Ex Parte Neuhaeusler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

13978641 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/978,641 07/24/2013
13897 7590 06/22/2018
Abel Law Group, LLP
8911 N. Capital of Texas Hwy
Bldg 4, Suite 4200
Austin, TX 78759
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefan N euhaeusler
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.
6570-P50078 2636
EXAMINER
BEEBE, JOSHUA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mail@Abel-IP.com
hmuensterer@abel-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEFANNEUHAEUSLER, WILHELM SATZGER,
SIEGFRIED SIKORSKI, KARL-HEINZ DUSEL,
HANS-CHRISTIAN MELZER, and ERWIN BAYER
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stefan Neuhaeusler et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 26-45. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies MTU Aero Engines AG as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
26. A method for the generative manufacture of a component
with integrated damping for a turbomachine, wherein the
method comprises building up the component in a generative
manner and at least in portions thereof with a first cavity in
which an integrated supporting and/or cooling structure with a
second cavity in at least portions thereof is built up during the
generative buildup of the component, and introducing damping
material into the second cavity.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 26-31, 34--38, and 40-42 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Barcock
(US 2009/0258168 Al, pub. Oct. 15, 2009), Ader
(US 2011/0052412 Al, pub. Mar. 3, 2011), Strother
(US 2009/0016894 Al, pub. Jan. 15, 2009), and Keicher '251
(US 6,391,251 Bl, iss. May 21, 2002). 2
II. Claims 32, 33, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Barcock, Ader, Strother, Keicher '251, and
Tibbott (US 2010/0119377 Al, pub. May 13, 2010).
III. Claims 43--45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Barcock, Ader, Strother, and Tibbott.
2 Keicher '251 is discussed in the detailed explanation of the rejection. Final
Act. 5. We refer to this reference as "Keicher '251" to distinguish it from
US Patent 6,656,409 (hereinafter "Keicher '409") discussed infra in regard
to claim 2 8.
2
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 26, 27, 34-36, 41, and 42
Appellants group independent claims 26 and 35 together, and do not
present any separate arguments for dependent claims 27, 34, 36, 41, and 42.
Appeal Br. 7-12. We decide the appeal as to these claims on the basis of
claim 26, with claims 27, 34--36, 41, and 42 standing or falling with claim
26. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (providing that when multiple claims
subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by the
appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group to decide the
appeal with respect to the group as to the ground of rejection on the basis of
the selected claim alone).
The Examiner finds that Barcock discloses a method substantially as
recited in claim 26, with the exception that Barcock does not teach
"[p ]roducing supporting and/or cooling structures in the first cavity, said
structure forming a second cavity during the generative buildup, and
introducing the damping material into the second cavity." Final Act. 4
( citing Barcock ,r,r 28-31, 33-37, 41 ). The Examiner relies on the teachings
of Ader, Strother, and Keicher '251 for these features. Id. at 4--6.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Ader teaches that it is possible
during the process of building turbine engine components using generative
methods "to place load-capable internal structures" and that doing so "has
the advantage of reducing the weight of the system[], the number of parts,
and possible costs and difficulty of manufacture." Id. at 4. The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to modify Barcock' s method "to
include the step of creating cavities and integral load-bearing
3
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
structures/cooling channels as taught by Ader" to achieve "the benefits of
such structures to the airfoil," and, further, to do so in the generative step to
ensure "said articles are integral, reducing cost, number of parts, weight, and
difficulty of assembly." Id. The Examiner also finds that Keicher '251
discloses that forming support structures directly during the generative
buildup phase is more efficient than attaching them after formation. Id. at 5
(citing Keicher '251, Figs. 23, 26a; col. 24, 11. 14--38). As such, Keicher
'251 provides further incentive to form the internal integral support
structures during the generative process. See id.
The Examiner finds that Strother teaches the desirability of including
damping material in the secondary cavities formed between struts in order to
achieve the combined benefits of strength from the struts and internal
damping for rotating vanes or stationary vanes from the damping material.
