Ex Parte Ogura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

10474590 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
10/474,590 02/25/2004 Junji Ogura TYOZ 200006US01 4391
27885 7590 03/21/2017
FAY SHARPE LLP
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JUNJI OGURA, YUKIHIRO SUGIMOTO,
and MASAHIKO SHIMIZU
____________________

Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON,
and JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 32, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 44–49, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We reverse.

1 This Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed June 4,
2014), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 11, 2014), Appellants’
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 10, 2014), the Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Jan. 16, 2014), and the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,”
mailed April 14, 2014).
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

2

The Invention
The invention relates to a suspension coil spring employed in a strut
type suspension device of a vehicle. Spec. 1:2–5.
Of all claims on appeal, claims 32 and 49 are independent. They are
reproduced below:
32. A suspension coil spring which is interposed between an
upper seat and a lower seat in a strut type suspension device for
a vehicle, the suspension coil spring formed such that
in a free state a coil axis (AC) of the suspension coil spring
(10) is bent in a V shape at a single bending point (PB), the single
bending point (PB) is coincident with the coil axis (AC) at a
portion of the suspension coil spring that corresponds to an end
turn portion from a spring terminal for a predetermined number
of turns, where the number of turns is a positive real number, a
straight line that intersects the bending point (BP) defines an
imaginary coil axis (AI) that corresponds to an un-bent axis, each
of an upper end turn center (CU) and a lower end turn center (CL)
intersect the coil axis (AC) and at least one of the upper end turn
center (CU) and the lower end turn center (CL) is made eccentric
in a predetermined eccentric amount (VU, VL) in a
predetermined eccentric direction that is perpendicular with
respect to the imaginary coil axis (AI), an upper end turn portion
(32) is set such that an upper seating surface (38) intersects
substantially perpendicularly with respect to the imaginary coil
axis (AI) and a lower end turn portion (34) is set such that a lower
seating surface (40) intersects substantially perpendicularly with
respect to the imaginary coil axis (AI), at least one of the upper
seating surface (38) and the lower seating surface (40) does not
intersect perpendicularly with respect to the coil axis (AC), and
a lead angle and a pitch of each turn, not including the
upper end turn portion (32), above the bending point (PB) of
the spring (10) are the same as a lead angle and a pitch of a
reference coil spring, the lead angle and the pitch of each turn
thereof are the same as each other, and a lead angle and a
pitch of each turn, not including the lower end turn portion
(34), below the bending point (PB) of the spring (10) are the
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

3

same as the lead angle and the pitch of the reference coil
spring, the lead angle and the pitch of each turn thereof are
the same as each other.
49. A suspension coil spring configured to be interposed
between an upper seat (22) and a lower seat (24) in a strut type
suspension device (12) for a vehicle, the suspension coil spring
consisting of:
in a free state a coil axis (AC) bent in a V shape at a
bending point (PB), the bending point (PB) coincident with the
coil axis (AC) at a portion of the suspension coil spring (10) that
corresponds to an end turn portion from a spring terminal for a
predetermined number of turns, wherein the number of turns is a
positive real number and wherein the bending point is further
positioned to intersect an imaginary coil axis (AI) defined as a
straight line that corresponds to an un-bent axis;
each of an upper end turn center (CU) and a lower end turn
center (CL) which intersect the coil axis (AC) and at least one of
the upper end turn center (CU) and the lower end turn center (CL)
is eccentric in a predetermined eccentric amount (VU, VL) in a
predetermined eccentric direction that is perpendicular with
respect to the imaginary coil axis (AI);
an upper end turn portion (32) set such that an upper
seating surface (38) intersects substantially perpendicularly
with respect to the imaginary coil axis (AI);
a lower end turn portion (34) set such that a lower
seating surface (40) intersects substantially perpendicularly
with respect to the imaginary coil axis (AI), and at least one of
the upper seating surface (38) and the lower seating surface (40)
does not intersect perpendicularly with respect to the coil axis
(AC),
wherein the upper end turn portion (32), the lower end turn
portion (34) and the turns located in between are configured such
that the suspension coil spring (10) is elastically deformed
between the spring seats (22) and (24) in a compressed direction
and a flexed direction, a compressive reaction force and a
transverse reaction force being applied to the spring seats (22)
and (24), and wherein a spring reaction force of the suspension
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

