Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2019

14385979 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/385,979 09/17/2014
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
02/20/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jin Liu
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.
LUTZ 201889US01 4175
EXAMINER
ADHAMI, MOHAMMAD SAJID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2471
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2019 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@faysharpe.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIN LIU and XUDONG ZHU
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/385,979
Technology Center 2400
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 4--6, 8-11, 14--16, 18-21,
24--26, 28, 29, 38--41, and 43--48. 3 Claims 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, 17, 22, 23, 27,
1 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief, filed Jan. 29, 2018
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief, filed June 25, 2018 ("Reply Br.,");
Examiner's Answer, mailed May 18, 2018 ("Ans."); Non-Final Office
Action, mailed Aug 9, 2017 ("Non-Final Act."); and the original
Specification, filed Sept. 17, 2014, as the national stage entry of a PCT
application filed Mar. 18, 2013 ("Spec.").
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App.
Br. 1.
3 The Non-Final Action incorrectly lists claim 49 as a rejected claim rather
than a claim subject to an objection. Compare Non-Final Act. 1, with id.
at 29. Appellants do not include claim 49 in their appeal (see App. Br. 9),
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
and 42 are cancelled, and claims 30-37 are withdrawn. Non-Final Act. 2.
Claim 49 is objected to as depending upon a rejected base claim. Id. at 29.
Although the action appealed from was a non-final rejection, we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134 because the claims have
been twice presented and rejected. See Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420,
1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to a
method for transmitting uplink control information over a physical uplink
shared channel (PUSCH). Spec. 1:5-7.
Claims 1, 6, and 38, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested limitations):
1. A method for transmitting channel state information
(CSI) of multiple coordinated points in a coordinated multi-
Point (CoMP) system, the method comprising:
coding the CSI of the multiple coordinated points;
modulating the coded CSI of the multiple coordinated
points;
multiplexing the modulated CSI on a physical uplink
shared channel (PUSCH);
one of:
and we consider its inclusion in the list of rejected claims to be a
typographical error. In addition, the Non-Final Action incorrectly lists
claims 30-37 as subject to a rejection. Non-Final Act. 1 (box 7). We
consider this to be a typographical error, as the Non-Final Action identifies
these as withdrawn claims. Id. at 1, 2.
2
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
repeatedly multiplexing a same rank indicator (RI)
on all uplink ranks; and
multiplexing different Rls for different uplink
ranks; and
multiplexing a channel quality indicator/precoding matrix
indicator (CQI/PMI) in the CSI comprising multiplexing
the CQI/PMI in a code word with the highest modulation
and coding order and in other code words;
wherein the CSI of the multiple coordinated points is
coded by one of a separate coding and hybrid coding; and
wherein the method further comprises:
when the CS! is multiplexed on the PUSCH, allocating
the same or different resource offset parameters for the
CS! after the separate coding or hybrid coding, the
resource offset parameters being configured by upper-
layer signaling; and
transmitting the CSI after the separate coding or hybrid
coding.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x).
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the CSI is
transmitted connected in a predetermined order, and in one sub-
frame. 4
6. The method according to claim 5 further comprising
indicating by the upper-layer signaling the start point of the
coded CS!.
Id. at 16-17.
3 8. A method for transmitting channel state information
(CSI) of multiple coordinated points in a coordinated multi-
Point (CoMP) system, the method comprising:
4 Claim 5 is included in this summary only because representative claim 6
depends from claim 5.
3
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
Id. at 20-21.
performing a separate coding for the CSI of each
coordinated point in the multiple coordinated points or in
each joint coded group;
modulating the coded CSI of the multiple coordinated
points;
multiplexing the modulated CSI on a physical uplink
shared channel (PUSCH);
allocating the same resource offset parameters for the
coded CS!, the resource offset parameters being
configured by upper-layer signaling; and
transmitting the coded CSI;
wherein the number of the coordinated points in the joint
coded group is designated by the upper-layer signaling.