Id. (citing Strother, Fig. 2, ,r,r 2-7). In view of the combined teachings of
Barcock, Ader, Keicher '251, and Strother, the Examiner determines it
would have been obvious to modify Barcock to include forming support
structure with damping as taught by Strother, preferably directly during the
generative process as taught by Keicher '251, for the purpose of forming the
struts "in an integral manner which is more efficient and can include a better
connection than differing structures attached after formation with increased
[damping] and ... improved weight and strength." Id.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has misinterpreted claim 26,
which, according to Appellants, recites "a cavity of the integrated supporting
and/or cooling structure, not a cavity which is formed by (building up) the
integrated supporting and/or cooling structure (in the first cavity)." Appeal
Br. 7-8. In other words, Appellants argue, "the second cavity is not formed
4
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
in the first cavity due to the buildup of (by) the integrated supporting and/or
cooling structure and the spaces inside the first cavity generated thereby";
"[r ]ather, the integrated supporting and/or cooling structure which is built up
in the first cavity comprises a (second) cavity in at least parts thereof." Id. at
8.
Appellants argue that claim 28, which depends from claim 26,
supports Appellants' asserted interpretation of claim 26, rather than the
Examiner's interpretation. Id. at 8. Claim 28 recites "wherein the
supporting and/or cooling structure comprises a multiplicity of struts running
between outer walls of the component and containing damping material in
cavities thereof." Id. at 19 (Claims App.). Even assuming that claim 28
requires that "the struts comprise cavities which contain damping material,"
as Appellants assert (id. at 8), this does not support Appellants' position as
to the scope of claim 2 6.
Claim 28 is drafted in dependent form and contains a reference to
claim 26. Thus, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, claim 28
must "specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed" in claim 26.
In other words, claim 26 is broader than claim 28, and does not necessarily
contain all the limitations recited in claim 28. Thus, even assuming that
claim 28 shows that Appellant's asserted interpretation of claim 26 is subject
matter falling within the scope of claim 26, this does not mean that claim 26
is so limited.
The Examiner maintains that the language of claim 26 defines a
second cavity built up during generative buildup of the component and
support and/or cooling structure. Ans. 3. Further, the Examiner insists that
this is disclosed in Appellants' Figure 1, which "shows an array of cavities
5
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
formed by the struts into which damping material could be introduced," and
that "one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it is reasonable to
interpret this as a location for placing damping material." Id.
The Examiner's characterization of the disclosure in the present
application is correct. Appellants' Specification describes Figure 1 as
illustrating "a preferred exemplary embodiment of a component 1 with
integrated damping." Spec. 5: 10-11.
Figure 1, which "shows a sectional view of a component according to
a preferred exemplary embodiment of the present invention" (Spec. 4: 16-
17), is reproduced below.
1
\~\
Fig. 1
Figure 1 depicts component 1 comprising outer walls 4, 5, with
internal supporting structure 6, in the form of struts 7, running between outer
walls 4, 5. Figure 1 shows struts 7 intersecting one another at angle a,
6
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
forming diamond-shaped cells, or cavities, in which damping material is
introduced. Spec. 6:10-27.
Appellants' Specification discloses that "during the generative
buildup of the component an integrated, internal supporting structure 6 is
built up in the cavity 3." Id. 6: 17-18. Appellants' Specification also
discloses that damping material 2 is introduced into cavity 3 during the
generative buildup of component 1. Id. 6: 11-13. Further, the Specification
discloses that "struts 7 may cross and/or intersect one another" and that
"[t]he supporting structure ... may be formed in the form of cells, for
example with a honeycomb structure, an octahedral structure and/or a
tetrahedral structure or the like." Id. 6:25-27. The Specification adds that
"the supporting structure 6, in particular the struts 7 or the cell structure,
may ... be built up at least in certain portions with a cavity ... into which
the damping material 2 is introduced." Id. 6:29-7:2 (emphasis added).
Thus, Appellants' Specification and Figure 1 describe generative
building up of component 1 with cavity 3, including, during the generative
buildup, building up supporting structure 6 in at least portions of the cavity
in the form of intersecting struts or a honeycomb structure defining cells
( second cavities) between the struts or honeycomb structure in which
damping material is introduced, also during the generative buildup. Thus,
the Examiner's interpretation of claim 26 is consistent with what is
described on page 6 of the Specification and in Figure 1 and, therefore, is a
reasonable construction.
We appreciate that Appellants' Specification also discloses an
embodiment of the invention, illustrated in Figure 2, in which struts 7
themselves are specifically built up with cavities in the struts into which
7
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
damping material is introduced. Spec. 6:29-7:2 The disclosure of this
specific embodiment of supporting structure 6, however, does not negate the
more general disclosure regarding cell structures or undermine the
Examiner's construction of claim 26.
