Ex Parte Kluesing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

14109733 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

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.
14/109,733 12/17/2013 Daniel Kluesing 085118-523322_P243US 1 1040
78189 7590 11/17/2017
Dropbox
c/o Polsinelli PC
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111
EXAMINER
NAGHDALI, KHALIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
DropboxM ail @ Polsinelli. com
adrury@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL KLUESING and
LARS FJELDSOE-NIELSEN
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,7331
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LARRY J. HUME, and JAMES W. DEJMEK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dropbox, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate "to
content management systems, and more specifically pertain[] to creating
limited-functionality accounts for content management systems." Spec. 11.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases and formatting added to contested limitations):
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting a predetermined event in an electronic device;
and
automatically creating, in response to the detection of the
predetermined event, a limited functionality user account, for a
synchronized content management system, linked to the
electronic device based on a unique identifier of the electronic
device,
wherein the limited functionality user account enables
interactions with the synchronized content management system
without authenticating with login credentials,
the limited-functionality user account having one or more
restrictions for interacting with the synchronized content
management system that are determined based on a type of
identifier associated with the unique identifier,
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Sept. 26, 2016); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Jan. 4, 2017); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 4, 2016); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Apr. 7, 2016); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Dec. 17, 2013).
2
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
wherein the limited-functionality user account allows
content to be uploaded to the synchronized content
management system without login credentials.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Chen US 2012/0324002 A1 Dec. 20, 2012
Akella et al. ("Akella") US 2013/0219176 A1 Aug. 22, 2013
Sundaram et al. ("Sundaram") US 8,762,512 B1 June 24, 2014
Rejections on Appeal
Rl. Claims 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
as lacking written description support. Final Act. 3.3
R2. Claims 1—9, 11—14, and 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Akella and Sundaram.
Final Act. 5.
R3. Claims 10, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Akella, Sundaram, and Chen.
Final Act. 19.
3 "The applicant acknowledges the rejection of claims 1, 6—11, 14, 15, 19,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112[(a)] and partially cure[s] the rejection (claims 1,
6—11, and 19 are amended that cure the rejection) and does not cure the
rejection by amending the claims (claims 14-15 and 20) appropriately. The
Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 14-15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
112[(a)]." Final Act. 3 ("Response to Arsuments'j.
3
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
CLAIM GROUPING
We summarily affirm Rejection R1 of claims 14, 15, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a), infra.
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 4—18), we decide the
appeal of obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 1, 6—9, 11—14, and 16—19 on
the basis of representative claim 1. We address Rejection R2 of each of
separately argued claims 2—5, infra.
Remaining claims 10, 15, and 20 in Rejection R3, not argued
separately or with specificity, stand or fall with the respective independent
claim from which they depend.4
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1—20
and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as
our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We highlight
4 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1—4 for
emphasis as follows.
1. $ 112(a) Written Description Rejection R1 of Claims 14, 15, and 20
Issue 1
Did the Examiner err in finding claims 14, 15, and 20 lack written
description support for the recitation of a (or the) "two-way synchronized
content management system?"
Analysis
Appellants do not address or even acknowledge the outstanding
written description Rejection R1 of claims 14, 15, and 20 in the Appeal
Brief, notwithstanding previous amendment by Appellants to claims 1, 6—11,
and 19 to overcome the rejection. See Final Act. 3.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner's written description
Rejection R1 of claims 14, 15, and 20.5
2. $ 103 Rejection R2 of Claims E 6—9, 11—14, and 16—19
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 4—13; Reply Br. 3—15) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Akella and Sundaram is in error. These contentions present
us with the following issue:
5 In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner's attention to
the recitation of"the two-way synchronized content management system" in
claim 14, depending from claim 11 (emphasis added), which appears to lack
antecedent basis under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
5
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests "[a] computer-implemented method" that includes, inter alia, the
step of "automatically creating ... a limited functionality user account. . .
linked to the electronic device based on a unique identifier of the electronic
device," wherein "the limited functionality user account enables interactions
with the synchronized content management system without authenticating
with login credentials," and wherein "the limited-functionality user account
allows content to be uploaded to the synchronized content management
system without login credentials," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)?
