Ex Parte Piemonte et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13632027 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
13/632,027 09/30/2012 Patrick S. Piemonte 337722-338101/P17223US1 7947
133036 7590 10/03/2017
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
EXAMINER
LIU, ZHENGXI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
ApplePros Admin @ dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICK S. PIEMONTE and BILLY P. CHEN
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—32. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Final Act. 4—5.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply
with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5—6.
Claims 1, 6—9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Maurer (US 2013/0080504 Al; Mar. 28, 2013), Mujica (Roger
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
Mujica, “Floor Plan Rising Animation,” YouTube, Sep. 25, 2011), and Guo
(US 2010/0238176 Al; Sep. 23, 2010). Final Act. 6-15.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Maurer, Mujica, Guo, and Kwiatkowski (US 2011/0096076 Al; Apr. 28,
2011). Final Act. 15—16.
Claims 4, 5, 13, 15, 16, 27—29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Maurer, Mujica, Guo, and Iwamura (US
2008/0198158 Al; Aug. 21, 2008). Final Act. 17-27.
Claims 17, 19—22, 24—26, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Schwegler (US 2009/0244100 Al; Oct. 1, 2009),
Mujica, and Guo. Final Act. 28—39.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Maurer, Mujica, Guo, and Liu (US 2009/0225049 Al; Sep. 10, 2009). Final
Act. 39^40.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Maurer, Mujica, Guo, Iwamura, and Nagasama (US 2004/0162669 Al; Aug.
19, 2004). Final Act. 40-A1.
Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Schwegler, Mujica, Guo, and Storrusten (US 2010/0134425 Al; Jun. 3,
2010). Final Act. 41^13.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “display[ing] three-dimensional
representations of three-dimensional objects.” Abstract.
2
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A machine readable medium storing a mapping program for
execution by at least one processing unit, the program comprising sets of
instructions for:
providing at least one map presentation comprising a plurality of tiles;
identifying a tile of the plurality of tiles that contains data comprising
an undisplayed three-dimensional (3D) object representation;
generating a set of animation instructions for displaying the 3D object
representation, the set of animation instructions comprising instructions to
raise the 3D object representation from a base level to a full height while
increasing an opacity of the 3D object representation; and
displaying the 3D object representation according to the set of
animation instructions.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
3
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary
skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used
to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[, Inc. v.
Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative—a
court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 1 12(b)
Appellants do not present arguments or evidence for this rejection.
See Appeal Br. 11—29, Reply Br. 2—10.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b).
The Rejection of Claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 1 12(a)
Appellants do not present arguments or evidence for this rejection.
See Appeal Br. 11—29, Reply Br. 2—10.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a).
4
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1,6-9,11, and 12 over Maurer,
Mujica, and Guo
The Examiner finds Maurer, Mujica, and Guo teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 6—12.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i. The references are improperly combined because the references
relate to completely different concepts and are non-analogous art and
further, no motivation exists for combining the teachings of Guo, Maurer,
and Mujica. See Appeal Br. 12—13.
[Tjhis reasoning is deficient in that it does not provide an account
as to why or how one of ordinary skill in the art would combine
a mapping application, an architectural representation of a
building, and an application relating to transitions between charts
and graphs to arrive at the current invention, without the use of
hindsight based on reading Appellant’s claims.
Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 2—5.
ii. There is no teaching in the prior art of raising a 3D object
representation while increasing opacity of the 3D object representation. See
Appeal Br. 13—14; see also Reply Br. 5—6.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding argument (i), criteria for determining whether prior art is
analogous is “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In
re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658—59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, we determine the
field of the inventors’ endeavor is electronic maps, three-dimensional
5
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
representations of three-dimensional objects, and presentation transitions.
See Spec. 1:1—23. Appellants seek to solve the jarring or sudden map
presentation caused when 3D object representations are added due to user
movement within the presentation (Spec. 1:15—2:9). Maurer relates to
electronic maps. See Maurer Abstract. Mujica relates to three-dimensional
representations of three-dimensional objects. See Mujica. Finally, Guo
relates to visual transitions. See Guo Abstract. Thus, the references are all
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved, and therefore the references are analogous art.