THE REJECTI0NS 5
1. Claims 1, 4---6, 9--11, 14--16, 19, 6 and 45--48 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dinan (US 2013/0077514 Al,
5 The Examiner's rejection of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
over the references appears to be a typographical error. The present
application was filed Sept. 17, 2014, as the national stage entry of a PCT
application filed Mar. 18, 2013. Accordingly, the application should not be
examined under pre-AIA § I03(a). See MPEP § 2159. However,
Appellants do not reference this discrepancy or any reversible error
associated with it. The cited references qualify as prior art under post-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102, and so we evaluate the rejections as rejections underpost-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6 The Examiner does not list claim 19 in the lead paragraph for Rejection 1
(Non-Final Act. 3), but the Examiner rejects claim 19 (id. at 1) and discusses
claim 19 as part of Rejection 1 (id. at 15). Appellants do not reference claim
19 or any associated error. As such, we consider the omission of claim 19
from this listing to be a typographical error.
4
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
published Mar. 28, 2013, and filed Sept. 22, 2012), Onggosanusi (US
2010/0027456 Al, published Feb. 4, 2010), and Marinier (US 2013/0003788
Al, published Jan. 3, 2013). Non-Final Act. 3-16.
2. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Dinan, Onggosanusi, Marinier, and Pelletier (WO
2011/137408 A2, published Nov. 3, 2011). Non-Final Act. 16-18.
3. Claims 20, 24--26, 29, 38--41, and 43 7 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dinan and Marinier. Non-Final
Act. 18-26.
4. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Dinan, Marinier, and Onggosanusi. Non-Final Act. 26-27.
5. Claims 28 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Dinan, Marinier, and Pelletier. Non-Final Act. 28-29.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
7 The Examiner does not list claim 43 in the lead paragraph for Rejection 3
(Non-Final Act. 18), but the Examiner rejects claim 43 (id. at 1) and
discusses the claim 43 as part of Rejection 3 (id. at 26). Appellants do not
reference claim 43 or any associated error. As such, we consider the
omission of claim 43 from this listing to be a typographical error.
5
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Claims 1, 10, and 20
Claim 1 recites: "when the CSI is multiplexed on the PUSCH,
allocating the same or different resource offset parameters for the CSI after
the separate coding or hybrid coding" (referred to in this Decision as the
"allocating limitation"). App. Br. 16 (Claims App 'x). 8 Appellants argue the
cited references fail to teach or suggest allocating resource offset parameters
when multiplexing the CSI and after the separate coding or hybrid coding. 9
App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2--4.
For the allocating limitation, the Examiner relied on Marinier. Non-
Final Act. 6-7. Marinier provides periodicity and offset for different subsets
of CSI, and the Examiner equated this information to the allocated "resource
offset parameters for the CSL" Id. at 6 (citing Marinier ,r,r 6, 77). The
Examiner concluded it would have been obvious in light of Marinier to
8 Claim 1 defines CSI as "channel state information" and PUSCH as "a
physical uplink shared channel." App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x).
9 We are not persuaded that the two timing aspects of the allocating
limitation require separate analysis (i.e., "when ... multiplexing" and "after
... coding"). Claim 1 recites "coding the CSI ... modulating the coded CS!
. . . [ and] multiplexing the modulated CS! on a physical uplink shared
channel (PUSCH)." App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added). The
claim also specifies the "cod[ing is] by one of a separate coding and hybrid
coding." Id. Accordingly, multiplexing must occur after the separate coding
or hybrid coding, and by extension, any step that occurs "when ...
multiplexing" would necessarily occur "after the separate coding or hybrid
coding." Thus, we have referred to these timing aspects interchangeably.
6
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
allocate the resource offset parameters after coding the CSI: "the offset
parameters are used for modifying the transmission," and the allocation can
occur after coding "in order to use the appropriate parameters for the
transmission." Id. at 7.
