Ex Parte Netsch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13994844 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/994,844 06/17/2013 Thomas Netsch
24737 7590 04/02/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2010P01027WOUS 2657
EXAMINER
TOMASZEWSKI, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS NETSCH and STEWART YOUNG
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-21. App. Br. 38. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. App. Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed August 25, 2015, the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed January 14,
2016, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed August 4, 2016, and the
Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed September 23, 2016.
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention transmits Internet-based electronic health
records (EHR). Spec. 4:4--13. In particular, the invention provides security
isolation during a data transfer to or from an individual's EHR account or a
hospital information system. Id. at 4:3-9. The security isolation can be
provided for the hospital information system or the EHR account. Id. One
embodiment uses an "isolation container" to ensure that no direct
communication occurs between the medical information system and the
EHR account. Id. at 11:1-3.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a digital processing device having a first communication
link with a local medical information system and a second
communication link with an Internet-based electronic health
record (EHR) account of an individual, the first and second
communication links being independent of one another, the
digital processing device performing a method including:
authenticating a user as the individual or an
authorized agent of the individual,
presenting a first window with content stored at the
local medical information system, said content pertaining
to the individual,
presenting a second window with content stored at
the EHR account of the individual,
receiving from the authenticated user via the second
window a selection of content to transfer from the EHR
account of the individual to the local medical information
system,
transferring via the second communication link the
selected content from the EHR account of the individual
to an isolation container at the digital processing device,
and
2
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
transferring via the first communication link the
selected content from the isolation container at the digital
processing device to the local medical information system.
THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Segal
Hamett
Terek
Squilla et al.
Marshall
US 2001/0041991 Al
US 6,407,752 Bl
US 6,480,851 B 1
US 2006/0106646 Al
US 2008/0133273 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Nov. 15, 2001
June 18, 2002
Nov. 12, 2002
May 18, 2006
June 5, 2008
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 1--4, 8, 9, 11-16, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Segal, Hamett, and Terek. Final Act. 3-10.
Claims 5-7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Segal, Hamett, Terek, and Squilla. Final Act. 10-12.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Segal, Hamett, Terek, and Marshall. Final Act. 12-13.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
I
The Supreme Court's two-step framework guides the patent-eligibility
analysis under § 101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct.
2347, 2355 (2014). Step one of that analysis is "whether the claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," such as an abstract idea. Id.
3
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
Here, the Examiner finds that representative claim 13 is directed to
collecting, storing, and transmitting data, which is abstract under Alice step
one. Final Act. 2. For the reasons below, we agree.
In determining whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we
must consider the claims "in their entirety to ascertain whether their
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter." Internet
Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In this case, claim 1 recites device with communication links. The recited
device performs a method that authenticates a user, presents content in
windows, and receives and transfers content via the communication links.
More specifically, in this method, the device receives a content selection
from the authenticated user. The recited device transfers the selected
content from an EHR account to the device's isolation container. The
recited device transfers the selected content from the isolation container to a
local medical-information system. According to the Specification, the
isolation container ensures that no direct communication occurs between the
medical-information system and the EHR account. Spec. 11: 1-3. That is,
for security, the claimed device serves as an "isolating intermediary"
between two systems. App. Br. 15.
We agree with the Examiner that this concept resembles those the
Federal Circuit has held to be abstract. Final Act. 2. Of particular relevance
here are the abstract concepts related to collecting, storing, and transmitting
information. See id. For example, the Federal Circuit has held that claims
directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results
3 Appellants argue claims 1-21 together. See App. Br. 10-14. We select
claim 1 as representative.
4
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
of the collection and analysis were directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, claims reciting receiving and filtering emails then transmitting
data were held to be directed to an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Like the claims in those cases and similar cases that the Examiner
identifies (Final Act. 2), the claimed device collects data from the EHR
account and transfers the data to a local medical-information system. To be
sure, the device uses an isolation container to store that data before
transmitting it. But this hardly distinguishes the claimed device from the
abstract ideas in Electric Power Group and Intellectual Ventures I, which
involved additionally analyzing and filtering data before transferring it. That
is, the absence of a categorization step, for example, does not render the
claims here any less abstract than those ineligible claims, contrary to
Appellants' argument. See Reply Br. 3 (discussing Cyberfone Sys., LLC v.
CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-
precedential) ).
Appellants argue that the claims are distinguishable from such
concepts because they are directed to improvements to the computer itself.
Reply Br. 3-5. For example, Appellants argue the claims are similar to a
robotic-arm assembly and should receive a streamlined analysis. Id. at 9-10.
