6. The Examiner, however, finds Watanabe discloses a method of
coating catalyst supports via slurry charge and subsequent purging and teaches that
"it is known [in] the art to expect about 5% or 3% fluctuation in a conventional
purging process." Final Act. 6 (citing Watanabe Examples 1 and 2 and Table 1).
14 Relying on Sudo and Hoyer, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to have incorporated weighing each
body before and after each coating process as the means of determining the
difference between the excess coating remaining and the target take-up" in the
method of Kiessling 520. Final Act. 7, 20 ( emphasis added).
9
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art "to have operated the method of Kiessling [520] based on a variation of
about 5 to 3%, (raw coating yielding an overloading amount of 105-103% of the
target quantity) since such a variation is known and conventional in the art to
accompany such [purging] processes." Final Act. 6.
The Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to establish that Kiessling
520 inherently discloses the claimed "determining" step "at least because the
Examiner fails to present any evidence making clear that such a determining step is
necessarily present in the coating process of Kiessling [520]." 15 App. Br. 16.
The Appellants argue:
[T]he Examiner fails to appreciate that the coating process of
Kiessling [520] is an automated process, performed based on data
obtained from preliminary trials, such that the coating process may be
repeated with a streamlined performance without any in-process
determinations as to the quantity of coating suspension loaded on any
individual substrate.
App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 7 16 (arguing that "the automated nature of
Kiessling's [520] process in fact obviates the need for any such indeterminate
determining step"). 17
15 The Appellants also argue that one of ordinary skill in the art "could not have
found it obvious to have modified the non-existent determining step in Kiessling
[520]" to incorporate weighing as proposed by the Examiner. App. Br. 18; see
also App. Br. 34.
16 Reply Brief dated March 20, 2017.
17 The Appellants also argue that Sudo' s weighing step cannot correspond to the
claimed "determining" step at least because Sudo teaches that the weighing step is
"performed in a different coating sequence as compared to Applicant's claimed
coating sequence." App. Br. 19. Moreover, the Appellants argue that Hoyer does
not teach a weighing step "performed in a manner to determine a differential
quantity, which differential quantity is then used in a subsequent reducing step" as
recited in the claims on appeal. App. Br. 35.
10
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
The Appellants argue that the automated nature of the process disclosed in
Kiessling 520 is explained in the Declaration of Ralph Kiessling filed on April 25,
2016 ("Kiessling Decl."). 18 App. Br. 16. In that Declaration, Dr. Kiessling states
that Kiessling 520 contemplates a two sub-step removal process being performed
with data obtained from preliminary trials. Kiessling Deel. ,r 5 ( citing Kiessling
520, at ,r 55 19). Dr. Kiessling states:
Particularly, US '520 [Kiessling 520] contemplates the first
sub-step removal (i.e., the rough removal) being performed with a
power and duration that has been predetermined from preliminary
trials to remove only a portion of the excessive coating suspension
(e.g., as in removing only a portion that accounts for channel
blockages); and contemplates the second sub-step removal being
performed with a power and duration that has been predetermined
from preliminary trials to then remove the remaining portion of the
excessive coating suspension that is required for removal in an effort
to achieve the target take-up amount. In this way, the two sub-step
variation of process step (b) does not require any step of determining
the amount of coating suspension that is remaining on the carrier
structures following the first sub-step removal and prior to the second
sub-step removal - which, advantageously, thereby decreases the
number of processing steps and facilitates a higher output of the
coating process.
Kiessling Deel. ,r 6 (italics added).
The Examiner does not address the Kiessling Declaration. Rather, the
Examiner states that he
18 The Kiessling Declaration is dated April 8, 2016, and is Attachment A in the
Evidence Appendix to the Appeal Brief. Dr. Kiessling is said to be a listed
inventor in Kiessling 520. Kiessling Deel. ,r 1.
19 Paragraph 55 of Kiessling 520 discloses, in relevant part, "The power of the
blowing out or suction processes [i.e., removal processes] and the duration of these
processes until target take-up is achieved can be determined by a person skilled in
the art in a few preliminary trials."
11
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
is not convinced that the conditions are rigidly predetermined as
argued. Consider the disclosure at [0050] to valves allowing for
adjustment of intensity / duration of removal treatments; why would
adjustment even be needed / discussed if everything was
predetermined? Further consider [0055], certainly conditions such as
blocked channels and insufficient removal would not be
predetermined, these are conditions that are determined in situ, and as
taught by Kiessling [520] could be corrected via appropriate
adjustment which is within the level of one of ordinary skill.
Ans. 5. 20 Based on those portions of Kiessling 520, the Examiner finds that
Kiessling [520] "implicitly" describes a determining step as recited in the claims
on appeal. Ans. 5.
