Ex Parte Jiang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 20, 2018

10908752 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2018)

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.
10/908,752 05/25/2005 Longzhi Jiang 161163-1 5752
61604 7590 02/22/2018
GE Healthcare, IP Department
9900 W. Innovation Drive
Mail Code RP2131
Wauwatosa, WI 53226
EXAMINER
PETTITT, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2018 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):
HCT echnologies @ ge. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LONGZHI JIANG, GREGORY ALAN LEHMANN,
and NEIL CLARKE
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
Technology Center 3700
Before KEN B. BARRETT, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3—11, 13, 15—18, and 20-23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real-party-in-interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to thermal shields for use with a
superconducting magnet of a magnetic resonance imaging system. Spec. 11
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A thermal shield for a superconducting magnet the
thermal shield comprising:
a shield body sized to surround a cryogen vessel that
encloses the superconducting magnet, the shield body
comprising a first sidewall and a second sidewall disposed
substantially perpendicular to the first sidewall; and
a first support ring having a first surface coupled to the first
sidewall and a second surface coupled to the second sidewall;
wherein the first surface and the second surface of the first
support ring are enclosed within the shield body; and
wherein the shield body comprises a material having a
thermal conductivity greater than about lOOOW/m K at
about 70 K.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Brown US 2,685,964 Aug. 10, 1954
Hutchison US 2,986,244 May 30, 1961
Shane US 3,404,061 Oct. 1, 1968
Barthel US 4,287,720 Sept. 8, 1981
Weber US 4,878,352 Nov. 7, 1989
Willett US 2004/0258922 Al Dec. 23, 2004
A.G. Kholodenko et. al, Comparison Of The In-Plane Thermal And
Electrical Conductivities And Transverse Pull Strengths Of Various
Pyrolytic Graphite Materials, Institute for High Energy Physics, State
Research Center of Russia, (2001). (“Kholodenko”).
Simon Kwan, The BTeVPixel Detector (2002). (“Kwan”).
2
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention.2
2. Claims 1, 3—7, 11, 13, 15—18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horikawa, Hutchison, Shane,
Kholodenko, and Kwan.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Horikawa, Hutchison, Shane, Kholodenko, Kwan, and Willett.
4. Claims 9 and 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horikawa, Hutchison, Shane, Kholodenko, Kwan, and
Brown.
5. Claims 1, 3—7, 13, 15—18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horikawa, Hutchison, Kholodenko, and
Kwan.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Horikawa, Hutchison, Kholodenko, Kwan, and Willett.
7. Claims 9 and 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horikawa, Hutchison, Kholodenko, Kwan, and Brown.
8. Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, 15—18, and 20-22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weber, Shane, Kholodenko,
and Kwan.
2 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, of claims 1, 5, 8, 13,
and 17 have been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 26.
3
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weber, Shane, Kholodenko, Kwan, and Barthel.
10. Claims 1, 3—4, 13, 15—18, 20—22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weber, Kholodenko, and Kwan.
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weber, Kholodenko, Kwan, and Barthel.3> 4’5,6
OPINION
Indefiniteness
Claims 6 and 7
Claims 6 depends directly from claim 1 and adds the following
limitations:
wherein a first outward-facing surface of the first support ring
is coupled to an inward-facing surface of the first sidewall via a
first fastener; and
wherein a second outward-facing surface of the first support
ring is coupled to an inward-facing surface of the second
sidewall via a second fastener.
Claims App. The Examiner considers the recitation regarding "a first
outward facing surface of the first support ring" indefinite as such a surface
is already recited in claim 1 and therefore confused with what is already
3 A rejection of claims 1,3,4, 13, 15—18, and 20 over Laskaris
(US 6,570,476 Bl, iss. May 27, 2003), Kholodenko, and Kwan has been
withdrawn. Ans. 26.
4 A rejection of claim 11 over Laskaris, Kholodenko, Kwan, and Barthel has
been withdrawn. Ans. 26.