Analysis
Our Decision in this Appeal turns, at least in pertinent part, on the
construction of the phrase "login credentials." We note, while Appellants do
not argue any specific definition of the phrase, the Specification
distinguishes between "user credentials," "unique identifiers," and "security
tokens," among other elements, i.e., "[c]ontent management system 106 can
also include authenticator module 126, which can verify user credentials,
unique identifiers (e.g. phone numbers, hardware identifiers, MAC
addresses, etc) security tokens, API calls, specific client devices, and so
forth, to ensure only authorized clients and users can access files." Spec.
136 (emphases added).
Thus, we find "user credentials" to be equivalent to the recited "login
credentials," and further find unique hardware identifiers and security tokens
are different from user or login credentials.
Appellants contend, "Akella unambiguously provides that users must
authenticate with credentials in order to use the Averail customer account."
6
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
App. Br. 6 (citing Akella, Figs. 25A-B, 26, and 27; 49, 50, 59, 70, 73,
and 339).
Appellants further allege:
In Akella, the user uses the Averail customer account to log in
and authenticate with login credentials to the system, and obtain
a particular identity configured to implement specific policies
.... Akella unambiguously provides that users must
authenticate with credentials in order to use the Averail
customer account.
App. Br. 6 (citing Akella, Figs. 25A, 25B, 26, 27; ff 49, 50, 59, 70, 73,
and 339).
With respect to the teachings and suggestions of Sundaram,
Appellants similarly contend:
The cited portion of Sundaram provides in full: "The SSO
system can allow a user 101, 171 to login to a corresponding
local Enterprise network 103, 104 using a single set of
credentials and have access, according to access policies, to the
cloud services 132 provided by the clouds 150, 155 without
having to individually login to each cloud service 132."
(Emphasis added) As illustrated above, the cited portion of
Sundaram discloses a single sign-on system (SSO system) that
requires a user to log in with login credentials in order to
obtain access to the user's account. First, Appellant notes that
the cited portion of Sundaram merely describes a mechanism to
log in to a system, and fails to disclose or suggest uploading
content using an account or any other interactions using an
account. Moreover, Appellant notes that Sundaram actually
teaches the exact opposite of claim 1, as it clearly requires the
user to log in with a set of credentials to even use the system or
access the account.
App. Br. 7 (citing Sundaram, col. 4,11. 6—32) (emphases added).
7
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
Appellants allege "the combination of Akella and Sundaram fails to
disclose or suggest these features of claim 1 and, actually teaches away from
these features," in further response to the Examiner's reliance upon:
(1) Akella as teaching or suggesting " nable[ing] interactions with the
synchronized content management system without authenticating with login
credentials" (Final Act. 10, citing Akella 1266), and (2) Sundaram as
teaching or suggesting "allow[ing] content to be uploaded to the
synchronized content management system without login credentials" (Final
Act. 11, citing Sundaram, col. 4,11. 6—32). App. Br 6.
The Examiner cites to Akella's use, in an embodiment (Akella Fig. 25;
1266), of Security Assertion Markup Fanguage (SAME) tokens teaching or
suggesting uploading of content "without login credentials," as claimed
(Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 3), and relies upon an embodiment in
Sundaram (col. 4,11. 6—32) as teaching or suggesting that authentication with
login credentials is not required to carry out the variously claimed
functionality of claim 1, i.e., by use of similar SAME techniques. Final
Act. 11; see also Ans. 3.
"A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant." Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta
Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). A
reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for
an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily
skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage
8
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
We find one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
Akella's and Sundaram's disclosed single-sign on (SSO) techniques are
merely alternative embodiments to the use of Appellants' unclaimed but
disclosed use of "security tokens." We further note Appellants have
differentiated the use of login credentials from alternative embodiment such
as found in Akella and Sundaram in which SAML tokens and cookies are
used. See Spec. 136; and see Akella Fig. 25A, event 9 ("credentials could
be usemame/password or [alternatively] SAML token + Cookies")
(emphasis added); 1266 ("The Proxy QA then authenticates with SharePoint
using credentials comprising either user name and password or a Security
Assertion Markup Language (SAML) token received from an identity
provider") (emphasis added).
The Examiner makes further findings regarding the recitation in
claim 1 of "automatically creating, in response to the detection of the
predetermined event, a limited functionality user account, for a synchronized
content management system, linked to the electronic device based on a
unique identifier of the electronic device." Final Act. 6 (citing Akella H 58,
69, 144, 239, and 241). We agree with the Examiner's findings, and do not
find Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 12—13) to be persuasive. We are not
persuaded because Akella "discloses restriction on access to iCloud from
Averail mobile application which is based on [the] type of the identifier
associated with the unique identifier (mobile phone)." Ans. 4 (citing Akella
1121).
