Ex Parte Hilton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2018

12507529 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/507,529 07/22/2009 Antony A. Hilton
54882 7590 10/29/2018
BRUCE E. HAYDEN, P.C.
P.O. BOX205
DILLION, CO 80435-0205
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.
ICE-4003 6178
EXAMINER
MUNSON, PATRICIA H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2018 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):
bhayden@ieee.org
bhayden@computer.org
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ANTONY A. HILTON and GREGORYL. HILTON
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
Technology Center 3600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to:
[A] computer-implemented method, comprises providing wrap
code to a first entity connected to an electronic commerce
network. A gadget is provided to the first entity. A request for
content from a second entity connected to the electronic
commerce network is received when the second entity activates
the gadget. The content is transmitted to the second entity.
Specification, paragraph 19.
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
Instead of trying to entice users to click links and navigate away
from the websites and content to which they intently navigate,
the present system serves the user, on the page at which they
viewed the advertisement, all the content that would be available
for review had they clicked/linked/navigated to through the
online advertisement. This is done by taking existing ads and
enhancing them with an application that displays additional
content on demand. This is achieved with an application that
produces code intended for integration with the online
advertisement, and the code calls to it the display client which
presents the information to the user.
Specification, paragraph 25.
Illustrative Claims
1. A computer-implemented communications system, comprising:
an electronic commerce network connected to a first entity having a
processor
and a physical memory and a software-enabled second entity having a
processor capable of executing software instructions, a physical
memory, and a physical display;
said second entity configured to receive over the electronic commerce
network enhanced content containing a wrap code containing a means
for requesting a display of a gadget;
said second entity configured to display the enhanced content for a
user on the physical display, wherein:
said enhanced content contains the wrap code configured to request
transmission of the gadget containing additional content; and
said display of the enhanced content including the means for
requesting a display of the gadget containing the additional
content to the user;
2
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
said second entity configured to receive the additional content contained in
the gadget over the electronic commerce network; and
said second entity configured to receive and independently display the
gadget containing the additional content on the display upon the
activation of said gadget through activation of the means for
requesting display of the gadget by the user, wherein the additional
content is displayed independently of the enhanced content.
9. A computer-based communication system said
executable instructions comprising sets of computer instructions for:
retrieving an enhanced electronic advertisement having a wrap code
from a memory;
transmitting the enhanced advertisement to a software-enabled client
device; and
retrieving and independently displaying a gadget containing additional
content
upon activation of the wrap code by the client device displaying
the enhanced advertisement
Re} ections on Appeal
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a
whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination,
do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Final Action 2-3.
3
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Action 3.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) or
U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the
invention. Final Action 3--4.
Claims 1-22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as being
anticipated by Synstelien (U.S. Patent Application Publication
2009/0024482 Al; published January 22, 2009) (here in '482) and
Synstelien (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0040426 Al;
published February 14, 2008) (here in '426). Final Action 6-15. 1
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Synstelien '482, Synstelien '426 and Khoo (U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2008/0059571 Al; published March 6, 2008). Final
Action 15-17.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Briefs (filed June 9, 2016; April 28, 20172), the Reply
Brief (filed April 28, 2017), the Answer (mailed February 27, 2017) and the
1 Synstelien 2009/0024482 incorporates Synstelien 2008/004042 by
reference. See Synstelien 2009/0024482, paragraph 1.
2 "Applicant's Appeal Brief is resubmitted herewith in response to the
Examiner noting that pages were missing in the copy that she had available,
presumably through U.S.P.T.O. clerical error." Appeal Brief 2.
4
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
Final Action (mailed November 4, 2015) for the respective details. We cite
to the Appeal Brief filed April 28, 2017.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
Section 101 defines patentable subject matter: "Whoever invents or
discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception" that "[l]aws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012)
( quotation omitted). To determine patentable subject matter, the Supreme
Court has set forth a two-part test.
"First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts" of "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
2355 (2014). "The inquiry often is whether the claims are directed to 'a
specific means or method' for improving technology or whether they are
simply directed to an abstract end-result." RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo
Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). A court must
be cognizant that "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest
upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas" (Mayo,
566 U.S. at 71 ), and "describing the claims at ... a high level of abstraction
and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the
exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule" (Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
5
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Instead, "the claims are considered in
their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to
excluded subject matter." Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The Supreme Court has identified as abstract ideas claims employing
mathematical relationships or formulas, which are similar to the instant
claimed invention. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that the concept
of applying a mathematical formula to hedging risk and the application of
that concept to energy markets was not patentable because of similarities to
Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584
(1978), and Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Bilski v. Kappas, 561
U.S. 593, 611-12 (2010). Further, the Supreme Court noted that the claims,
like those in Flook, were unpatentable because "Flook established that
limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution
components did not make the concept patentable." Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612.