Further regarding argument (i), the Examiner finds “Maurer does not
explicitly disclose that the displaying the 3D object representation is an
animation, which is to raise the 3D object representation from a base
level to a full height while increasing an opacity of the 3D object
representation.” Final Act. 11.
The Examiner finds “Mujica discloses displaying the 3D object
representation is an animation, which is to raise the 3D object
representation from a base level to a full height.” Final Act. 11.
The Examiner reasons “it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Maurer with Mujica. The
suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide visual
excitement and make transitions less sudden.” Final Act. 11.
We find the Examiner’s reasoning is rational on its face and supported
by evidence drawn from the record. See Mujica (floor plan building rising
animation provides visual excitement and less sudden transitions). Mujica is
readily applicable to Maurer because Maurer’s maps include buildings. See
Maurer Fig. 3A. Modifying Maurer to incorporate Mujica’s animation to
6
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
provide Maurer with visual excitement and less sudden transitions would
have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
See also Ans. 2—7.
The Examiner finds “Guo discloses a transition is transitioned while
increasing an opacity of the ... object representation (paragraph 88,
reciting ‘For instance, in one embodiment an object present only on the
outgoing slide may have its opacity increased from 0% to 100% over the
entire transition interval,’).” Final Act. 12.
The Examiner reasons “it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Maurer in view of Mujica with Guo. The
suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide visual
excitement and make color transition gradual.” Final Act. 12.
We find the Examiner’s reasoning has some rational underpinning and
is supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Guo 1 88 (Guo’s
dissolve and materialize animations provide visual excitement and gradual
color transition). Guo is readily applicable to Maurer in view of Mujica
because Maurer in view of Mujica includes animations and transitions. See
Mujica. Modifying the combination of Maurer and Mujica to incorporate
Guo’s animation to provide visual excitement and gradual color transition
would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
See also Ans. 4—7.
Furthermore, Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us the Examiner used impermissible hindsight.
7
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
Regarding argument (ii), as discussed above, the Examiner articulates
reasoning with some rational underpinning, supported by evidence drawn
from the record. Further, when the teachings of the references are combined,
the references teach raising a 3D object representation while increasing
opacity of the object representation. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; see
also Mujica (floor plan building rising animation provides visual excitement
and less sudden transitions), Guo 1 88 (Guo’s dissolve and materialize
animations provide visual excitement and gradual color transition) and Ans.
7-8.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
I. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 6, which
depends from claim 1, and is not separately argued with particularity.
Regarding claim 7, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14—16; see also Reply Br. 6.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
7 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 8, 9,
II, and 12, which depend from claim 7, and are not separately argued with
particularity.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2 and 3 over Maurer, Mujica,
GUO, AND KWIATKOWSKI
The Examiner finds Maurer, Mujica, Guo, and Kwiatkowski teach all
limitations of claim 2. Final Act. 15—16.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
8
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
The cited portions describe an animation scheduling component
configured to determine a duration of an animation. See
Kwiat[k]owski, para 4. However, the cited reference relates only
to generic animations, and is yet again unrelated to a mapping
application. Accordingly, the Kwiatkowski is yet another
reference that would not have been obvious to combine with
Maurer, and the Office Action erred in compounding yet another
reference that is not related, in any way, to the current invention.
Appeal Br. 25; see also Reply Br. 7—8.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the legal conclusion of obviousness.
First, we consider whether Kwiatkowski is analogous art.
Kwiatkowski is related to animation transitions. See Kwiatkowski 14. Thus,
Kwiatkowski is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved (presentation transitions), and therefore, we
determine the references are analogous art.
Second, we consider the Examiner’s findings and reasons that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Kwiatkowski with the teachings of Maurer, Mujica, and Guo.
The Examiner finds Kwiatkowski teaches (claim 2) “a set of instructions for
setting a duration for applying the animation instructions.” Final Act. 15—16
(citing Kwiatkowski 14). The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to combine Maurer in view of Mujica and Guo with
Kwiatkowski. The suggestion/motivation would have been in
order to allow a user or programmer to better control the
animation. A better visual effect will be achieved as a result.
Final Act. 16.