Appellants quote from the cited paragraphs of Marinier and argue
these portions of the reference fail to teach or suggest that the allocation
"would occur specifically" when multiplexing and after coding the CSL
App. Br. 10-11. Appellants state that "simply because offset parameters are
used to modify a transmission does not mean that allocating resource offset
parameters after coding [sic]." Id. at 11 ( emphasis omitted).
In response, the Examiner expands on the obviousness analysis,
explaining the "parameters are allocated when the CSI is multiplexed on the
PUSCH" because these parameters are used for transmission and the CSI is
multiplexed for transmission. Ans. 3. Further, the Examiner reasons that,
because the CSI coding can affect the parameters, the parameters would be
allocated after coding. Id. at 4. Appellants reply by summarizing Marinier's
teachings and by contending these teachings do not suggest the timing
aspects of the allocating limitation. Reply Br. 2.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error on the part of the
Examiner. We determine the Examiner's findings and rationale regarding
the limitation at issue support a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int'!
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (requiring a "rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness"). The cited
portion of Marinier states:
7
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
Embodiments recognize that different portions of the CSI for
the same transmission point ( e.g. the RI and the PMI/CQI) may
use different periodic sets of subframes. The periodicity
(and/or offset) may be different for different subsets of
transmission points or different types or portions of the CSL
This could allow, for example, the [remote device] to send CSI
more frequently for a first subset of transmission points (the
"active" subset or the "serving" subset) than for a second subset
of transmission points ( the "monitored" subset or the "non-
serving" subset). The parameters of the specific function
determining in which subframes a specific subset are reported
may be provided by higher layers ( e.g. RRC signaling). For
instance, higher layers may provide the periodicity and offset
for each subset of transmission points and/ or portions of CSI,
perhaps through a single index from which these parameters
can be derived.
Marinier ,r 77. The Examiner reasons these parameters are used for
transmission, and the CSI is multiplexed for transmission, and so it would be
logical for the former to be allocated "when" the latter occurs. Ans. 3. The
Examiner also explained the "appropriate parameters" depend upon the
coding step, suggesting that parameters should be allocated after coding.
Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 4.
Appellants identify no errors or inaccuracies in this rationale, do not
contend the Examiner's proposals are beyond the level of skill of one of
ordinary skill in the art, and do not submit that allocating parameters when
CSI is multiplexed would yield undesirable, unpredictable, or unexpected
results. See App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2. In fact, Appellants do not respond to
the Examiner's obviousness rationale. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2.
Consequently, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's findings
or ultimate conclusion as to obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (If an examiner presents a prima facie case, "the
8
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the
applicant.").
Rather, Appellants conclude the cited portions of the reference do not
explicitly teach or suggest the claim limitation. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2.
However, the reference need not include an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
motivation. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 ("The obviousness analysis cannot be
confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and
motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and
the explicit content of issued patents.").
In addition, Appellants argue Marinier does not teach "separate
coding or hybrid coding (rather, e.g., than joint coding)" and thus cannot
teach or suggest allocating parameters "specifically after" this specific type
of coding. App. Br. 11 ( emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 4. Turning to Dinan,
Appellants argue this reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Marinier
because Dinan is "silent with respect to any temporal order between separate
coding and resource allocation." Reply Br. 4.
This argument also does not persuade us of error because Appellants
attack the references individually, while the Examiner relies on the
combined disclosures in the references to reject claim 1. Accordingly,
Appellants do not show error in the Examiner's rejection as articulated. See
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references."). The Examiner explained the combined disclosures in Dinan
and Marinier render the disputed limitation obvious. In particular, the
Examiner found Dinan discloses coding CSI using "separate coding or
9
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
hybrid coding." Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Dinan ,r 84). Appellants do not
dispute this finding. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. The Examiner found
Marinier teaches or suggests allocating resources after coding (Non-Final
Act. 6-7), and as explained supra, we are not persuaded of error in this
finding. Finally, the Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to
modify Dinan as taught and suggested by Marinier (Non-Final Act. 6, 7),
and Appellants identify no error associated with this combination of Dinan
and Marinier (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4).