4

coil spring (10) is a composite force of the compressive reaction
force and the transverse reaction force, and a magnitude of the
transverse reaction force, which is applied from the suspension
coil spring (10) to the spring seats (22) and (24), is determined
by the upper eccentric amount (VU) and the lower eccentric
amount (VL), and a direction of the transverse reaction force is
determined in one of a positive direction and a negative direction
on a coordinate axis.
App. Br. 30–31, 33–34 (Claim Appendix) (emphasis added).
Figures 1A and 1B are reproduced below:

Figures 1A and 1B, reproduced above, respectively show an example of a
suspension coil spring according to an embodiment of the invention. Spec.
13:10–12. With respect to Figure 1A, the Specification states:
As shown in Fig. 1A, the suspension coil spring 10 in a free state
is formed such that a coil axis AC is bent in a V shape at a
position which corresponds to a portion from a lower spring
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

5

terminal 11 to R turn, as a bending point PB. Further, in Fig. 1A,
if a bending angle at the beginning point PB is 0◦, a straight line
AI indicated by a double-dashed line is an imaginary coil axis.
A lead angle of each of an upper end turn portion 32 and a lower
end turn portion 34 is set such that an upper seating surface 38
and a lower seating surface 40 of the suspension coil spring 10
respectively form a plane which intersects perpendicularly or
inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the imaginary
coil axis AI.
Spec. 14:20–15:8. In Figure 1B, suspension coil spring 10 is shown as
assembled in suspension device 12. Id. at 17:11–12. The Specification
states:
Fig. 1B shows the suspension coil spring 10 when it is
assembled to the suspension device 12 by a solid line, and the
suspension coil spring 10 in a free state by a double-dashed line.
As described above, the suspension coil spring 10 assembled to
the suspension device 12 is interposed between the spring seat 22
and the spring seat 24 and then set in a compressed state. Here,
each of the spring seats 22 and 24 is formed into a substantially
disc shape. Further, at a bottom surface side of the spring seat
22, there is provided a ribbed engaging portion 23 which press-
contacts with the upper seating surface 38 of the suspension coil
spring 10 in the compressed state, and forcibly positions the
upper end turn portion 32 at a predetermined position in a
direction perpendicular to the coil axis. At a top surface side of
the spring seat 24, there is provided a cylindrical engaging
portion 25 which press-contacts with the lower seating surface
40 of the suspension coil spring 10 in the compressed state, and
forcibly positions the lower end turn portion 34 at a
predetermined position in the direction perpendicular to the coil
axis.
Id. at 17:11–18:6.

Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

6

The Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied on in rejecting the claims on appeal are:
Hensley US 5,957,442 Sept. 28, 1999
Imaizumi EP 0 976 590 A1 Feb. 2, 2000

Admitted Prior Art (“APA”)2

The Rejections on Appeal3
Claim 49 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Imaizumi. Final Act. 3.
Claims 32, 35, 41, 42, and 44–48 were finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Imaizumi and Hensley. Id. at 6.
Claim 38 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imaizumi, Hensley, and APA. Id. at 8.

ANALYSIS
A. Rejection of Claim 49 as Anticipated by Imaizumi
To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008);

2 For APA, the Examiner identifies: “well-known knowledge as stated in
Applicant’s specification page 3, from the second paragraph to the first four
lines of page 4, lines 10-13 of page 4, and page 24.” Final Act. 8.

3 Claims 32, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 44–49 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) (post-AIA) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA), as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim subject
matter which the inventor (post-AIA) or applicant (pre-AIA) regards as the
invention. Final Act. 2. This ground of rejection, however, was later
withdrawn by the Examiner in an Advisory Office Action. Adv. Act. 1 (Box
5).
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

7

Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2001). While the elements must be arranged in the same way as is recited in
the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re
Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Identity of terminology is not required.
At issue is the term “substantially perpendicular.” According to claim
49, an upper seating surface of an upper end turn portion of the coil spring
must intersect “substantially perpendicularly” with respect to the imaginary
coil axis (AI), and a lower seating surface of a lower end turn portion of the
coil spring must intersect “substantially perpendicularly” with respect to the
imaginary coil axis (AI). The term is not used in the Specification, much
less defined, and neither the Examiner nor the Appellants has explained its
meaning.
“[T]he PTO gives a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation during patent prosecution.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the
Patent and Trademark Office should only limit the claim based on the
specification and prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim
the broader definition. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325; see also In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In summary, we assign claim terms
their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in the context of the
entire patent disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Limitations that are not a part of the claim should not
be imported into the claim. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,
358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