The Examiner cites Figure 2 of Strother, relied on in the rejection to
teach forming support structure including damping material in secondary
cavities between struts (Final Act. 5), as showing "a larger cavity with struts
forming smaller cavities within such as in Figure 1 of' the present
application. Ans. 3. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding in
this regard. Reply Br. passim.
Appellants contend that the Examiner's interpretation of "the 'thereof'
in the phrase 'with a second cavity in at least portions thereof"' in claim 26
as referring "to portions of the first cavity rather than to portions of the
integrated supporting and/or cooling structure" violates "the rules of
grammar[, which, according to Appellants,] dictate that the 'thereof in
claim 26 should be interpreted to refer to the closest of two nouns to which it
may potentially refer in the sentence." Reply Br. 3. Appellants also refer to
passages in their Specification that "refer to cavities which are present inside
the supporting and/or cooling structure and contain damping material." Id.
Appellants add that "[ c ]onversely, there is no passage in the instant
[S]pecification which conveys the impression that if a supporting and/or
cooling structure is present (inside the first cavity) this structure may be free
of any cavities." Id.
Considering the claim language "a first cavity in which an integrated
supporting and/or cooling structure with a second cavity in at least portions
thereof is built up" in its entirety, we do not agree with Appellants that the
8
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
only reasonable interpretation of "thereof' is that it refers to "integrated
supporting and/or cooling structure" rather than, for example, "component"
or "first cavity." Patent claims are not necessarily perfect models of
grammar, and, as discussed above, the Examiner's interpretation is
consistent with disclosed embodiments of Appellants' disclosure.
Accordingly, the Examiner's interpretation of the claim language is not per
se improper for violating "the rules of grammar" for which Appellants
identify no controlling authority. Moreover, even if we interpret "thereof'
as referring to the "integrated supporting and/or cooling structure," thereby
construing the claim as requiring a second cavity in at least portions of the
integrated and/or cooling structure, this language still would not distinguish
over the supporting and/or cooling structure and damping material
arrangement taught by Strother, in which the supporting and/or cooling
structure comprises webs forming a structure, much like a honeycomb
structure as described in Appellants' Specification, comprising a plurality of
trapezoidal cells, or cavities, in which damping material is introduced.
For the above reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 26. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 26, as
well as claims 27, 34--36, 41, and 42, which fall with claim 26.
Claims 28 and 38
Appellants group claims 28 and 38 together. Appeal Br. 10. We
decide the appeal as to these claims on the basis of claim 28, with claim 3 8
standing or falling with claim 28. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 28 depends from claim 26, and further recites, "wherein the
supporting and/or cooling structure comprises a multiplicity of struts running
between outer walls of the component and containing damping material in
9
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
cavities thereof." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Appellants argue that even
assuming that claim 26 "could be interpreted to mean that the spaces
(cavities) formed between elements ( e.g., struts) of the integrated supporting
and/or cooling structure qualify as the 'second cavity' recited in [claim 26],
this clearly does not apply to [ claim 28, which leaves] no room whatsoever
for any interpretation in this regard. Id. at 10.
We do not agree with Appellants. First, claim 28 does not expressly
link "cavities" in claim 28 to the "second cavity" in claim 26. See id. at 19
(Claims App.). Moreover, claim 28 does not specify that there is a cavity in
each, or any, strut of the multiplicity of struts comprising the supporting
and/or cooling structure. See id. Rather, even assuming "thereof' refers
back to "multiplicity of struts," as Appellants would urge us to construe this
language, claim 28 associates the "cavities" with the multiplicity of struts
(i.e., the cavities of the multiplicity of struts), rather than reciting a cavity in
each strut, and does not exclude embodiments such as those described in
Appellants' Specification in which the damping material is introduced into
cells of the structure defined by the multiplicity of struts. Thus, claim 28
leaves room for the interpretation applied by the Examiner-that is, "the
struts formed cavities between themselves and struts, into which damping
material could be introduced." Ans. 3--4 ( citing "Figure 1 of the [present
application] which shows struts forming cavities between themselves and the
walls of the component"). The Examiner cites Figure 2 of Strother as
teaching such a structure. Id. at 4.
