Ex Parte Morimoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

11183063 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
11/183,063 07/15/2005 Atsushi Morimoto 146181 (553-1098) 7599
45436 7590
DEAN D. SMALL
THE SMALL PATENT LAW GROUP LLC
225 S. MERAMEC, STE. 725T
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
EXAMINER
MOHAMMED, SHAHDEEP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
Docket @ splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ATSUSHI MORIMOTO and SCOTT KERWIN1
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
Technology Center 3700
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, TAWEN CHANG, and DAVID COTTA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to an
ultrasound probe and a method for shielding a probe, which have been
rejected as indefinite and/or obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ultrasound probes may be used with other electrical equipment, such
as a treadmill, in connection with a stress test. (Spec. 13.) According to the
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as General Electric Company.
(Appeal Br. 4.)
1
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
Specification, such “other electrical equipment may generate . . .
electromagnetic interference (EMI) noise that can interfere with the
operation of the ultrasound probe” and “degrade or destroy the quality of an
image acquired by the ultrasound probe.” {Id.) Further according to the
Specification, “current probe designs may not adequately protect or shield
against interference, and more particularly, EMI noise generated by
equipment in proximity to the ultrasound probe.” {Id. 14.)
Claims 1—8 and 10-21 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 20 are illustrative
and reproduced below:
1. An ultrasound probe, comprising:
a handle having an interior chamber with an open front
end;
a transducer assembly provided in said chamber, said
transducer assembly converting acoustic energy received
through said open front end to electrical signals;
a lens covering said open front end and having sides; and
a shielding layer coupled to and extending along a length
of an inner surface of the lens covering and rearwardly beyond
the sides of the lens covering, the shielding layer shaped and
sized for insertion through the open front end and extending
within the handle over the transducer assembly when the lens is
coupled to the open front end.
20. A method for shielding a probe, said method comprising:
providing an electromagnetic shielding portion metalized
on and along a length of a lens of a probe and continuing
rearwardly extending from the lens into a handle of the probe;
and
configuring the electromagnetic shielding portion for
insertion through an open front end of the handle of the probe
as part of the lens when the lens is coupled to a nosepiece.
(Appeal Br. 21, 23 (Claims App.).)
2
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
The Examiner rejects claims 10—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
inventor or joint inventor (35 U.S.C. § 112(b)), or the applicant (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph), regards as the invention. (Ans. 4.)
The Examiner rejects claims 1—5, 8, 10-19, and 212 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peszynski3 and Tran.4 (Ans. 5.)
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peszynski, Tran, and Gruner.5 (Ans. 7.)
The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peszynski, Tran, and Flesch.6 (Ans. 8.)
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Oliver,7 Tran, and Peszynski. (Ans. 9.)
I.
Issue
The Examiner finds the limitation “further comprising a lens” in
claims 10—12 to be indefinite because claim 1, from which claims 10—12
depend, already recites a lens. (Ans. 4.) Appellants present no argument as
2 Although the Examiner did not include claim 21 in the heading of this
rejection in the Answer (Ans. 5), the Examiner discusses claim 21 in the
body of the rejection. (Id. at 5, 7.)
3 Peszynski et al., US 2004/0073118 Al, published Apr. 15, 2004.
4 Tran et al., US Patent No. 6,142,947, issued Nov. 7, 2000.
5 Gruner, US Patent No. 5,634,466, issued June 3, 1997.
6 Flesch, US 2005/0124889 Al, published June 9, 2005.
7 Oliver, US Patent No. 7,022,081 B2, issued Apr. 4, 2006.
3
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
to the error in this rejection,8 stating instead that they will amend claims 10—
12 to render the rejection moot after completion of the appeal process.
(Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2.) Accordingly, we summarily affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—12 as indefinite.
II.
Issue
The Examiner rejects claims 1—5, 8, 10-19, and 21 as obvious over
Peszynski and Tran.
The Examiner finds that Peszynski discloses substantially all of the
elements of claim 1, except that Peszynski does not explicitly teach the
interior chamber of the handle having an open front end. (Ans. 5.) The
Examiner finds that “ultrasound probe having an open front end is well
known in the art” and would also be an obvious design choice as evidenced
by Tran, which discloses a probe having an open front end. {Id. at 6.) The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
modify the ultrasound probe described in Peszynski by providing it with an
open front end as taught by Tran, in order to create “a repairable compact
ultrasound probe [that] is easy to assemble and disassemble.” {Id.)