It is well-settled that "[i]nherency ... may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities." In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578,581 (CCPA 1981)
(quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212,214 (CCPA 1939)). Rather, to
establish inherency, the evidence "must make clear that the missing descriptive
matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it
would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill." Cont 'l Can Co. v. Monsanto
Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis added); see also App. Br. 15.
On this record, the Examiner has not set forth a sufficient factual basis to
support a finding of inherency. As argued by the Appellants,
[T]here are a number of reasons for adjusting suction intensity and/or
duration in an automated coating system [(see Kiessling 520, at ,r 50)].
For example, performance of the automated coating process may
include a first rough removal sub-step performed at a first intensity
and/or duration and a second removal sub-step performed at a second
intensity and/or duration that differs from the first intensity and/or
duration, with the suction valve being operated to adjust the suction
intensity and/or duration between the first and second automated sub-
steps. As another example, inclusion of the suction valve permits the
20 Examiner's Answer dated January 18, 2017.
12
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
coating system to perform multiple different automated coating
processes, each of which may use different combinations of monoliths
and/or washcoat compositions, with the suction valve being operable
to adjust the suction intensity and/or duration to correspond with the
preliminary trial data for the specific coating process that is to be
performed.
Reply Br. 8.
As for paragraph 55 of Kiessling 520, Kiessling expressly discloses that
"[t]he power of the blowing out or suction processes and the duration of these
processes until target take-up is achieved can be determined by a person skilled in
the art in a few preliminary trials" ( emphasis added). See Reply Br. 9 ( contending
that "Kiessling [520] is understood as teaching the automated coating process
being designed to address blockages while also achieving the target take-up, all
based on preliminary trials data"). To the extent that blocked channels and
insufficient removal are conditions that may also be determined in situ in the
process of Kiessling 520, 21 that possibility is not sufficient to support a finding of
inherency.
The Appellants also argue that Watanabe does not teach or suggest an
overloaded raw coating as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 20.
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "wherein the removal of surplus coating
suspension performed in the raw coating step (a) is performed ... to yield ... an
overloaded raw coating comprising a wet coating suspension that is not less than
102% of the target quantity and not more than 105% of the target quantity." App.
Br. 51-52 (emphasis added). Claim 1 recites that raw coating step (a) includes a
delivery sub-step (a)(i) and a removal sub-step (a)(ii), wherein the determining step
(b) is performed after the removal sub-step (a)(ii) and prior to any further removal
21 See Ans. 5.
13
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
of coating suspension. App. Br. 51; see also App. Br. 18. In contrast to claim 1,
the Appellants argue that the overloaded coatings in Watanabe's Examples 1 and 2,
relied on by the Examiner, "are achieved only after performing two additional
removal steps following formation of a raw coating." App. Br. 21 ( emphasis
added).
In response, the Examiner appears to recognize that Watanabe requires at
least two removal steps to achieve the claimed overloaded amounts. See Ans. 7
(finding that Watanabe discloses "a rough purge (process at 3.7 kg/cm2 for 2
seconds) followed by a more delicate second removal (at 0.37kg/cm2 for a total of
1 sec, with an interruption of 1 sec there between, which can still be considered a
two step removal process (rough then delicate))" ( emphasis added)); see also
Watanabe, col. 16, 11. 28-34, 64---65. Claim 1, however, recites that the overloaded
amount is achieved after first removal sub-step (a)(ii) and prior to second removal
step ( c ), which follows determining step (b ). Therefore, the overloaded amounts
achieved after the at least two removal steps disclosed in Watanabe do not satisfy
the limitation of "the removal of surplus coating suspension performed in the raw
coating step (a) is performed ... to yield ... an overloaded raw coating
comprising a wet coating suspension that is not less than 102% of the target
quantity and not more than 105% of the target quantity" recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 51-52 ( emphasis added).
Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence of record does not
support the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness in the rejections of claims 1, 12,
and 20. The Examiner does not rely on the remaining prior art of record to cure
the deficiencies in the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 12, and 20. Therefore,
the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 4--10, 12-21, and 23-29 are not sustained.
14
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--10, 20, 21, and 23-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 23, and 27-
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Sudo,
and Watanabe is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 4, 13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Sudo and Watanabe, and
further in view of Sulc is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Sudo and Watanabe, and further in
view of Williams is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 7, 10, 16, 19, 21, 25, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Sudo and
Watanabe, and further in view of Kiessling 686 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Sudo, Watanabe, and Kiessling 686,
and further in view of Reed is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 23, and 27-
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Hoyer
and Watanabe is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 4, 13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Hoyer and Watanabe, and
further in view of Sulc is reversed.
15
Appeal2017-006723
Application 10/553,359
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Hoyer and Watanabe, and further in
view of Williams is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 7, 10, 16, 19, 21, 25, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Hoyer and
Watanabe, and further in view of Kiessling 686 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kiessling 520 in view of Hoyer, Watanabe, and Kiessling
686, and further in view of Reed is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16