Appellants additionally argue that because Ader "discloses removing
potential damping material from cavities (ducts) rather than filling cavities
with damping material," "it is only with hindsight that one can conclude that
10
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
in view of the alleged disclosures of the relied upon documents" it would
have been "obvious to provide a damping structure as disclosed in [Barcock]
with load-capable internal structures or cooling channels and fill these
structures or channels with damping material." Appeal Br. 10-11.
Appellants' argument fails to take into account the teachings of all of
the applied references. In particular, as the Examiner emphasizes, Strother
and Barcock both express a desire for damping. Ans. 5 ( citing Strother
,r,r 2--4, 6, 7, 18; Barcock ,r 28). Appellants are correct that Ader teaches
removing powder from cavities (ducts). Ader ,r,r 20, 22; claim 15. Like
Ader, Barcock teaches removing un-melted support powder from the
enclosure (i.e., cavity) in the component (Barcock ,r,r 32-37). Barcock,
however, also teaches subsequently filling the cavity "with new particles that
are sized to achieve a desired damping function" and that "[i]n some
applications, ... the powder may be of an appropriate size to achieve the
required damping in which case once the volume fill has been reduced to an
appropriate level no further particles need be added." Barco ck ,r 3 7.
Barcock also teaches that "[ a ]ltematively, the damping particles may be
added to the enclosure during or after formation of the enclosure." Barcock
,r 41. Moreover, the Examiner submits that the ducts from which Ader
removes powder "are cooling ducts, which even [Appellants' invention]
does not leave filled with damping powder" and should not be confused with
damping cavities. Ans. 5. Thus, for all of these reasons, Ader's teaching of
removing particles from cavities (ducts) would not have dissuaded a person
having ordinary skill in the art from filling damping cavities with damping
material to achieve damping as taught by Barcock and Strother.
11
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
Additionally, Appellants argue that, although Barcock "mentions a
turbine engine component as an article which may be produced by the
method disclosed therein," the only examples of such turbine engine
components specifically mentioned by Barcock "are turbine engine
components which do not bear the slightest resemblance to a turbine rotor."
Appeal Br. 11. Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to provide turbine engine components such as a
combustor, an injector, or a casing with load-capable internal structures or
cooling channels and fill the channels with damping material. Id.
Appellants' argument is not well-founded. Notably, claim 28 is not
limited to a turbine rotor. Moreover, Barcock teaches that the invention
"relates to articles used for damping" (Barcock ,r 2) and that a component
formed by the disclosed process "is a turbine engine component" (id. ,r 20).
Regardless of whether Barcock specifically mentions a turbine blade or a
turbine rotor, a turbine blade or turbine rotor is a turbine engine component
and, thus, falls within the teachings of Barcock. Barcock' s teaching of
filling the component with damping material (i1i1 3 6, 3 7, 41) belies any
notion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
provide the components discussed therein with load-capable internal
structures or cooling channels filled with damping material. Further,
Barcock references Keicher '409 as describing "[ o ]ne technique for
manufacturing complex three-dimensional shapes." Id. ,r 8. Keicher '409
specifically mentions turbine blades as an example of a complex three-
dimensional shape made by the described technique. Keicher '409,
Abstract; id., claim 9. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably inferred from Barcock's reference to the technique of Keicher
12
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
'409 that Barcock contemplated turbine blades as components that could be
made using Barcock's generative process, and, thus, would have considered
the teachings of Ader, Strother, and Keicher '251 regarding load-capable
internal structures and damping to be applicable to Barcock' s components
and method.
For the above reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 28. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 28, as
well as claim 38, which falls with claim 28.
Claims 29--31, 37, and 40
Appellants group claims 29-31, 3 7, and 40 together. Appeal Br. 11-
12. We decide the appeal as to this group of claims on the basis of claim 29,
with claims 30, 31, 37, and 40 standing or falling with claim 29.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 29 depends from claim 26, and further recites that "the
component is a turbine blade." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Appellants
reiterate the argument that Barcock does not specifically mention a turbine
blade as one of the turbine engine components that may be produced by
Barcock's method. Id. at 12. This line of argument is unpersuasive, for the
reasons set forth above in discussing claim 28, and, likewise, fails to apprise
us of error in the rejection of claim 29. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 29, as well as claims 30, 31, 37, and 40, which fall with
claim 29.