With respect to claims 10, 18, and 21, the Examiner finds that
Peszynski discloses the additional limitations of these dependent claims.
{Id. at 6—7.) The Examiner further finds that claims 12 and 19 are product-
by-process claims and that Peszynski renders them obvious because “the
structure taught by Peszynski is substantially the same as the claimed
8 Appellants do argue that the limitation “said lens having a recess in a back­
side thereof,” recited in claim 10, is not indefinite. (Appeal Br. 8.) The
Examiner, however, has withdrawn the indefmiteness rejection as to this
limitation. (Ans. 2.)
4
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
structure,” even if Peszynski does not disclose the process limitation of the
lens and shielding portion “being comolded to one another.” {Id. at 6—7.)
Appellants contend that the cited combination does not suggest a
“shielding layer coupled to and extending along a length of an inner surface
of the lens and rearwardly beyond the sides of the lens.” (Appeal Br. 9—12
(emphasis added); see also id. at 13—15.) With respect to claims 10, 12, 18,
and 19, Appellants contend that Peszynski does not suggest additional
limitations relating to a “lens having a recess in a back-side” (claims 10 and
18) or a “lens and shielding portion being comolded to one another.” {Id. at
12—13, 15—17.) Appellants contend that the cited art also does not suggest
“a pair of pre-formed rigid shielding flaps” recited in claim 21. {Id. at 17.)
The issues with respect to this rejection are (1) whether a
preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion
that Peszynski suggests a “shielding layer coupled to and extending along a
length of an inner surface of the lens covering and rearwardly beyond the
sides of the lens”; and (2) whether Peszynski suggests the additional
limitations of dependent claims 10, 12, 18, 19, and 21.
Analysis
Claims 1 and 14
We agree with the Examiner that Peszynski suggests “a shielding
layer coupled to and extending along a length of an inner surface of the lens
covering and rearwardly beyond the sides of the lens,” as recited in claim 1.
To facilitate our discussion, the upper portion of Peszynski’s Figure 2 is
reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
48 49 I4 32
■40
46
Figure 2 of Peszynski shows “a transducer included in the ultrasound system
embodiment. . . , where all of the internally housed transducer components
are entirely electromagnetically shielded.” (Peszynski 117.) As shown in
Figure 2, Peszynski discloses a shielding layer, thin metal shield 48 {id.
126), beneath and extending along a length of an inner surface of outer
acoustic lens 49 {id.).9 Figure 2 also shows that this shielding layer extends
“rearwardly beyond the sides” of lens 49, as the layer appears to cover at
least part of inner acoustic lens 44, array stack 42, and mechanical
components 40, all of which are located “rearwardly” to the outer acoustic
lens 49. {Id.) Peszynski further discloses that “[t]he outside of shielding
foil/film 48 is mechanically connected to [the] outer acoustic lens 49.” {Id.)
9 We agree with the Examiner that claim 1, which recites “a shielding layer
. . . extending along a length of an inner surface of the lens,” does not
require the shielding layer to extend along the entire length of the lens.
(Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.) (emphasis added); Ans. 11.) Thus, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument in the Reply Brief that “the lens 49
appears noticeably ‘horizontally’ longer . . . than the film 48” and that film
48 thus “does not extend along the length of the lens 49.” (Reply Br. 3
(emphasis added).)
6
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
Appellants argue that Peszynski nevertheless does not suggest the
limitation at issue. Appellants first argue that Peszynski describes the metal
shield 48 as bonded to an outer surface, not the inner surface, of an inner
acoustic lens 44. (Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 3.) While this may be
true, the Examiner does not rely on acoustic lens 44 with respect to this
element and Peszynski does disclose metal shield 48 to be coupled to the
outer acoustic lens 49. (Peszynski 126; Ans. 11.) Appellants next argue
that, “while Peszynski. . . states that the film 48 is mechanically connected
to an outer acoustic lens 49,” Peszynski does not suggest that the shielding
film 48 is coupled to the inner surface of that lens, and Figure 2 shows the
outer surface of the film 48 to be spaced apart from lens 49. (Appeal Br.
10-11 ; see also Reply Br. 3.)