We find the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning supported by evidence drawn from the record. See
9
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
Kwiatkowski 14 (“The animation API may comprise an animation
scheduling component configured to determine a duration of a first
animation transition based upon an animation character parameter of an
animation variable.”). We determine an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have found it obvious to include Kwiatkowski’s teaching with those of
Maurer in view of Mujica and Guo because Kwiatkowski includes animation
transitions. Modifying Maurer in view of Mujica and Guo to incorporate
Kwiatkowski’s setting a duration to provide better control over the
animation, would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 417. See also Ans. 9—10. Moreover, Appellants have not proffered
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner used
impermissible hindsight to combine the teachings and suggestions of the
relied-upon references. See App. Br. 26.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
2.
Regarding claim 3, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented for claim 2. See Appeal Br. 26; see also Reply Br. 8.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
3 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 2.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4,5,13,15,16,27-29, and 31
over Maurer, Mujica, Guo, and Iwamura
Regarding claim 13, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16—18; see also Reply Br. 6.
10
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
13 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4, 5,
15, 16, 27—29, and 31, which are not separately argued with particularity.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 17,19-22,24—26, and 32 over
SCHWEGLER, MUJICA, AND GUO
The Examiner finds Schwegler, Mujica, and Guo teach all limitations
of claim 17. Final Act. 28—31.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
There is no reason to combine the references. See Appeal Br. 19—20.
[Tjhis reasoning is deficient in that it does not provide an account
as to why or how one of ordinary skill in the art would combine
a mapping application, an architectural representation of a
building, and an application relating to transitions between charts
and graphs to arrive at the current invention, without the use of
hindsight based on reading Appellant’s claims.
Appeal Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 6—7.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds “Schwegler does
not explicitly teach gradually raising a plurality of the 3D object
representations from a base level and causing the representations to
gradually transition from transparent to opaque.” Final Act. 29.
The Examiner finds “Mujica discloses gradually raising a plurality
of the 3D object representations from a base level.” Final Act. 29. The
Examiner reasons “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art to combine [Schwegler] with Mujica. The suggestion/motivation
11
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
would have been in order to provide visual excitement and make transitions
less sudden.” Final Act. 30.
We find the Examiner’s articulated reasoning has some rational
underpinning and is supported by evidence drawn from the record. See
Mujica (floor plan building rising animation provides visual excitement and
less sudden transitions). Mujica is readily applicable to Schwegler because
Schwegler’s maps include a perspective view. See Schwegler Fig. 8.
Modifying Schwegler to incorporate Mujica’s animation to provide
Schwegler with visual excitement and less sudden transitions, would have
been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions—an obvious improvement. SeeKSR, 550 U.S. at 417. See also
Ans. 8—9.
The Examiner finds “Guo discloses causing the representations to
gradually transition from transparent to opaque {paragraph 88, reciting
‘For instance, in one embodiment an object present only on the outgoing
slide may have its opacity increased from 0% to 100% over the entire
transition interval.’” Final Act. 30. The Examiner reasons “it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine [Schwegler
in view of Mujica] with Guo. The suggestion/motivation would have been
in order to provide visual excitement and make color transition gradual.”
Final Act. 31.
We find the Examiner’s articulated reasoning has some rational
underpinning and is supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Guo
1 88 (Guo’s dissolve and materialize animations provide visual excitement
and gradual color transition). Guo is readily applicable to Schwegler in view
of Mujica because Schwegler in view of Mujica includes animations and
12
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
transitions. See Mujica. Modifying Schwegler in view of Mujica to
incorporate Guo’s animation to provide visual excitement and gradual color
transition, would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 417. See also Ans. 8—9. Additionally, Appellants have not proffered
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner used
impermissible hindsight in combining the teachings and suggestions of the
references. See App. Br. 20.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
17. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 19 and
20, which depend from claim 17, and are not separately argued with
particularity.
Regarding claim 21, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented for claim 17. See Appeal Br. 21—22; see also Reply Br. 7.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
21 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 17.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 22,
which depends from claim 21, and is not separately argued with
particularity.
Regarding claim 24, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented for claim 17. See Appeal Br. 23—24; see also Reply Br. 7.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
24 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 17.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 25,
26, and 32, which depend from claim 24, and are not separately argued with
particularity.