We disagree. For example, the claims do not improve "the way a computer
stores and retrieves data in memory." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the claimed isolating intermediary
concept uses the computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity to store and
transfer information. Indeed, the device itself is only claimed in broad
5
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
functional terms: authenticating users, presenting windows, receiving
selections, and transferring content. "An abstract idea on 'an Internet
computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."
BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
On this record, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in
concluding that representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea under
step one of Alice.
II
Because the claims are "directed to an abstract idea," we analyze the
claims to determine if the limitations, when considered both "individually
and 'as an ordered combination"' contain an "inventive concept" sufficient
to transform the claimed "abstract idea" into a patent-eligible application
under Alice step two. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355-58.
Claim 1 's device authenticates users, presents windows, receives
selections, and transfers content. Appellants argue that the claim involves
more than just a generic computer. App. Br. 13. Appellants' argument,
however, is contradicted by the Specification. According to the
Specification, "the digital processing device comprises a general-purpose
computer executing software performing the method." Spec. 2:20-22
(emphasis added). Furthermore, the Specification explains that "the
disclosed EHR management systems and methods may be embodied by any
digital processing device having suitable display and user input component."
Id. at 13:6-9 (emphasis added). Indeed, the claimed method involves no
more than authenticating users, presenting windows, receiving selections,
and transferring content-i.e., all generic functions of a generic computer.
6
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
Accord id. In this way, the limitations involve conventional, routine, and
well-known computer components and functions that do not impose
meaningful limits on the abstract idea itself. See Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., v.
SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that for a
machine to add significantly more, it must do more than "function solely as
an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more
quickly").
Furthermore, Appellants do not provide, nor do we find, a "non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."
BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. Here, the claim uses a generic computer in its
ordinary capacity for authenticating users, displaying windows, and sending
and receiving data.
Appellants argue that the claims have "functional and palpable
applications" in patient-treatment information diagnostics. App. Br. 10-12
(discussing the Federal Circuit's pre-Alice decision in Research Corp. v.
Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). To be sure, the claim
recites a combination of linked data sources: local medical-information
system and an EHR account. The recited data, however, merely limits the
abstract idea to a particular technical environment, which is not significantly
more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
Appellants argue that the claim contains an inventive concept because
the Examiner does not reject any one claim as anticipated. App. Br. 12. But
"[e]ligibility and novelty are separate inquiries." Two-Way Media Ltd v.
Comcast Cable Comms., LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017). For
example, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea." Synopsys,
Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As
7
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
discussed above, the claimed invention involves conventional, routine, and
well-known computer components that do not impose meaningful limits on
the abstract idea itself.
Appellants further argue that the claims do not pre-empt all uses of the
abstract idea. App. Br. 12. "While preemption may signal patent ineligible
subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate
patent eligibility." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d
1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the issue of preemption is resolved by
the above-discussed Alice framework.
On this record, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
rejection of representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of representative claim 1 and claims
2-21, which are not argued separately.
THE REJECTION OVER SEGAL, HARNETT, AND TEREK
The Examiner's Findings
The Examiner finds that Segal teaches every limitation recited in
independent claim 1 except for (1) the recited windows and (2) the isolation
container. Final Act. 3---6. In concluding that claim 1 would have been
obvious, the Examiner cites Hamett and Terek, respectively, as teaching and
suggesting these features. Id. at 5---6.
Appellants ' Contentions
Appellants argue that Segal lacks the intermediary device with the
recited links. App. Br. 14--17; Reply Br. 11-13. According to Appellants,
Segal' s user directly accesses the operations center via the Internet, instead
of using an intervening device. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 12. In Appellants'
8
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
view, the prior art lacks the "synergistic combination" of features recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 16, 18-19; Reply Br. 11.
Appellants contend that Hamett and T erek also lack the interposed
device. App. Br. 17-20; Reply Br. 13-14. In particular, Appellants argue
that Hamett lacks the first and second windows corresponding to two
different remote systems. App. Br. 19. Additionally, Appellants contend
that Terek teaches a password-protected folder, but this folder is not located
at the recited interposed device, like the recited isolation container.
Reply Br. 13-14. In Appellants' view, the Examiner is interpreting the
recited isolation container as any data storage anywhere, which is overly
broad. Reply Br. 13-14. Lastly, in Appellants' view, Hamett and Terek are
unrelated to medical-data systems. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 13.
Analysis
Claim 1 recites, in part, "a digital processing device having a first
communication link with a local medical information system and a second
communication link with an Internet-based electronic health record (EHR)
account of an individual."
Appellants argue Segal's user directly accesses Segal's operations
center 100 via the Internet, instead of using the recited intervening device.
App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 12 (citing Segal Figs. 8a, 8b). But Segal's Figure 8a,
reproduced below, shows that operations center 100 contains several
separate devices, including an intervening server. See Segal i-fi-185, 139.