We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, claim 1 requires only that
the shielding layer be “coupled to” an inner surface of the lens; thus,
Appellants’ contention that metal shield 48 appears spaced apart from
acoustic lens 49 does not preclude Peszynski from disclosing the claim
limitation. Indeed, claim 14 of Peszynski explicitly covers an embodiment
“wherein a portion of the thin metal shield is mechanically connected to an
inner portion of the outer acoustic lens.” (Peszynski claim 14 (emphasis
added).)
Finally, Appellants argue that the film 48 does not “extend rearwardly
beyond the sides of the lens covering,” because film 48 “does not extend to
sides of the lens 49.” (Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 3^4.) Appellants’ argument
appears to be that claim 1 requires the shielding layer to be coupled to the
sides as well as the inner surface of the lens covering so that the shielding
layer can be said to extend rearwardly beyond the sides of the lens covering.
7
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
(Reply Br. 3^4 (stating that “claim 1 . . . expressly recite ‘a shielding layer
coupled to and extending along a length of an inner surface of the lens
covering and rearwardly beyond the sides of the lens covering”).) We are
not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim, “rearwardly beyond the sides of the
lens covering” merely indicates a direction along which the shielding layer
must extend and does not require the shielding portion to be coupled to the
side of the lens. (Ans. 13.)
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 over Peszynski and Tran. Claim 14 contains a means plus
function limitation, i.e., “means for shielding the electronics subassembly
from electromagnetic interference.” The Examiner and Appellants disagree
with respect to the construction of this limitation, with Appellants essentially
arguing that the limitation requires the structure set forth in claim 1 and the
Examiner arguing for a broader construction. (Ans. 17; Appeal Br. 13—15.)
Because we find even the structure of claim 1 identified by Appellants to be
obvious over Peszynski and Tran, we need not resolve the claim
construction dispute. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 14 over Peszynski and Tran for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 2—5, 8, 11, 13, 15—17 are not separately argued and fall with claims 1
and 14. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
8
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
Claims 1010 and 18
Claims 10 and 18 depend from claims 1 and 14 respectively, and
further recite that “said lens having a recess in a back-side thereof, said
shielding portion and a front end of said transducer assembly fitting into said
recess.” (Appeal Br. 22, 23 (Claims App.).) The Examiner finds that
Peszynski “shows a lens with a recess (element 32 or 49) covering the front
end” and further finds that “Fig. 2 shows space/recess in back side of the
lens 49” and that “the shielding portion 48 and transducer assembly 42 are
placed in that space underneath the lens 49.” (Ans. 6, 14.) Referring to
Peszynski’s Figure 2, reproduced above, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not shown clearly what portion of the structure depicted in
Figure 2 constitutes a recess in any of the lens elements (elements 32, 44,
and 49). (Appeal Br. 12.) To the extent the Examiner is simply referring to
the space in the ultrasound probe that is behind the lens, we are not
persuaded that such a space would be considered a recess in a back-side of
the lens.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 18
over Peszynski and Tran.
Claims 12 and 19
Claims 12 and 19 depend from claims 1 and 14 respectively, and
further recite that the lens and shielding portion are comolded to one
another. (Appeal Br. 22, 23 (Claims App.).) We do not find claims 12 and
10 As discussed above, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s indefmiteness
rejection of claims 10-12. For purposes of compact prosecution, however,
we address the obviousness rejections as to these claims and interpret the
“lens” recited in these claims as referring to the lens recited in claim 1,
rather than a separate lens.
9
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
19 to be product-by-process claims, as the Examiner alleges. However, we
also do not agree with Appellants that the additional limitation regarding
comolding renders claims 12 and 19 non-obvious. Instead, as we discussed
above with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 14, Peszynski teaches an
ultrasound probe with a lens and shielding portion in the same relative
location to each other as recited in those claims. As the Examiner correctly
points out, simply forming in one piece two components disclosed in the
prior art does not render the claims non-obvious. In re Larson, 340 F.2d
965, 967—68 (CCPA 1965) (rejecting as obvious a claim that differed from
the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means,
whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts
rigidly secured together as a single unit because, among other reasons, “the
use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior
art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 19 over
Peszynski and Tran.
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and further comprises “a pair of pre­
formed rigid shielding flaps extending rearwardly beyond the sides of the
lens covering configured to receive therebetween at least a portion of the
transducer assembly.” Appellants argue that the Examiner “vaguely points
to a portion of the film 48 of Peszynski and . . . asserts that it is the pair of
pre-formed rigid shielding flaps,” but “has not cited anything from
Peszynski, or pointed to any objective evidence” that suggests the additional
limitation(s) of claim 21. (Reply Br. 6—7.)