5 A rejection of claims 1,3,4, 13, 15—18, and 20 over Laskaris, Shane,
Kholodenko, and Kwan has been withdrawn. Ans. 26.
6 A rejection of claim 11 over Laskaris, Shane Kholodenko, Kwan, and
Barthel has been withdrawn. Ans. 26.
4
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
recited in claim 1. The Examiner considers the same problem to exist with
the recitation of "a second outward facing surface" later in claim 6. Ans. 4.
Claim 7 depends directly from claim 5 and indirectly from claim 1
and adds the following limitations.
wherein the first outward-facing surface of the second support
ring is coupled to an inward-facing surface of the second
sidewall via a third fastener; and
wherein the second outward-facing surface of the second
support ring is coupled to an inward-facing surface of the fourth
sidewall via a fourth fastener.
Claims App. The Examiner considers the recitation of "a first outward
facing surface of the second support ring" is indefinite as such a surface is
already recited in claim 1 and therefore confused with what is already
recited in claim 1. Ans. 4. The Examiner considers the same problem to
exist with the recitation of "a second outward facing surface" later in
claim 7. Id.
Having reviewed the language of claims 6 and 7 in the context of the
claims from which they depend, we do not agree that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would be confused by these claims in the manner expressed
by the Examiner. The Examiner indicates possible confusion, but does not
explain what confusion would be had. We see no reason a person of
ordinary skill in the art reading claim l’s “a first surface” and claim 6’s “a
first outward-facing surface” would not understand that the claims are
applying a more specific description in claim 6 of the same surface recited in
claim 1. Both claims provide context indicating that the surfaces are the
same—they are both of the same support ring and they are both coupled to
the same sidewall. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
Section 112 indefinite rejection of claims 6 and 7.
5
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and adds the limitation: “The thermal
shield of claim 9, wherein the first and second sub-members are each
connected via a respective center support ring.” Claims App. The Examiner
considers the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether there is one ring
or several rings. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that the claim language means that “the first and
second sub-members of the second sidewall are connected via a center
support ring and the first and second sub-members of the third sidewall are
connected via a center support ring.” Reply Br. 4. Appellants state that their
interpretation is supported by paragraph 24 of the Specification and Figure 2
of the drawings. Id.
The PTO can properly reject a claim as indefinite if the claim is
ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear. In re Packard,
751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The test for definiteness under
35 U.S.C. § 112, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what
is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.”
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Section 112 places the burden of precise
claim drafting on the applicant. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056—57
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Careful and straightforward claim drafting by prosecuting
attorneys and agents, and rigorous application by examiners of
the statutory standard to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter regarded to be the invention, see 35
U.S.C. § 112,12 (2000), serve an important public notice
function.
6
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive Software, Inc., 544 F.3d 1298, 1300
(Fed. Cir. 2008). During patent prosecution when claims can be amended,
ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored,
and clarification imposed. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
In the instant case, Appellants merely explain how the language of
claim 10 can be read onto a preferred embodiment of the invention. Reply
Br. 4. While that may be true, the prospect that a claim may be understood
in the context of a single embodiment does not mean that the claim is
definite. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s position that
the language of claim 10 is susceptible to more than one interpretation,
including an interpretation that the claim contemplates a plurality of rings,
i.e., one for “each” — “respective” sub-member. Ans. 4. The claim requires
that each sub-member is connected via a center support ring, but is
ambiguous as to whether the sub-members must “each” be connected to
“each other” or to something else. Furthermore, by using the term
“respective,” the claim language is susceptible to an interpretation that
“each” of at least two sub-members has its own individual support ring
rather than two sub-members sharing a support ring between them. The
claim, therefore, is confusing and rightly rejected by the Examiner under
section 112, second paragraph.
We sustain the indefmiteness rejection as to claim 10.