Additionally, the Federal Circuit has identified abstract ideas that do
not describe an inventive concept that is more than an abstract idea, even
when embodied in specific system or structure. Specifically, the Federal
Circuit stated "not every claim that recites concrete, tangible components
escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry," including a finding that
"claims reciting an 'interface,' 'network,' and a 'database' are nevertheless
directed to an abstract idea." In re TL! Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823
F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice
Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Federal
Circuit found the "eleven steps for displaying an advertisement in exchange
for access to copyrighted media" was directed to an abstract idea, despite the
6
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
claim at issue reciting "certain additional limitations ... [that] add a degree
of particularity." Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714--15
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, the Federal Circuit noted "the concept embodied
by the majority of the limitations describes only the abstract idea of showing
an advertisement before delivering free content," and the addition of novel
or non-routine components did not "necessarily tum[] an abstraction into
something concrete." Id. at 715.
In contrast, the Federal Circuit has found claims that "are not simply
directed to any form of storing tabular data, but instead are specifically
directed to a self-referential table for a computer database" are "directed to
an improvement of an existing technology ... achiev[ing] other benefits
over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search
times, and smaller memory requirements." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1337.
However, the heart of the claimed invention must be focused on the
underlying technology itself and how the underlying technology is altered
"in a way that leads to an improvement in the technology." Intellectual
Ventures Iv. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing
Enfish, 822 F.3d 1327); see also TL! Commc 'ns, 823 F.3d at 612.
If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the inquiry
ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step, where we
"consider the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered
combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the
nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). The Supreme Court has
"described step two of this analysis as a search for an 'inventive concept'-
i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that
7
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
ineligible concept itself." Id. (brackets and quotation omitted). For
computer-related technology, the Federal Circuit has held that a claim may
pass the second step if "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in
computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in
the realm of computer [technology]," e.g., "a challenge particular to the
Internet." DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2014).
In Bilski, the Supreme Court rejected the machine-or-transformation
test as the exclusive test for determining patentability, but nonetheless held
the claims were ineligible because the claims were preemptory of risk
hedging in all fields. Id. at 561 U.S. at 612-13 (citing Flook, 437 U.S. 584;
Benson, 409 U.S. 63). The Federal Circuit has also identified when abstract
ideas do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The
Federal Circuit held the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital
images in an organized manner was not significantly more than an abstract
idea because "the recited physical components behave exactly as expected
according to their ordinary use" and the claimed invention "fails to provide
the requisite details necessary to carry out th[e] idea." TL! Commc 'ns, 823
F.3d at 615. Moreover, the Federal Circuit held the idea of "receiving
copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for
watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to
the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad" was not
significantly more than the abstract idea because "the claims simply instruct
the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional
activity." Ultramercial, Inc., 772 F.3d at 715. Additionally, the Federal
8
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
Circuit noted "[ n Jone of these eleven individual steps, viewed 'both
individually and "as an ordered combination,"' transform the nature of the
claim into patent-eligible subject matter." Id. ( citations omitted).
In contrast, the Federal Circuit held claims directed to methods of
organizing human activity may be significantly more "when the claim
limitations were considered individually and as an ordered combination,
they recited an invention that is not merely the 'routine or conventional use'
of technology." Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d
1288, 1301---02 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259;
BASCOM Global Internet Serv., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016)). Additionally, the Federal Circuit held the ordered
combination of the claim limitations recited an inventive concept because
"the distributed, remote enhancement that produced an unconventional
result," which represented "a technical improvement over prior art
technologies and served to improve the performance of the system itself."
Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1302 (emphasis added); see also BASCOM, 827 F.3d at
1352 ("an inventive concept can be found in the ordered combination of
claim limitations that transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a
particular, practical application").
Step One: Whether the Claims Are Directed to a Patent-Ineligible
Concept (Abstract Idea)
Appellants ask:
What do gadgets, wrap codes, and transmitting additional
content from a first entity having a processor and a physical
memory to a second entity having a processor, memory, and
physical display for display on that physical display upon request
have to do with "targeted marketing"?
Appeal Brief 9.
9
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
It is evident that the Examiner finds the components in question are
employed in target marketing that the Examiners determines to be "a
fundamental economic practice and/ or a method of organizing human
activities." Final Action 2. We agree with the Examiner's finding that the
mere presence of generic components is not sufficient to remove the claimed
invention from the realm of abstraction. See Final Action 2. However, the
lack of specialized components does not doom the claims. See Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1338 ("Moreover, we are not persuaded that the invention's ability to
run on a general-purpose computer dooms the claims.").