10
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
We are not persuaded. Peszynski teaches an electromagnetically
protected ultrasound probe comprising an internal metal shield such that “all
elements inside a boundary formed by the transducer housing and outer
acoustic lens are substantially electromagnetically protected.” (Peszynski
Abstract; see also id. at claims 20 and 21.) Peszynski suggests that the
internal metal shield may be rigid or flexible depending on transducer design
requirements. (Id. at claim 23; see also id. 128.) Referring to Figure 2 of
Peszynski, partially reproduced above, Peszynski also specifically disclose
an EMI shield 46 that extends rearwardly beyond the sides of the lens
covering and teaches that “[it] may be flexible or rigid as a function of
transducer design requirements.” (Id. 128.) Given the above, we agree with
the Examiner that claim 21 is obvious over Peszynski and Tran.
III.
Issue
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Peszynski, Tran,
and Gruner. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the
transducer assembly comprises “a ceramic layer having an outer surface that
is isolated from [the] open front end of [the] handle by [the] shielding
portion.” (Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).) Claim 7 similarly depends from
claim 1 and further recites that the transducer assembly “comprises a
matching layer and a ceramic layer having a flex circuit therebetween, said
shielding portion covering said matching layer.” (Id.)
As discussed above, the Examiner finds that the combination of
Peszynski and Tran suggests an ultrasound probe as recited in claim 1. The
Examiner further finds that Gruner teaches “an ultrasonic probe . . .
comprising a ceramic layer . . . , a matching layer . . . along with a flex
11
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
circuit.” (Ans. 7.) The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have modified the
ultrasound probe suggested by Peszynski and Tran to include the ceramic
layer, matching layer, and flex circuit taught by Gruner in order to “provide
for the benefits of a flexible, shielded ultrasonic probe.” {Id. at 7—8.)
Appellants contend that claims 6 and 7 are not obvious over
Peszynski, Tran, and Gruner for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Appellants further contend that in Gruner the flex circuit is not located
between the ceramic layer and matching layer, as recited in claim 7.
(Appeal Br. 17—18.)
We addressed Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 6, we agree with the Examiner it would have been
obvious to modify the ultrasound probe suggested by Peszynski and Tran to
include the ceramic layer taught by Gruner. With respect to claim 7,
however, we find that Appellants have the better argument. While the
Examiner points out that Gruner discloses an ultrasound probe that includes
a flex circuit as well as a transducer comprising a ceramic layer and a
matching layer (Ans. 7, 21—22), the Examiner cites to no evidence that these
components are arranged in the manner claimed, i.e., with the flex circuit
between the ceramic layer and matching layer. Likewise, the only evidence
we have located with respect to the relative positioning of the ceramic layer,
the matching layer, and the flex circuit in Gruner are Gruner’s Figures 7a
and 7b, reproduced below:
12
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
Graner’s Figures 7a and 7b illustrate details of the distal tip of Gruner’s
ultrasound probe, wherein the component part labeled 30 is a transducer
comprising a ceramic layer (Gruner 3:66-4:2), the component part labeled
102 is a matching layer {id. at 4:29), and the part labeled 48 is the flexible
circuit {id. at 3:6—9). Figure 7b is an enlarged view of the circled area in
Figure 7a. {Id. at 4:28.) As shown in these figures, the flex circuit 48 in
Gruner’s ultrasound probe does not appear to be located between the
ceramic layer 30 and the matching layer 102.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as
obvious over Peszynski, Tran, and Gruner for the same reasons as discussed
for claim 1, but reverse the Examiner’s rejection as to claim 7.
IV.
Issue
The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 19 as obvious over Peszynski,
Tran, and Flesch. Claims 12 and 19 depend from claims 1 and 14,
respectively, and further recites that the ultrasound probe or probe handle
comprises “a lens covering [the open front end of the probe handle], said
lens and shielding portion being comolded to one another.” (Appeal Br. 22,
23 (Claims App.).)
13
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
The Examiner finds that the combination of Peszynski and Tran
suggests an ultrasound probe as recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds that
“molding two pieces are well known in the art,” as evidenced by Flesch,
which teaches molding a lens to another piece in an array transducer. (Ans.