13
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
Re} ection II
Claims 32, 33, and 39
Appellants group claims 32, 33, and 39 together. Appeal Br. 12-13.
We decide the appeal as to these claims on the basis of claim 32, with claims
33 and 39 standing or falling with claim 32. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 32 depends from claim 26, and further recites that a cooling
bore is introduced into an outer wall of the component, connecting the first
cavity to an outer surface of the component, during the generative buildup of
the component. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on
Tibbott for this feature. Final Act. 13-14. In particular, the Examiner finds
that Tibbott teaches that forming cooling bores to the outside surface with
deposition and sintering methods layer by layer may permit the formation of
cooling passages and further cooling holes shaped with greater potential for
effective convective cooling and film cooling, and, thus, is an improvement
over prior art methods forming cooling channels and cavities by drilling. Id.
at 13 (citing Tibbott, Figs. 2-10, ,r,r 8-11, 40-42, 48, 51). The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to modify Barcock's method "to
include forming a central cooling channel and exit bores as taught by
Tibbott, ... for the purpose of increasing convection cooling internally,
increasing the amount and speed of the air picked up from the internal
cavity, and improving the film cooling effectiveness externally." Id. at 14.
Appellants argue that Tibbott's method of forming the blade assembly
"is significantly different from" Barcock' s forming method. Appeal Br. 13.
Thus, Appellants contend that the combination of Barcock and Tibbott
proposed by the Examiner can be reached "only with hindsight." Id.
14
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
We do not agree with Appellants that Tibbott's method of building up
a component is so "significantly different from" Barcock' s method that the
teachings of Tibbott would have been combined with Barcock only with
hindsight. As the Examiner points out, "both Tibbott and Barcock [use]
generative methods to form solid structures." Ans. 6. "Barcock forms a
component from powder via laser beams[,] and Tibbott forms a mold by
from [sic] liquid via laser beams." Id. (citing Barcock ,r,r 29-32; Tibbott
,r 40). Moreover, the Examiner notes that Tibbott sets forth advantages of
generative forming methods over drilling for forming the holes, and Barcock
uses generative methods, rather than drilling, to form the holes. Id. ( citing
Tibbott ,r,r 40-42; Barcock ,r,r 31-32); see also Barcock ,r 33 (teaching
forming apertures to permit un-melted powder to be removed from the
enclosures by blowing). Thus, the Examiner's determination that it would
have been obvious to combine Tibbott's teaching of forming cooling
apertures in the outer wall of the component connecting the cavity with the
outside of the component with Barcock is based on the teachings of Tibbott
and Barcock, rather than hindsight.
For the above reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 32. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 32, as
well as claims 33 and 39, which fall with claim 32.
Rejection III
Claims 43 and 44
Appellants group claims 43 and 44 together. Appeal Br. 13-17. We
decide the appeal as to these claims on the basis of claim 43, with claim 44
standing or falling with claim 43. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
15
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
Appellants reiterate the argument contending that Tibbott's forming
method is significantly different from that of Barcock and, thus, there is no
motivation to combine the teachings of Barcock and Tibbott. Appeal Br.
14--15. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons set forth above in
discussing claim 32, and, likewise, fails to apprise us of error in the rejection
of claim 43.
Appellants also reiterate the argument regarding Barcock not
expressly teaching use of the disclosed forming method for a turbine blade,
adding that Barcock's reference to Keicher '409, and the mention of turbine
blades in Keicher '409, would provide no motivation for one of ordinary
skill in the art to make turbine blades using Barcock' s method, and, thus, no
reason to look to Tibbott in this regard. Id. at 16-17. This line of argument
is unpersuasive, for the reasons discussed above in regard to claim 28, and,
likewise, fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 43.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 43, as well as claim 44,
which falls with claim 43.
Claim 45
In contesting the rejection of claim 45, Appellants rely on the
arguments presented against the rejection of claim 43, from which claim 45
depends. Appeal Br. 1 7. These arguments do not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 43, for the reasons set forth above, and, likewise, do not
apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 45.
Appellants also reiterate the argument that Barcock does not disclose
a turbine engine component bearing any resemblance to a turbine blade. Id.
at 17-18. For the reasons discussed above in regard to claim 28, this
argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 45.
16
Appeal2017-009293
Application 13/978,641
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 45.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 26-45 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
17