8

We have reviewed the Specification and find the below description
instructive in determining the meaning of “substantially perpendicular”:
In the suspension coil sprint 10, since the inclination and
the position of the spring reaction axis AR can be controlled by
the upper eccentric amount Vu, the lower eccentric amount VL,
and the eccentric directions, it becomes unnecessary to use the
inclinations of the upper seating surface 38 and the lower
seating surface 40 as parameters for designing the suspension
coil spring 10. Consequently, merely by adding new design
parameters comprising the upper eccentric amount Vu, the lower
eccentric amount VL, and the eccentric directions, to the design
parameters of the reference coil spring 36 whose imaginary coil
axis AI is used as the coil axis, the suspension coil spring 10 in
which the spring reaction axis AR is positioned coincident with
or sufficiently close to both the load input axis AA and the upper
mount center CM can be designed.
Spec. 24:3–15 (emphasis added). It is indicated that because of the
Appellants’ invention, inclinations on the upper seating surface and the
lower seating surface of the upper and lower end turn portions, respectively,
which render the surfaces non-perpendicular to the imaginary coil axis (AI),
are obviated as a means for changing the operational characteristics of the
coil spring. Thus, on this record, we construe “substantially
perpendicularly” in the context of the challenged claims as applied to an end
turn portion and the imaginary coil axis (AI) to mean—sufficiently
perpendicularly such that performance of the suspension coil spring in a strut
type suspension device for a vehicle, from the perspective of one with
ordinary skill in the art, is the same as though the end turn portion and the
imaginary coil axis (AI) is precisely perpendicular to each other.

Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

9

Figure 19 of Imaizumi is reproduced below:

Figure 19, reproduced above, depicts a helical compression spring according
to an embodiment of Imaizumi. A version of Figure 19, as annotated by the
Examiner, is reproduced below:

The above figure represents Figure 19 of Imaizumi, as annotated by the
Examiner to indicate the upper surface, lower surface, bending point,
imaginary axis (AI), eccentric amount, upper end turn center (CU), and
lower end turn center (CL). Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

10

The imaginary axis AI is perpendicular to the horizontal plane.
Despite the presence of a deliberate tilt ᵟ implemented by Imaizumi on the
upper surface of an upper end turn and a deliberate tilt ᵞ implemented by
Imaizumi on the lower surface of a lower end turn, relative to the horizontal
plane, the Examiner still regards the “substantial perpendicularly” limitation
as met by Imaizumi. We disagree with the Examiner’s determination, for
reasons explained below.
With regard to its Figure 19, Imaizumi explains:
The coil axis CA1 of the helical spring 35 is substantially curved
at a predetermined radius of curvature by a series of the
rectilinear lines a11, a12, and a pitch of a lower end coil 35a is
set in such a manner that the lower end plane of the helical
spring 35 is tilted at a predetermined angle ᵞ to a lower seat
(not shown) so as to shorten the longitudinal length of the
inside of the curvature (left side in FIG. 19), and that the
upper end plane of the helical spring 35 is tilted at a
predetermined angle ᵟ to an upper seat (not shown) so as to
shorten the longitudinal length of the outside of the curvature
(right side in FIG. 19).
Imaizumi ¶ 44 (emphasis added). The tilt angles ᵞ and ᵟ are implemented by
Imaizumi for a deliberate functional purpose, as compared to the absence of
such tilt angles. Imaizumi refers to one of its objectives as “applying a
desired side force to a strut of a vehicle suspension.” Imaizumi ¶ 10. The
tilt angles are a part of what enables Imaizumi to achieve its stated objective.
Thus, it cannot be said that the presence of the tilt angles causes no
difference in the performance of the suspension coil spring in a strut type
suspension device for a vehicle, from the perspective of one with ordinary
skill in the art, as compared to an implementation without the tilt angles.
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