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 3—7, 11, 13, 15—18, and 20—23
over Horikawa, Hutchison, Shane, Kholodenko, and Kwan
Appellants argue claims 1, 5, 13, and 17 together and do not make
separate arguments for the patentability of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 18
7
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
and/or 20-23 under this ground of rejection. Appeal Br. 25—26. We select
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Horikawa teaches a thermal shield for a
superconducting magnet. Final Action 12. With respect to the “support
ring” element, the Examiner finds that it is well known to provide gussets or
braces between adjacent walls. Id. at 13. In particular, the Examiner relies
on Hutchison as an example of a brace or support member having a first
surface fastened to a first sidewall and second surface fastened to a second
sidewall. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify Horikawa’s walls so as to be connected or joined using comer
supports and fasteners. Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have done this to provide a thermal shield that is
mechanically secure and easy to install. Id.
With respect to the element in claim 1 directed to a material with the
claimed thermal conductivity, the Examiner relies on Shane as disclosing the
use of pyrolytic graphite sheets for cryogenic container applications. Id.
at 14. The Examiner relies on Kholodenko to show that it is known to
fabricate thermal pyrolytic graphite (“TPG”) components with a thermal
conductivity greater than 1000 Wm-K at 70 K. Id. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to use TPG thermal shields in Horikawa. Id.
at 15. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have done this to provide a thermal shield with outstanding thermal
properties. Id.
8
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
In traversing the rejection, Appellants argue that Shane lacks support
rings as claimed. Appeal Br. 25. This argument is unpersuasive as it
amounts to an individual attack on a single reference in a rejection based on
a combination of references. Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Otherwise, Appellants do not contest the fact that Shane teaches the use of
pyrolytic graphite materials in cryogenic applications. See Shane, col. 2,
11. 14—18, col. 2,1 66, col. 3,11. 8-14, Fig. 6.
Appellants argue that Horikawa, Hutchison, Kholodenko and Kwan
fail to disclose a support ring or a ring-shaped support member. Appeal
Br. 25. In response, the Examiner finds that Horikawa’s shield is ring
shaped. Ans. 6 (citing Horikawa, col. 1,11. 13—15).7 According to the
Examiner, “[i]t is understood that the Appellants’ cryostat is ring shaped in
the same way that the prior art is ring shaped.” Ans. 29.
Those of ordinary skill in the art know that NMR devices are
ring shaped and this is further substantiated beyond any doubt
by the teachings of Horikawa that the cryostat is the same as the
prior art (EP 0260036) (column 1, line 13-14, column 5,
line 5-10) (see figures 1, 4 showing the ring shape). Those of
ordinary skill in the art would have considered these facts and
known that the shields and cryostat of Horikawa are ring
shaped.
7 “Fig. 1 shows a prior-art cryostat shown, for example, in European Patent
Application 0,260,036 A2, published Mar. 16, 1988. It comprises a cryogen
container 1 accommodating a cooled object, such as coils of super
conducting magnet, not shown.” Id.
9
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
Ans. 30.8
Horikawa relates to a cryostat for cooling a superconducting magnet
used in a nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMR) apparatus. See
Horikawa, col. 1,11. 8—10. Based on the record before us, we agree with the
Examiner that “[tjhose of ordinary skill in the art know that NMR devices
are ring shaped.” Ans. 30. Appellants provide neither evidence nor
persuasive technical reasoning to controvert the Examiner’s position on this
issue. The Examiner’s finding that Horikawa teaches a cryostat that is “ring
shaped” is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Examiner finds that Hutchison shows a comer support member
that is coupled to two perpendicular sidewalls. Ans. 32. We have reviewed
Figure 3 of Hutchison. The Examiner’s findings of fact on this issue are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellants argue that Hutchison’s comer braces are not “enclosed” as
claimed. Appeal Br. 18. In response, the Examiner finds that the walls of
Hutchison surround the supports 11 and, therefore, meet the limitation of
being enclosed by the walls. Ans. 33 (“It is considered that the walls (10)
clearly enclose or surround the supports (11) since they are within the
perimeter of the walls (10).”)