13
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 10 over Maurer, Mujica, Guo,
and Liu
Appellants do not present arguments or evidence for this rejection.
See Appeal Br. 11—29, Reply Br. 2—10.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
10.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 14 over Maurer, Mujica, Guo,
IWAMURA, AND NAGASAMA
The Examiner finds Maurer, Mujica, Guo, Iwamura, and Nagasama
teach all limitations of claim 14. Final Act. 40-41.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Nagasama refers to a display position and distance for
information displayed in the periphery of a partial map being
determined based on a direction from the center of the map and
a position on the map selected as a reference. However, this does
not relate to performing actions, and especially raising or
lowering, objects beyond a threshold distance from the center of
the map.
Appeal Br. 27; see also Reply Br. 8—9.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants are arguing the references individually. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d at 425. Specifically, the Examiner finds Maurer in view of Mujica,
Guo, and Iwamura teaches (claim 14) “the 3D object representations being
lowered are beyond a threshold distance” from a reference point. Final Act.
40. The Examiner further finds Nagasama teaches utilizing the center of the
14
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
displayed map as the reference point. Final Act. 41 (citing Nagasama 1 54).
Thus, the combination teaches “the 3D object representations being lowered
are beyond a threshold distance from the center of the displayed map.” Ans.
10-11; see also Nagasama |54 (utilizing the center of the displayed map as
the reference point for displaying information in the periphery). The
Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to combine [Maurer] in view of Mujica, Guo, and Iwamura with
Nagamasa. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order
to emphasize the area of a map that one usually pays more
attention. It would also have been a simple substitution of a
known technology/knowledge that produces predictable results.
Final Act. 41.
The Examiner’s articulated reasons for the combination have some
rational underpinning and are supported by evidence drawn from the record.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 18 and 23 over Schwegler,
Mujica, Guo, and Storrusten
The Examiner finds Schwegler, Mujica, Guo, and Storrusten teach all
limitations of claim 18. Final Act. 41 42.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Storrusten is related to the display of lists on a touchscreen, and
the cited claim 14 relates to reversing a scrolling direction of the
list based on a second touch gesture. Thus, the Office Action has
combined another reference, relating to art not analogous to
mapping or to the other cited references, to reject claim 18. This
reference (i) does not relate to stopping transitions from
transparent to opaque or the raising of representations in a map,
and (ii) would not have been obvious to combine with
Schwegler, Mujica, or Guo.
15
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
Appeal Br. 28; see also Reply Br. 9—10.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the legal conclusion of obviousness.
First, we consider whether Storrusten is analogous art. Storrusten
relates to scrolling on a multi-touch display. See Storrusten Abstract. Thus,
Storrusten is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved (presentation transitions), and therefore, Storrusten is
analogous art.
Second, we consider the Examiner’s findings and reasons. The
Examiner finds Storrusten discloses “while during a[n] animation transition,
the animation may be reversed.” Final Act. 42. The Examiner reasons “it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine
Schwegler in view of Mujica and Guo with Storrusten. The
suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide instant and
smooth response to a user input.” Final Act. 42.
We find the Examiner’s articulated reasoning has some rational
underpinning and is supported by evidence drawn from the record. See
Storrusten claim 14 (“wherein a direction of scrolling caused by the first
touch gesture is reversed responsive to the second, multi-touch gesture.”).
Further, we adopt as our own the Examiner’s further explanation in
the Examiner’s Answer:
When Schwegler in view of Mujica and Guo is combined
with Storrusten, a multi-touch gesture, e.g., a swipe on a touch
screen, may scroll a map in one direction; in the next moment,
another multi-touch gesture, e.g., another swipe, in an opposite
direction, may scroll the map back to its original location. An
animated transition of a building, which including rising up and
color change, occurs when the building comes into view on a
16
Appeal 2017-004930
Application 13/632,027
map after a swipe on the touch screen; another swipe to the
opposite direction causes the animation transition to be reversed,
when the building is moving out of the view.
Ans. 12.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
18.
Regarding claim 23, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented for claim 18. See Appeal Br. 28—29; see also Reply Br. 10.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
23 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 18.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—32 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
17