9
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
~
~
~
.Alltffi.wm t~~ ~
·-~·-r
\..111
FIG.Sa
Qr~-01
~basa
J
(
mo
In particular, Segal's operations center 100 contains a database (118) and
archives (126, 128) for storing the EHR account. Id. i-fi-1 48-50, cited in
Final Act. 3. The user does not directly connect to these databases. See
Segal i-f 139 (describing Figure 8a). Rather, webserver 114 responds to a
query from the authorized user. Id. i-f 139; see also id. i128, cited in
Final Act. 3. To fulfill the user's request, webserver 114 then connects to
database 118 and image server 126. Segal i-fi-128, 139. Although Segal's
Figure 8a does not show a device between the operations center and the user,
Segal does teach web server with a communication link to the user's EHR
account, like the recited digital processing device. Id., Fig. 8a. On this
record, we agree with the Examiner that Segal teaches a digital processing
device (the web server) having a first communication link with a local
medical information system (the authorized user's computer) and a second
communication link with an Internet-based EHR account of an individual,
10
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
which is stored by Segal' s clinical database, image archive, and image
server. See id. i-f 28, cited in Final Act. 3.
We are, likewise, unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments against
Hamett and Terek. See App. Br. 17-20; Reply Br. 13-14. We agree with
the Examiner that these arguments do not consider the Examiner's proposed
combination of teachings. See Ans. 7. Here, the Examiner relies on Segal
for the linked devices and Hamett and Terek for the recited windows and
isolation container, respectively. Final Act. 3---6.
Although Terek's folder is not located at an interposed device
(Reply Br. 13-14), the Examiner proposes adding Terek's "security
container" to Segal's system to arrive at this limitation. Final Act. 5---6.
Similarly, the Examiner proposes adding Hamett's windows, which show
content stored at different locations, to Segal's system to improve Segal's
interface for receiving and transferring files. Id. at 5. These enhancements
use prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-
i.e., securely storing files and displaying content-which are obvious
improvements. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellants note that Hamett and Terek are unrelated to medical-data
systems. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 13. But Appellants have not shown, for
example, that using Terek's folders and Hamett's windows to store and
display medical data would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise
beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor have
Appellants shown that the Examiner's proposed combination would render
the prior art unsuitable for its intended purpose to teach away from such an
approach. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). On this
11
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
record, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner's reliance on Terek or Hamett
1s m error.
To the extent Appellants argument is that Terek and Hamett are not
analogous art, such argument is similarly unpersuasive. See App. Br. 18;
Reply Br. 13. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if ( 1) the
reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention,
regardless of the problem addressed or (2) the reference is reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even if it is not in the same
field of endeavor as the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2004). "A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may
be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which,
because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended
itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Icon
Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379--80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Here, Appellants' invention is generally directed to transferring data
between two systems using an intermediate device having an isolation
container. Spec. 4:3-9; accord App. Br. 15. An aspect of the claimed
invention includes displaying the content of the two disparate systems
simultaneously, which Hamett addresses. See Hamett 5:28--44, Fig. 6, cited
in Final Act. 5. Another aspect of the claimed invention includes using the
isolation container on the device as an intermediate location for the data
being transferred. Spec. 4:3-9. As discussed above, Terek's security
container is used to provide access to data to only those authorized to access
it, which is similar to the purpose that Appellants' the isolation container
serves. See Terek 3:65--4:13, cited in Final Act. 5. Accordingly, Hamett
12
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
and Terek are reasonably pertinent to the problems addressed by Appellants'
invention.
On this record, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15
Appellants' arguments for independent claim 15 are similar to those
presented for claim 1. Compare App. Br. 25-31, with App. Br. 14--20; see
also Reply Br. 10-14. We find these arguments unpersuasive for the same
reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1.
Claims 3 and 16
Claims 3 recites, in part, "the first communication link further
includes an intranet conveying information between the Internet and the
local medical information system." Claim 16 recites a similar limitation. 4
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the Examiner finds Segal teaches that an
intranet can be used for communication. Final Act. 6; Ans. 8; see also
Final Act. 9. The Examiner also finds that Terek teaches intranets for
transferring information between computers. Ans. 8.
Appellants argue Segal lacks a communication link that includes an
intranet. App. Br. 21, 31-32; Reply Br. 14.
Appellants' arguments, however, do not address the Examiner's
findings relating to Segal's paragraphs 12 and 31. See Ans. 8. In particular,
Segal teaches that doctors can connect with hospitals via an intranet
4 Claim 16 contains extraneous punctuation including an unmatched
parenthesis and an extra period. App. Br. 44. We leave this issue to the
Examiner and Appellants to remedy should there be further prosecution.