Based on the above, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the
proposed combination of references renders obvious this limitation, i.e.,
"when the CSI is multiplexed on the PUSCH, allocating the same or
different resource offset parameters for the CSI after the separate coding or
hybrid coding." Consequently, Appellants do not show error in the
Examiner's factual findings and the conclusion of obviousness of claim 1.
For claims 10 and 20, Appellants rely on the same arguments made
with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 11 ), and we are similarly not persuaded
that these arguments show error in the conclusion of obviousness of claims
10 and 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 10,
and 20 and their respective dependent claims, except for claims 6, 16, 26,
and 47 which were argued separately by Appellants, as explained infra.
10
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
Claims 38 and 47
Claim 3 8 recites: "allocating the same resource offset parameters for
the coded CSL" 10 App. Br. 21 (Claims App'x). Appellants argue the cited
references fail to teach or suggest that the same resource offset parameters
are allocated. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner again relied upon Marinier for this limitation. Non-
Final Act. 24 ( citing Marinier ,r,r 6, 77). As with claim 1, the Examiner
equated Marinier' s "periodicity and offset for each subset of transmission
points and/or portions of CSI" with the claimed resource offset parameters
for the coded CSL Id. The Examiner explained it would have been an
obvious design choice to select either the same or different parameters, and
the Examiner found there are a finite number of possibilities. Id. The
Examiner also noted: "When there are multiple parameters present, there are
two possibilities when comparing the values. Either the values are the same
or the values are different." Id. at 31-32.
In response, Appellants assert "it would not have been obvious to
allocate the same resource offset parameters for the coded CSL" App.
Br. 12. Appellants' statement does not persuade us of error because
Appellants fail to explain their assertion, fail to identify faulty reasoning or
inaccurate factual findings in the rejection, and fail to substantively address
the reasoning provided by the Examiner.
Appellants also contend: "There is no reason why one ... would have
selected the same, rather than different, resource offset parameters." Reply
Br. 5. Again, an express teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art
1° Claim 38 defines CSI as "channel state information." App. Br. 20
(Claims App'x).
11
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
is not a requirement for an obviousness determination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
418-19 (holding the teaching-suggestion-motivation test is not a prerequisite
for concluding that a claim is obvious); see also id. at 421 ("A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.").
The Examiner reasoned the claim limitation is obvious because there were a
finite number of design choices available----either the parameters could be
the same, or they could be different. Non-Final Act. 31-32; see KSR, 550
U.S. at 421 (stating a combination may be obvious to try where "there are a
finite number of identified, predictable solutions" within the technical grasp
of a person of ordinary skill in the art); see Ex parte Fu, 89 USPQ2d 1115,
1121 (BP AI 2008) (precedential) (holding obviousness conclusion supported
where reference disclosed genus with "a finite number of known [species]
that predictably solve" the problem at issue). In addition, Marinier states the
parameters "may be different for different subsets," which suggests that the
parameters could be either different or the same. Marinier ,r 77.
Based on the above, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the
proposed combination of references renders obvious this limitation, i.e.,
"allocating the same resource offset parameters for the coded CSL"
Consequently, Appellants do not show error in the Examiner's factual
findings and the conclusion of obviousness of claim 38. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 38 and it respective dependent
claims, except for claim 41, which was argued separately by Appellants, as
explained infra.
Appellants also separately argue dependent claim 4 7, which depends
from claim 1. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 9-10. However, the arguments
12
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
presented with respect to claim 4 7 are substantially similar to the arguments
presented with respect to claim 38. 11 Compare App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 9-10
(arguing patentability of claims 47), with App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 7-9
(arguing patentability of claim 38); see also Ans. 5 (responding to claims 38
and 47 collectively). For the same reasons provided with respect to claim
3 8, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 7.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 47.