Hutchison is directed to a means for hermitically sealing fasteners
used in the constmction of tanks and pressure vessels. Hutchison col. 1,
11. 21—25. Figure 3 illustrates the manner in which the various sheets
composing the stmcture are joined together by rows of riveted joints. Id.
col. 2,11. 45 49. In Figures 1 and 2, an outer metal sheet 10 is joined to an
8 The Examiner incorporates drawings from EP 0260036 into the Answer.
Id. at 28.
10
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
overlapping inner sheet 11 by a fastener. Id. col. 2,11. 67—70. In Figure 3
of Hutchison, sheets 10 are not joined directly to each other to form a
joint/seam with a 90 degree comer. Id., Fig. 3. Consequently, portions of
the outside of inner sheet 11 are exposed at the comer of Hutchison’s tank.
Id.
We have considered the competing positions of the Appellants and the
Examiner and conclude that the Examiner has stated the better position. As
found by the Examiner, Hutchison’s inner sheets 11 are “enclosed” using a
broad, but reasonable, interpretation of “enclosed.” See Appeal Br. Appx A.
Furthermore, Appellants offer nothing in rebuttal to the Examiner’s broader
finding that providing gussets or braces between adjacent walls is well
known in the art. Final Action 13. Indeed, “L” brackets are a staple of any
hardware store. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily
know that the prior art is not limited by the particular comer braces shown in
Figure 3 of Hutchison. In an obviousness analysis, “we do not ignore the
modifications that one skilled in the art would make to a device borrowed
from the prior art.” In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1382
(Fed. Cir. 2007). In Horikawa, the various sidewalls abut each other at the
comers. See Horikawa, Fig. 1. As we understand the Examiner’s proposed
combination, the sidewalls of the modified Horikawa cryostat would still be
joined with seams at the comers, albeit reinforced with comer braces, of
which Hutchison is merely one example.
Appellant argues that element 11 of Hutchison is a “wall” and not a
support “ring.” Appeal Br. 15. This abbreviated argument is not
understood. To the extent that Appellants are arguing that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to form a comer bracket
11
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
into a circular or “ring” shape so as to reinforce, for example, an interior
joint at the closed end of a cylindrical structure or container, we do not find
such an argument persuasive. We have already agreed with the Examiner
that Horikawa discloses a ring shape. Thus, the existing sidewall seams of
Horikawa are already ring shaped. Reinforcing the inside of those comers
with comer brackets that are “ring” shaped would require no more skill than
forming the existing sidewall seams of Horikawa. See In re Jacoby, 309
F.2d 513,516 (CCPA 1962) (an artisan must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references disclose).
Finally, Appellants argue that Kholodenko and Kwan teach that TPG
has low mechanical strength and, therefore, “teach away’ from the
Examiner’s proposed combination. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner makes
several persuasive statements in rebuttal to this argument at pages 34—38 of
the Answer. Ans. 34—38.
There simply is no evidence to support the allegation that the
material is not desirable to be used by itself or with other
materials. The prior art of record, including Kwan and Shane,
explicitly show that the Appellant's suggestion is false since
Kwan shows TPG being used as part of cooling stmcture and
therefore, the material is used with other materials.
Ans. 37. Furthermore, Appellants’ argument is belied by the fact that
Appellants select TPG for use in their invention and, yet, their Specification
identifies no problem associated with the mechanical properties of TPG that
needs to be overcome and, indeed, their Specification provides no teaching
that purports to overcome any alleged problems associated with the
mechanical properties of TPG. The conclusion to be drawn from such a lack
of teaching disclosure in Appellants’ Specification is that no such problems
12
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
exist or, if they do, they are presumed to be readily overcome using no more
than ordinary skill.
We have considered Appellants’ remaining arguments and find them
to be without merit. In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the
Examiner's findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence and that the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-
founded. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection
of claims 1, 3—7, 11, 13, 15—18, and 20-23 over Horikawa, Hutchison,
Shane, Kholodenko, and Kwan.