13
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
connection. Segal i-f 12, cited in Ans. 8. Furthermore, Segal states that the
system can be implemented on "any variety of computer network systems."
Segal i-f 31, cited in Ans. 8. Terek further teaches and suggests that intranets
can be used in office-wide or enterprise-wide computer networks. Terek
5:65---6:3. On this record, we agree that it would have been obvious to use
an intranet connection in the first link to convey information. See
Final Act. 6; Ans. 8. In this way, the Examiner proposes combining prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, which is
obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 16.
Claims 14 and 20
Regarding claims 14 and 20, the Examiner finds that Segal teaches the
method steps, except the use of the isolation container. Final Act. 8-9; see
also Final Act. 9--10 (rejecting claim 20). The Examiner then cites Terek for
the teaching and suggestion of using an isolation container. Id. at 9.
Appellants argue that Terek does not securely transfer content
between two different computers. App. Br. 24--25, 33; Reply Br. 15.
Appellants further contend that Terek is unrelated to medical-data systems-
e.g., EHR or medical-information systems-much less the transfer of such
content. App. Br. 24--25, 33; Reply Br. 15.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive for reasons similar to those
discussed in connection with claim 1. In particular, although Terek does not
use the container for transferring content, the Examiner proposes
incorporating Terek's container in Segal's system to arrive at this limitation.
Final Act. 8-9. This enhancement uses Terek's container predictably
14
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
according to its established function-i.e., securely storing files (Terek
3:65--4:13}-which is an obvious improvement.
Moreover, Appellants have not shown, for example, that using
Terek's folders to store medical data would have been uniquely challenging
or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. Here, Terek's
folder could be used to store various content items. See Terek 2: 16-23. For
these reasons, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. App. Br. 24--
25, 33; Reply Br. 15.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 20.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 18, 19, and 21
Appellants argue that claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 18, 19, and 21 are
allowable over the cited references for at least the reason that they depend
from the previously argued claims, but this is not the sole reason to allow the
claims. App. Br. 20-24, 32-34; Reply Br. 15-16. Appellants, however, do
not provide any separate arguments. See App. Br. 20-24, 32-34;
Reply Br. 15-16. For the reasons discussed in connection with the
independent claims, we find these arguments unpersuasive.
THE REJECTION OVER SEGAL, HARNETT, TEREK, AND SQUILLA
Claim 5 recites, in part, "a dedicated kiosk configured to perform the
method, the first communication link does not include the Internet and the
second communication link includes the Internet" (emphasis added). Claim
1 7 recites a similar limitation. Claim 6 recites, in part, "the first
communication link includes an intranet conveying information between the
15
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
dedicated kiosk and the local medical information system" (emphasis
added).
The Examiner finds that Segal, Hamett, and Terek teach all the
limitations of claims 5 and 1 7, except for the recited kiosk. Final Act. 10,
12. For this limitation, the Examiner cites Squilla. Id. (citing Squilla i-fi-f 17-
19, Figs. 1-9). The Examiner presents a similar rationale in rejecting claim
6. Final Act. 10-11.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Appellants argue that Squilla lacks a first
communication link that does not include the internet and a second
communication link that includes the Internet. App. Br. 34--35;
Reply Br. 16. Regarding claim 6, Appellants argue that Squilla lacks a first
communication link that includes an intranet. App. Br. 35.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Squilla's kiosk can connect to
central server 120 via an intranet. Squilla Fig. 3 (showing a LAN or Internet
connection), cited in Final Act. 10-11. In this way, Squilla teaches a
communication link that includes the intranet, not the Internet.
Squilla Fig. 3.
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that Segal teaches a device having
first and second communication link. See Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner
then proposes substituting Squilla's intranet-connected kiosk for this device
in the Segal-Hamett-Terek combination to arrive at the claimed limitation.
Final Act. 10. The proposed substitution uses Squilla's intranet-connected
kiosk predictably according to its established function-i.e., securely
transferring patient records (Squilla i-fi-f 17-19}-which is an obvious
improvement. See Final Act. 10-12.
16
Appeal2017-000044
Application 13/994,844
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 6, and
17.
We also sustain the rejection of claim 7, which is not argued
separately. See App. Br. 35-36; Reply Br. 16.
THE REJECTION OVER SEGAL, HARNETT, TEREK, AND
MARSHALL
Appellants argue that claim 10 is allowable over the cited references
for at least the reason that they depend from claim 1, but this is not the sole
reason for allowing these claims. App. Br. 37; Reply Br. 17. Appellants,
however, do not provide any separate arguments. See App. Br. 37;
Reply Br. 17. For the reasons discussed in connection with independent
claim 1, we find these arguments unpersuasive.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21.
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
17