11

Accordingly, the “substantially perpendicularly” requirement of claim 49 for
an upper seating surface and the imaginary axis AI, and for a lower seating
surface and the imaginary axis AI, are not met by Imaizumi.
The rejection of claim 49 as anticipated by Imaizumi cannot be
sustained.
B. Rejection of Claims 32, 35, 41, 42, and 44–48
as Obvious over Imaizumi and Hensley
Claim 32 is independent and each of claims 35, 41, 42, and 44–48
depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 32. At issue with each of these
claims is the limitation in claim 32 that:
a lead angle and a pitch of each turn, not including the
upper end turn portion (32), above the bending point (PB) of the
spring (10) are the same as a lead angle and a pitch of a reference
coil spring, the lead angle and the pitch of each turn thereof are
the same as each other, and a lead angle and a pitch of each turn,
not including the lower end turn portion (34), below the bending
point (PB) of the spring (10) are the same as the lead angle and
the pitch of the reference coil spring, the lead angle and the pitch
of each turn thereof are the same as each other.
In other words, the lead angle and pitch of each turn above the bending
point, not including the upper end turn, must be the same as that of each
other as well as the same as that of a reference coil spring, and the lead
angle and pitch of each turn below the bending point, not including the
lower end turn, must be the same as that of each other as well as the same
as that of the reference coil spring.
According to the Examiner, in Imaizumi, the two coil turns above
the bending point satisfy this limitation but the coil turns below the
bending point do not. Final Act. 7. The Appellants contend, however, that
neither the coil turns above the bending point nor the coil turns below the
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

12

bending point satisfy this limitation. App. Br. 12–13. The Examiner
responds by asserting that for the portion above the bending point, it is
enough that two coil turns share the same lead angle and pitch. Ans. 3.
We disagree. Claim 32 requires that each coil turn above the bending
point, except the upper end turn, share the same lead angle and pitch with
each other and with a reference coil spring. Figure 19 of Imaizumi shows,
above the bending point, one coil turn in addition to the two coil turns
immediately above the bending point, that is not the upper end turn, and
that the additional coil turn does not have the same lead angle and pitch as
the two coil turns immediately above the bending point. The two coil turns
are identified by Appellants on page 13 of the Appeal Brief as Turn 1 and
Turn 2, and the additional coil turn is identified by Appellants on page 12
of the Appeal Brief as Turn 3.
Nevertheless, according to the Examiner, Hensley discloses a coil
spring structure with a bending point, where all the coil turns above the
bending point share the same lead angle and pitch and where all the coil
turns below the bending point share the same lead angle and pitch. Final
Act. 7; Ans. 3. Also according to the Examiner, it would have been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate that feature of
Hensley into the structure of Imaizumi. Final Act. 7; Ans. 5–6.
Appellants dispute that in Hensley, all of the coil turns above the
bending point share the same lead angle and pitch. We reproduce Figure 2
of Hensley, as annotated by Appellants and presented on page 14 of the
Appeal Brief below:
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

13

The above figure is a version of Hensley’s Figure 2 as annotated by
Appellants and presented on page 14 of the Appeal Brief. It sufficiently
demonstrates that not all of the coil turns above the bending point
(designated by reference numeral 3) have the same lead angle and pitch, as
is asserted by the Examiner, notwithstanding that a different portion of the
same two turns appear to run parallel to each other, as is illustrated by the
Examiner on page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer. In any event, the
Examiner has not alleged, much less demonstrated, that in Hensley all of
the coil turns above and below the bending point, other than the upper end
turn and the lower end turn, share the same lead angle and pitch.4
Nevertheless, even assuming that Hensley’s coil turns above and
below bending point 3 meet the corresponding requirements of claim 32,
for reasons discussed below, we determine that the Examiner has failed to
articulate reasoning with rational underpinning to support a conclusion that
it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, in light of

4 Claim 32 requires the shared leading angle and pitch above the bending
point to be the same as that of a reference coil spring, and the shared leading
angle and pitch below the bending point also to be the same as that of the
reference coil spring. Thus, the shared leading angle and pitch above the
bending point are the same as those below the bending point.
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

14

Hensley’s disclosure, to modify the structure of Imaizumi such that (1) the
lead angle and pitch of each coil turn above Imaizumi’s bending point, not
including the upper end turn, be the same, (2) the lead angle and pitch of
each coil turn below Imaizumi’s bending point, not including the lower
end turn, be the same, and (3) the shared lead angle and pitch above the
bending point are the same as the shared lead angle and pitch below the
bending point, as is required by claim 32.
Figure 2 of Hensley is reproduced below:

Figure 2, reproduced above, illustrates a coil spring embodiment disclosed
by Hensley. The coil spring of Hensley is used in a safety device to return
the turn signal handle in a vehicle back to neutral when the turn signal
canceling cam or switch fails to operate correctly. Hensley 1:17–19.
Hensley describes: “When the driver of the automobile anticipate that a
turn is going to be made, he or she puts pressure on the handle of the turn
signal 4 which in turn puts pressure on the coiled spring 2 and causes the
coiled spring 2 to compress.” Id. at 2:11–14. Hensley further describes:

Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

15

After the turn is completed, the driver releases the pressure on
the handle 4 which in turn releases the pressure on the
compressed spring 2. When the pressure is release[d], the
compressed spring 2 will move upward and push the handle 4
back to a neutral position. When the turn signal handle 4 is in
neutral position the turn signal light will stop flashing.
Id. at 2:19–25. As can be seen in Hensley’s Figure 2, there is a bending
point on the coil spring, designated by reference numeral 3. Above the
bending point are multiple coil turns. For this analysis, we assume that those
coil turns above the bending point share the same lead angle and pitch.
Below the bending point are multiple coil turns including the lower end turn
which have the same lead angle and pitch.
In proposing to implement the coil spring of Imaizumi like the coil
spring of Hensley, the Examiner states:
It would have been obvious to one [with] ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to have maintained the same
leading angle and pitch for each coil above the bending point and
each coil below the bending point in the spring of Imaizumi in
order to maintain the same spring characteristics while
effectively re-directing the spring force such as taught by
Hensley.
Final Act. 7 (emphasis added). For an obviousness determination, the
motivation to combine teachings must be supported by articulated reasoning
with rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006). We find that the reasoning provided by the Examiner is inadequate.
First, the Examiner has cited no evidence to support the assertion that
when the lead angle and pitch of the coil turns are changed from what they
are as disclosed in Imaizumi, spring characteristics would remain the same.
Second, the Examiner has not explained the presence of any
additional need in Imaizumi to re-direct the spring force beyond what
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

16

already is provided for in Imaizumi, and it is also not explained what shared
lead angle and pitch have to do with achieving redirection of a spring force.
Third, the Examiner’s proposed combination would not result in the
claimed invention. The Examiner proposes to make all the coil turns above
the bending point share the same lead angle and pitch, without excluding the
upper end turn, and all the coil turns below the bending point share the same
lead angle and pitch, without excluding the lower end turn, allegedly as
shown in Hensley. Final Act. 7. Claim 32, on the other hand, requires a
bend in the actual coil axis, substantial perpendicularity of an upper seating
surface of the upper end turn portion with respect to the imaginary axis (AI),
and substantial perpendicularity of a lower seating surface of the lower end
turn portion with respect to the imaginary axis (AI). The Examiner’s
proposed combination is inconsistent with those requirements of claim 32.
Moreover, if the Examiner’s proposed combination is directed only to coil
turns excluding the upper end turn and the lower end turn, that would reflect
selective picking and choosing of prior art teachings, and that is indicative of
inappropriate hindsight in light of Appellants’ own claimed invention.
Fourth, Appellants submitted an Exhibit A as an attachment to an
Amendment dated August 13, 2012. The Exhibit purports to show a
comparison of the performance of a spring made according to the disclosure
of Imaizumi with the performance of a spring made according to Appellants’
invention. Appellants note that as shown in Exhibit A the direction of the
side reaction force in the case of minimum load is clearly different between
Imaizumi’s embodiment and Appellants’ invention. App. Br. 18–21. This
evidence casts further doubt on the Examiner’s unsupported assertion that
when the lead angle and pitch of the coil turns are changed from what they
Appeal 2014-009489
Application 10/474,590

17

are as disclosed in Imaizumi to that as required by claim 32, spring
characteristics would remain the same.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 32, and the rejection
of claims 35, 41, 42, and 44–48 which depend from claim 32, as
unpatentable over Imaizumi and Hensley cannot be sustained.
C. Rejection of Claim 38
as Obvious over Imaizumi, Hensley, and AAPA
Claim 38 depends from claim 35 which depends from claim 32. The
Examiner relies on APA to account for the limitation added by claim 38 with
respect to claim 35. The reliance on APA does not cure the deficiencies
discussed above with respect to the limitations of claim 32. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 38 as unpatentable over Imaizumi, Hensley, and APA
cannot be sustained.
DECISION
The rejection of claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Imaizumi is reversed.
The rejection of claims 32, 35, 41, 42, and 44–48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Imaizumi and Hensley is reversed.
The rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Imaizumi, Hensley, and APA is reversed.

REVERSED