Unpatentability of Claim 8 over
Horikawa, Hutchison, Shane, Kholodenko, Kwan, and Willett
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and adds the limitation: “further
comprising a first layer of high thermal conductive epoxy disposed between
the first sidewall and the second sidewall; and a second layer of high thermal
conductive epoxy disposed between second sidewall and the fourth
sidewall.” Claims App. The Examiner rejects claim 8 over Horikawa,
Hutchison, Shane, Kholodenko, and Kwan as applied to claims 1, 5, and 7
and relies on Willett as disclosing the use of epoxy to strengthen mechanical
connections. Final Action 16—17. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to strengthen the mechanical joints of Horikawa with an epoxy as
taught by Willett. Id. at 17. According to the Examiner, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have done this to strengthen the joints and
further seal the shield structure. Id.
Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of claim 8 apart
from arguments presented with respect to claims 1,5, and 7 which we have
13
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
previously considered. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 over
the combination of Horikawa, Hutchison, Shane, Kholodenko, Kwan, and
Willett. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (failure to separately argue claims).
Unpatentability of Claims 9 and 10 over
Horikawa, Hutchison, Shane, Kholodenko, Kwan, and Brown
Claim 9 depends from claim 5 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
second and third sidewalls each comprise a first and second sub-member.”
Claims App. Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and adds the limitation:
“wherein the first and second sub-members are each connected via a
respective center support ring.” The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 10 over
Horikawa, Hutchison, Shane, Kholodenko, and Kwan as applied to claims 1
and 5 and relies on Brown as disclosing the use of a center ring in joining
two cylinders. Final Action 17—18. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Horikawa by providing a center ring as taught by
Brown. Id. at 18. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have done this to provide a stronger overall structure and to
make the structure to easier to manufacture. Id.
Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of claims 9
and 10 apart from arguments presented with respect to claims 1,5, and 7
which we have previously considered. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
of claims 9 and 10 over the combination of Horikawa, Hutchison, Shane,
Kholodenko, Kwan, and Brown. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
14
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
Grounds of Rejection 5—7
over Horikawa, Hutchison, Kholodenko, and Kwan
In view of our determination to affirm the rejection of all pending
claims over Horikawa, Hutchison, Shane, Kholodenko, and Kwan discussed
above, we do not reach the Examiner’s alternative grounds of rejection of
these claims over the same references less the Shane reference. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) (The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of
the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the
examiner on that claim, except as to any ground specifically reversed).
Grounds of Rejection 8—11
over Combinations Based on Weber
The Examiner’s alternative grounds of rejection over combinations
based on the Weber reference are predicated on a finding that the
unnumbered element in Figure 3 of Weber that the Examiner annotated and
identified as “First Support Ring” corresponds to the “first support ring”
recited in claim 1, the “ring-shaped support member” recited in claim 13,
and the “first comer support ring” recited in claim 17. Final Action 16—29,
Ans. 18 (“Rl”).
Appellants argue that Weber lacks a clear teaching that the stmcture
identified by the Examiner as Rl is, in fact, a support ring as claimed.
Appeal Br. 18, Reply Br. 11 (“While nearby cover 5 is discussed in the
reference, there is no discussion or teaching regarding what the unnumbered
element identified by the Examiner is or could be.”).
We agree with Appellants that there is insufficient evidence to support
the Examiner’s finding that “Rl” corresponds to the claimed support ring.
Weber does not describe the component identified by the Examiner as “Rl.”
In addition, the Examiner does not provides sufficient technical explanation
15
Appeal 2016-002019
Application 10/908,752
of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this
undescribed component would be the claimed support ring, such as to make
up for the lack of evidence in Weber. Thus, the Examiner’s findings of fact
are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This error taints the
rejections of all claims that rely on the Weber reference, and, therefore, we
do not sustain any of the various alternative grounds of rejection that rely on
Weber.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6 and 7 as indefinite
under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 10 as indefinite under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—11, 13, 15—18,
and 20-23 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations
based on Horikawa and Shane is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—11, 13, 15—18,
and 20-22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations
based on Weber 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
16