Appellants argue that the claims are not directed to target marketing
and therefore they are not abstract under Alice, Mayo and Enfish. Appeal
Brief 10. Appellants acknowledged that target marketing was well known in
the art at the time of the invention. Specification 2 ("This integrated code
can be authored to automatically change to different ads within the server of
the advertising entity or representative agent of an advertising entity, and
can also be displayed to a specific user based on predetermined demographic
information."). Appellants indicated that approaches like target marketing
were limited and Appellants' claimed invention would not have such
limitations. See Specification 3-4. We find Appellants' arguments
persuasive. Appellants' claims disclose a system that attempts to enhance
displayed content over a commerce network environment. We do not find
that the claims are drawn to target marketing. Accordingly, we do not find
the claims are drawn to an abstract idea so the second step of the Alice/Mayo
test is not required. We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims
1-24.
10
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
The Examiner rejected claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter because "the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims reveals that the claims are not directed to a
system, but rather to software per se or to people." Final Action 3.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is erroneous because the structure
recited in the claims was ignored and "the rejection was not based on current
case law." Appeal Brief 13. It is noted that Appellants failed to cite any
current case law. See Appeal Brief 13. We do not find Appellants'
arguments persuasive because claim 9's preamble clearly states, "A
computer-based communication system said executable instructions
comprising sets of computer instructions for." (Emphasis added). We
agree with the Examiner's findings that, "The 'memory' and 'device' are not
part of the system." See Final Action 3. The claim, therefore, amounts to
software per se, and does not fall within one of the statutory categories
enumerated in 35 U.S.C § 101 ("process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter"). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 rejection of claims 9-11. See Appeal Brief 11.
35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection
The Examiner finds claim 1 's limitation "said display of the enhanced
content including a means for requesting a display of a gadget" to be
indefinite because "it is unclear if Applicant intended to claim a display as a
11
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
component of the system or a piece of software code." Final Action 4.
Appellants acknowledge the claim is "sub-optimally written" and states,
"The problem revolves around the failure to include the word 'physical'
before the word 'display' at a single location in the last paragraph in
independent Claim 1, when it was amended in response to examiner's
previous Office Action." Appeal Brief 13. Appellants contend the rejection
is improper because "going back through the claim, the only plausible
antecedent is the 'physical display' introduced (with 'a') as the last element
in the first paragraph of the claim after the 'comprising' clause." Appeal
Brief 14. We agree with Appellants that claim 1 is not indefinite although
the insertion of the physical terminology before the noted display term
would improve the clarity of the claim. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of claim 1-5, 7, 10 and 21.
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
Appellants argue, "The fundamental problem with the examiner's
rejection arguments is the Synstelien3 publications disclose an invention that
is essentially upside down, as compared to that in the application under
appeal." Appeal Brief 17. Appellants contend, "Much of the Synstelien
invention revolves around a user on a remote devices 15, 17, 18, 19, 20
uploading widgets to a server 11 to be stored in a widget database 12."
Appeal Brief 17. We note that Synstelien '426, incorporated by reference by
Synstelien '482, is titled, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PLACING A
WIDGET ONTO A DESKTOP" and discloses in the Abstract, "The present
3 Appellants' arguments are directed to the Synstelien' 482 publication
unless otherwise noted. See Appeal Brief 1 7.
12
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
invention provides a system and method for placing a widget onto a remote
device." Synstelien '426 is titled, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
DEPLOYING AN AD WIDGET" and discloses in the Abstract, "The
present invention provides a system and method for deploying a requested
widget as an advertisement on a remote device."
Appellants acknowledge the overlap between Synstelien and the
claimed invention and argue, "One of the primary differences is in the
downloading of the gadgets or widgets. There is no indication that
Synstelien does anything except request a widget upon loading the web page
containing the wrap code." Appeal Brief 18. Appellants cites to
Specification, paragraph 284:
Gadget 104b is not implemented like prior art widgets. Prior
widgets utilize substantial memory on a web page. Gadget 104b
and wrap code 104a, in contrast, take up a small amount of
memory. Gadget 104b remains invisible until called and hovers
unanchored above the page content, requiring none of the space
in the web page's layout when activated.
Appeal Brief 18.
Appellants argue, "There is no indication that this portion of the
present invention is found in Synstelien whatsoever. Rather, there is every
reason to believe that in Synstelien, widgets are loaded directly into the web
page being displayed." Appeal Brief 18. We do not find Appellants'
4 Appellants cited to paragraph 25 however the quoted passage is actually in
paragraph 28. See Appeal Brief 18. We note this as harmless error.