9
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, such that
we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and
grouped claims 6—9, 11—14, and 16—19 which fall therewith. See Claim
Grouping, supra.
3. $103 Rejection R2 of Claim 2
Issue 3
Appellants argue (App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 15—18) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Akella and Sundaram is in error. These contentions present
us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further including
the steps of "receiving user data identifying a user of the electronic device,
the user data comprising login credentials" and "converting the limited
functionality user account to a full-functionality user account," as recited in
claim 2?
Analysis
Appellants generally contend the combination of Akella and
Sundaram "fail to even address these features of claim 2," and particularly
allege Akella, cited by the Examiner in the rejection, is deficient in its
teachings. App. Br. 13. "Akella still fails to disclose converting either the
User Principal identity for an account or the account associated with the
User Principal identity from a limited-functionality user account to full-
10
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
functionality, or otherwise modifying an account's functionality in any
manner. At most, Akella discloses applying an identity to a user account,
irrespective of any conversions of the functional characteristics of the user
account." App. Br. 14.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds Akella teaches or suggests the
"user first initiate[s] or triggers] access to Averail as [an] Averail Customer,
upon initiation according to User Identity in Averail Customer Account, it
becomes ... [a] User principal (full-functionality).... 'The identity model
includes the user's Averail identity and credentials, the user's associated
device(s) unique identifier(s), and user identity and credentials for each
federated storage domain (user data identifying a user of the electronic
device).'" Final Act. 12, citing Akella, Figs. 1, 2A, 25A; || 263—265;
quoting Akella | 59.
In response to Appellants' arguments cited above, the Examiner finds
Akella at paragraph 69 discloses:
Averail uses a customer account owner to create an Averail
customer account and then creates user or user principal within
that Averail account, as shown in FIG. 1 as devices such as
Tablet, Smart Phone, ... are identified as account owners based
on unique identifier of the electronic devices, then creates an
Averail customer account (based on electronic device identifier)
then for full functionality account creates user principal account
which is disclosed in detail in FIG. 2A—FIG. 2D and associated
text.
Ans. 3^4.
We agree with Examiner's findings quoted above that Akella teaches
or at least suggests the recited "converting the limited functionality user
account to a full-functionality user account." We further agree with the
11
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
Examiner's findings that Akella teaches or suggests the contested "receiving"
step by Akella's disclosed identity model and its associated identity and
credentials.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 2 or in the
legal conclusion of obviousness, and we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 2.
4. $103 Rejection R2 of Claim 3
Issue 4
Appellants argue (App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 18—20) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Akella and Sundaram is in error. These contentions present
us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further including
the steps of "receiving, from the electronic device, login credentials
associated with an existing full functionality user account, wherein the
existing full-functionality user account does not have one or more
restrictions of the limited-functionality user account," and "merging the
limited-functionality user account into the existing full-functionality user
account, thereby removing the one or more restrictions," as recited in
claim 3?
12
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
Analysis
Similar to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants contend Akella does not
teach or suggest both a limited functionality user account and a full-
functionality user account, and further alleges "nowhere does Akella even
suggest merging a limited-functionality user account into an existing full-
fimctionality user account and thereby removing the one or more restrictions
associated with the limited functionality user account." App. Br. 15.
We find the above-quoted argument to be substantially the same as for
dependent claim 2, with the exception that claim 3 also requires, after
merging of the accounts, "removing the one or more restrictions [of the
limited-functionality account]."
In response, the Examiner finds paragraph 72 of Akella discloses:
a user principal's identity where each user is represented with
an Apple ID that is also associated with device as part of iOS
initial ID, Averail enables a user principal to associate an Apple
ID with a federated Averail identity for access iCloud which
merge the limited-functionality to full-functionality where by
direct path there is no access from mobile to iCloud.
Ans. 4—5.
We note Appellants have not cited to a definition of either "full-
fimctionality' or "limited-functionality" in the Specification that would
preclude the Examiner's broader reading, as quoted above.6 Id.
6 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); see
also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to
13
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 3 or in the
legal conclusion of obviousness, such that we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 3.