Claims 6, 16, 2 6, and 41
Appellants argue dependent claim 6 is not obvious in light of the cited
combination of references. App. Br. 12-13. Claim 6 recites: "indicating by
the upper-layer signaling the start point of the coded CSL" App. Br. 17
(Claims App'x).
For this limitation, the Examiner relied on paragraph 81 of Marini er,
which states that higher layers can signal a maximum amount of information
for which to report CSL Non-Final Act. 8. Appellants argue "a maximum
number of transmission points (as in Marinier) does not suggest indicating
the start point of the coded CSI (as in claim 6)." App. Br. 13 (emphasis
omitted). In response, the Examiner finds Marinier teaches "higher layer
signaling indicates to the [device] when to send the CSI," and interprets that
"this would include when to start sending the CSL" Ans. 5---6 ( citing
Marinier ,r,r 230-31, 261, 245).
11 In addition to the arguments provided for claim 3 8, Appellants argue
Marinier fails to teach or suggest "separate coding or hybrid coding." App.
Br. 14; Reply Br. 9-10. As we explained supra with respect to a
substantially similar argument presented by Appellants for claim 1, this
argument does not persuade us of error because Appellants attack the
references individually. See Ans. 4--5 (responding to Appellants' argument).
13
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
Appellants argue these portions of Marinier describe periodic CSI
reporting and ordering of the CSI by transmission point, but fail to suggest
either "signaling a start point" or the use of "upper layer signaling" to do so.
Reply Br. 6-7.
We disagree with the Examiner's findings in this regard because the
Examiner has not adequately explained (and it is unclear from our review)
how the relied-upon disclosures teach or suggest indicating by the upper-
layer signaling the start point of the coded CSL Marinier's higher layer
signaling indicates a maximum number of transmission points to be used in
CSI transmissions (Marinier ,r 81 ), but the Examiner does not explain why
this teaches or suggests indicating the start point of those transmissions
(Non-Final Act. 8; Ans. 5---6). Marinier also teaches periodic reporting of
CSI, sequencing CSI based on the transmission point, and transmissions
including different layers. Marinier ,r,r 230-31, 245,261. However, the
Examiner does not explain how these passages teach or suggest indicating a
start point of the coded CSL See Ans. 5---6. Moreover, we see nothing in
these cited portions that teaches or suggests signaling a start point, or that
this is indicated by the upper-layer signaling. Finally, the Examiner
provides no incentive, motivation, or commentary on why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would use upper-layer signaling to signal the start
point of the coded CSI, or that this would be an obvious design choice. See
id. Because the Examiner fails to provide a rationale explaining the
conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner does not establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of the claimed invention. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988
(requiring a "rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness").
14
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest this limitation of claim 6, such that we find
error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 6.
Appellants separately argue dependent claims 16, 26, and 41. App.
Br. 13; Reply Br. 7-9. The arguments presented with respect to these claims
are substantially similar to the arguments presented with respect to claim 6.
Compare App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 7-9 ( arguing patentability of claims 16, 26,
and 41), with App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 7-9 (arguing patentability of
claim 6); see also Ans. 5-6 (responding to claims 6, 16, 26, and 41
collectively). For the same reasons provided with respect to claim 6, we are
persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 16, 26, and 41.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 16,
26, and 41.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness rejections 1
through 5 of claims 1, 4, 5, 8-11, 14, 15, 18-21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 38--40,
and 43--48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art combinations of
record, and we sustain these rejections.
The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness rejection 1 of claims
6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art combination of
record, and we do not sustain this rejection.
15
Appeal2018-006917
Application 14/3 85,979
The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness rejection 3 of claims
26 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art combination of
record, and we do not sustain this rejection.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8-11, 14, 15,
18-21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 38--40, and 43--48.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 16, 26, and 41.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16