8.) The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan at the time of the invention to have molded the lens to another piece
in the ultrasound probe suggested by Peszynski and Tran, in order to
improve the attachment thereof. (Id. at 9.)
Appellants contend that claims 12 and 19 are not obvious over
Peszynski, Tran, and Flesch for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 14.
Appellants further contend that, while Flesch discloses molding, e.g., a lens
to a transducer, Flesch does not suggest “a Tens and shielding portion
being comolded to one another.’” (Appeal Br. 18—19.)
We have already discussed above Appellants’ arguments regarding
claims 1 and 14, which we do not find persuasive. As we also discussed
above with respect to the rejection of claims 12 and 19 over Peszynski and
Tran, simply forming the lens and shielding portion in one piece by
comolding them together does not render the claim non-obvious where
Peszynski discloses all the limitations of the claim, including the lens and
the shielding portion, except that the lens and shielding portion appear to
exist as two separate pieces. In re Larson, 340 F.2d at 967—68. Here, Flesch
shows that the process of molding various ultrasound components (e.g., a
lens and a transducer) together is well known in the art and within the
capability of a skilled artisan. (See, e.g., Flesch 178.) Flesch thus provide
additional support as to the obviousness of claims 12 and 19, even if it does
not specifically disclose comolding lens and the shielding portion.
14
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 19 as
obvious over Peszynski, Tran, and Flesch.
V.
Issue
The Examiner rejects independent claim 20 as obvious over Oliver,
Tran, and Peszynski. The Examiner finds that Oliver discloses “an
electromagnetic shield portion on and along a length of a lens of a probe . . .
and rearwardly extending from the lens,” where “the surface of a shield layer
. . . positioned away from the transducer elements . . . includes
metallization.” (Ans. 9.) The Examiner cites Tran and Peszynski,
respectively, for an “ultrasound probe having [an] open front end” and “the
lens coupled to a nosepiece.” (Id. 9—10.) The Examiner contends that both
of these elements are well-known in the art, and further that it would have
been obvious to modify Oliver’s ultrasound probe with an open end in order
“to have a repairable compact ultrasound probe which is easy to assemble
and disassemble,” and a lens coupled to a nosepiece in order “to have a
stable attachment of the lens to the probe.” (Id.)
Appellants contend that the proposed combination does not suggest
“providing an electromagnetic shielding portion metalized on and along a
length of a lens of a probe and continuing rearwardly extending from the
lens into a handle of the probe” as recited in claim 20. (Reply Br. 8; see also
Appeal Br. 19—20.)
We find Appellants to have the better argument. Oliver teaches
“providing] electromagnetic interference and environmental-chemical
isolation” by positioning “a thin shielding layer or film . . . over ultrasound
transducer elements, beneath the lens or window.” (Oliver 1:10—13.)
15
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
Figure 3 of Oliver is reproduced below:
Fig. 3
il H
22
Oliver’s Figure 3 “shows [an] embodiment of a transducer 10 with the shield
layer 20. Three matching layers 18 are used with a lens or window 15 over
the matching layers.” (Id. at 4:26—28.) Oliver further teaches that,
[i]n one embodiment, the surface of the shielding layer . . .
positioned away from the transducer elements 12 and 14
includes metallization, such as for use as ground plane or EMI
shield. The metallization may be added at later acts in
alternative embodiments. Metallization or electrodes may be
provided on other materials in yet other embodiments.
(Id. at 5:29—34.) While the above teaches a shielding layer that includes
metallization, the Examiner has not persuasively shown that such a shielding
portion is metalized on the lens rather than a separate layer beneath the lens.
Neither has the Examiner provided a rationale why the above disclosures
would suggest to a skilled artisan that the shielding portion should be
metalized on the lens. “[Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
16
Appeal 2016-002776
Application 11/183,063
418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).)
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 over Oliver,
Peszynski, and Tran.
SUMMARY
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—12 as
indefinite.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 8, 11—17, 19, and
21 as obvious over Peszynski and Tran, but reverse the rejection of claims
10 and 18 over the same prior art combination.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as obvious over
Peszynski, Tran, and Gruner, but reverse the rejection of claim 7 over the
same prior art combination.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 19 as obvious
over Peszynski, Tran, and Flesch.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 over Oliver,
Peszynski, and Tran.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17