5. $103 Rejection R2 of Claim 4
Issue 5
Appellants argue (App. Br. 16—17; Reply Br. 20-22) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Akella and Sundaram is in error. These contentions present
us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein "the type
of identifier associated with the unique identifier is one of a hardware
identifier associated with the electronic device, a media access control
(MAC) address, or a phone number associated with the electronic device,"
and "at least one of a restriction type or restriction number of the one or
more restrictions is different when the type of identifier is the phone number
than when the type of identifier is the hardware identifier or the media
access control address," as recited in claim 4 (emphases added)?
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.").
14
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
Analysis
Appellants contend the portions of Akella cited by the Examiner (i.e.,
paragraphs 338 and 339) "merely disclose a unique identifier for a device
and querying a device for a device name, iOS and build version, model name
and number, capacity and space available, and network information." App.
Br. 16—17. Appellants further contend "[n]owhere do these paragraphs
suggest that the restriction type or number of the one or more restrictions is
different when the type of identifier is the phone number than when the type
of identifier is the hardware identifier or the media access control address
.... merely querying relevant device information is irrespective of the type
or number of restrictions for that device." App. Br. 17.
In response, the Examiner finds Akella Figure 21 (item 2200) and
paragraph 241 disclose multiple, different policies implemented depending
upon a hierarchical policy flowchart, e.g., phone or device policies
implemented in Fig. 21, step 2200, contrasted to "Additional User/Group
Policies" in Fig. 21, step 2300. Consistent with the Examiner's findings
(Ans. 5), we find "Additional Phone/Device Policies" in step 2200 teaches or
at least suggests different types of restrictions when the type of identifier is
the phone number than when the type of identifier is the hardware identifier,
under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim limitation.
Furthermore, although we disagree with the Examiner's specific
finding regarding the recited MAC address (claim 4) reading on the
Macintosh computer platform disclosed in Akella paragraph 369 (see Final
15
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
Act. 14; and see Ans. 5),7 we conclude, as a matter of claim construction,
this error is inconsequential to our ultimate determination of obviousness
because of the alternative language recited in the claim, i.e., "the type of
identifier ... is one of a hardware identifier ... a media access control
(MAC) address, or a phone number." Claim 4 (emphasis added to
alternative language).
We agree with the Examiner that Akella teaches or at least suggests
the type of identifier is a hardware identifier. Final Act. 14, citing Akella
1338 ("The identity component of an embodiment includes unique device
identifiers for each of the one or more mobile devices).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 4 or in the
legal conclusion of obviousness, such that we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 4.
6. $103 Rejection R2 of Claim 5
Issue 6
Appellants argue (App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 23—24) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Akella and Sundaram is in error. These contentions present
us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein "the
7 Appellants rebut the Examiner's findings in this regard. See Reply Br.
21-22.
16
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
limited-functionality user account is created without login credentials and is
not associated with any login credentials at the synchronized content
management system," as recited in claim 5?
Analysis
Appellants argue the Examiner's citation (Final Act. 14—15) to data
plan and control plane communications paths has "no relation to whether a
user account is created or associated with login credentials . . . [and it] is
unclear why or how the references to a control plan and data plane for
network communications is considered relevant by the Examiner." App.
Br. 17-18.
While we appreciate Appellants' argument, we note Akella Figure 3
(an "ACXS implemented control plane") and paragraph 62 teaches "direct
access 360 and operations on the content from mobile device itself happens
directly between the Averail application on mobile device and storage
domain services." In agreement with the Examiner, we find this teaches or
at least suggests a limited functionality user account that "is not associated
with any login credentials at the synchronized content management system."
We further reiterate our analysis with respect to Issue 2 in connection
with Rejection R2 of claim 1, supra, in which we find the combination of
Akella and Sundaram teaches or suggests "the limited-functionality user
account is created without login credentials."
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 5 or in the
17
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness, such that we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 5.
7. Rejection R3 of Claims 10, 15, and 20
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness Rejection R3 of claims 10, 15, and 20 under § 103 (see App.
Br. 18), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Arguments not
made are waived.8
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2—24) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position
in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not
raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the
Examiner’s Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to written description
Rejection R1 of claims 14, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), and we
summarily sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness
Rejections R2 and R3 of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited
prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
8 Appellants merely argue, "for at least the reasons mentioned above with
respect to claims 1,11, and 16, each of these dependent claims is also
patentable over the cited prior art." App. Br. 18.
18
Appeal 2017-003634
Application 14/109,733
DECISION
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14, 15,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
19