13
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
argument persuasive because claim 1 does not denote the gadget's memory
consumption. 5
Appellants contend the "inventor is his own lexicographer"
accordingly, "Synstelien['s] 'wrap code' does not qualify as a 'wrap code'
as that term is defined in the instant specification, and is used in the claims
under appeal because it does not disclose containing a mechanism for a user
to activate a gadget, such as a button, etc." Appeal Brief 21. However,
Synstelien '426 also discloses, "if the base program is installed, but not
operational, then the pop button will be presented and clicking on the pop
button will cause the widget wrapper to cause the base program to be
executed, and then operation will proceed as if the base program had been
operational all along." Synstelien '426, paragraph 47. We do not find
Appellants' argument persuasive because claim 1 does not require a
mechanism such as a button to activate a gadget. Further, Appellants do not
explicitly assign a unique definition to the wrap code terminology because
the Specification discloses that means for activating a gadget could be in the
5 Although giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation must take
into account any definitions given in the Specification, In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read into the claims
limitations from examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
14
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
form of well-known components such as buttons, links, images, etc. 6 See
Specification, paragraph 48.
Appellants argue the Examiner's determination that Synstelien's
widgets are equivalent to the claimed invention's gadgets is rejected by the
Specification. Appeal Brief 21 ( citing again Specification paragraph 28).
Appellants contend, "There is no reason to believe that the Synstelien
widgets differ from prior art widgets, such as those that the present
specification specifically distinguishes from." Appeal Brief 21. However,
Synstelien '482 discloses in paragraph 4, "Widgets are also known as
modules, snippets, gadgets and plug-ins." Synstelien '482 also discloses in
paragraph 5, "A widget can also be a stand alone or self-contained chunk of
code that appears as a mini-application on a user's desktop. This desktop
widget runs inside a small footprint application, which resides on the user's
desktop using a small desktop space and computer resources, such as the
HDD and RAM." We find Appellants' arguments' conclusory because
6 See Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., 527 F.3d 1379,
1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and
assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and
customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in
the written description." (Citations omitted)). Any special meaning assigned
to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure
from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in
the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133
F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
15
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
Appellants does not indicate how Synstelien '482 widgets differentiate from
the claimed inventions gadgets.
Appellants further argue:
[T]he appealed claims require that the transmission of the gadget
containing the additional content for display on the physical
display be independent of the enhanced content. This element
cannot be found in the Synstelien references since there is no
mention or suggestion that the download and display of a
Synstelien widget would at any time besides during the rendering
process for the web page in which it is embedded, which is the
standard process well known in the prior art. Thus, since the
Synstelien widgets are presumably downloaded and merged into
the web page under construction during the rendering process,
the Synstelien references cannot disclose displaying the original
content independently from the additional content contained in
its widgets.
Appeal Brief 21-22.
Claim 1 recites, "said enhanced content contains the wrap code
configured to request transmission of the gadget containing additional
content." Appellants contend the enhanced content wrap code contain a
mechanism for a user to activate a gadget such as a button. Appeal Brief 21.
As noted earlier, Synstelien discloses a pop button that causes the widget
wrapper to cause the base program to execute. Synstelien '426, paragraphs
46-48. Accordingly, we do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive
because it is evident that Synstelien '426's button or enhanced content is
displayed independently of content provided upon activation of the widget.
We sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1, as well as,
16
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
claims 2-22 and 24 not argued separately with any specificity. See Appeal
Brief 22-23.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
Appellants contend Khoo fails to address the deficiency of Synstelien
and therefore claim 23 is distinguish over of prior art. Appeal Brief 23. We
do not find the anticipation rejection to be deficient based upon the
arguments set forth by Appellants and thus we are not persuaded of
Examiner error. Appellants argue, "If the examiner wishes to utilize the
Khoo reference in combination with the Synstelien references, she should
withdraw her Final rejection and reopen prosecution." Appeal Brief 24.
Appellants contend "the examiner added the Khoo (US 2008/0059571) in a
final rejection, which never provided Applicants a chance to reply to her
assertion that this reference included claimed elements missing from the
Synstelien references." Appeal Brief 24. This argument relates to a
petitionable issue and not an appealable issue. See In re Schneider, 481 F .2d
1350, 1356-57, (CCPA 1973) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, (CCPA
1967). See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) (8th Ed.,
August 2001) § 1002.02(c), item 3(g) and§ 1201. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 23.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-24 is reversed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 9-11 is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 10 and 21
is reversed.
17
Appeal2017-008086
Application 12/507,529
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-22 and 24 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 23 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(v).
AFFIRMED
18