Ex Parte Spisak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 10, 2017

13534054 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 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.
13/534,054 06/27/2012 Michael J. Spisak END920010128US3 2038
30449 7590 04/12/2017
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
EXAMINER
HOPE, DARRIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/12/2017 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):
30449@IPLAWUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. SPISAK
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,0541
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s described and claimed invention relates generally to “[a]
method and computer system for processing a web page.” Abstract.2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitation emphasized)'.
1. A method for processing a web page, said method
comprising:
parsing, by a processor of a computer system, a first web
page that comprises at least one Universal Resource Locator
(URL);
during said parsing, as each URL of the at least one URL
on the first web page is encountered, said processor transforming
the first web page by appending to a link statement of said each
URL on the first web page an associated two-key code that
associates the two-key code with said each URL on the first web
page', and
said processor displaying the first web page on a display
screen of the computer system, wherein said displaying is
initiated after said parsing has been performed.
App. Br. 26 (App’x. A — Claims on Appeal).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double
patenting over claims 1—20 ofU.S. Patent No. 7,188,318 (“the ’318 patent”).
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed June 17, 2015
(“Final Act.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Dec. 28, 2015 (“App. Br.”)
and Reply Brief filed Sept. 12, 2016 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed July 15, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the original Specification filed June 27,
2012 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
Claims 1—20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double
patenting over claims 1—12 ofU.S. Patent No. 8,250,485 (“the ’485 patent”).
Claims 1—4, 8, 9, 11—14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Doorselaer et al.
(US 2002/0070962 Al; published June 13, 2002) (“Van Doorselaer”), in
view of Gentner (US 5,796,404 A; Aug. 18, 1998).
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Van Doorselaer, in view of Gentner, and further in view
of Gao et al. (US 2002/0032701 Al; Mar. 14, 2002).
Claims 5—7 and 15—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Van Doorselaer, in view of Gentner, and further in
view of Baird (US 2004/0205502 Al; Oct. 14, 2004).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 6—24) and the Reply Brief (see
Reply Br. 2—21) and are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. Unless
otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2—24) and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—14), and we concur with
the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief.
3
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 1—20 over the ’318 Patent
Appellant argues claims 1—20 of the ’318 patent do not disclose
“appending to a link statement of said each URL on the first web page an
associated two-key code that associates the two-key code with said each
URL on the first web page,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. See
App. Br. 6. As argued by Appellant, the aforementioned claim limitation is
not identical in scope to “associating a keystroke combination with at least
one Universal Resource Locator (URL). . . displaying a screen display
based on said data stream and including said keystroke combinations
together with representations of said URLs,” as recited in independent
claims 1 and 11 of the ’318 patent because “including said keystroke
combinations together with representations of said URLs” does not imply
the keystroke combination is appended to the URL’s link statement. See
Reply Br. 2—3.
We do not find the argument persuasive. We agree with the Examiner
that “appending to a link statement of said each URL on the first web page
an associated two-key code that associates the two-key code with said each
URL on the first web page,” as recited in claims 1 and 11 of the instant
application, is not patentably distinct from “associating a keystroke
combination with at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL),” as
recited in claims 1 and 11 of the ’318 patent. See Ans. 2—3. Thus, although
claims 1—20 are not identical to claims 1—20 of the ’318 patent, Appellant
has not shown claims 1—20 are patentably distinct from claims 1—20 of the
’318 patent. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—20 on the
ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1—20
of the ’318 patent.
4
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 1—20 over the ’485 Patent
Appellant also argues claims 1—12 of the ’485 patent do not disclose
“appending to a link statement of said each URL on the first web page an
associated two-key code that associates the two-key code with said each
URL on the first web page,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. See
App. Br. 7. As argued by Appellant, the aforementioned claim limitation is
not identical in scope to “after said parsing has parsed the entire first web
page, looping over the appended two-key codes on the first web page, said
looping comprising generating computer code that associates said each URL
on the first web page with its associated two-key code,” as recited in
independent claims 1 and 7 of the ’485 patent because “generating computer
code that associates said each URL on the first web page with its associated
two-key code” does not imply the two-key code is appended to the URL’s
link statement, because there are various ways of associating a URL with a
two-key code. See Reply Br. 4—5.
We do not find the argument persuasive. We agree with the Examiner
that “appending to a link statement of said each URL on the first web page
an associated two-key code that associates the two-key code with said each
URL on the first web page,” as recited in claims 1 and 11 of the instant
application, is not patentably distinct from “generating computer code that
associates said each URL on the first web page with its associated two-key
code,” as recited in claims 1 and 7 of the ’485 patent. See Ans. 3. Thus,
although claims 1—20 are not identical to claims 1—12 of the ’485 patent,
Appellant has not shown claims 1—20 are patentably distinct from claims
5
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
1—12 of the ’485 patent. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims
1—20 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1—12 of the ’485 patent.
Rejection of Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 20 under § 103(a)
Appellant argues the combination of Van Doorselaer and Gentner
fails to teach or suggest “parsing, by a processor of a computer system, a
first web page that comprises at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL)
. . . said processor displaying the first web page on a display screen of the
computer system, wherein said displaying is initiated after said parsing has
been performed,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. See App. Br. 8.
More specifically, Appellant argues Van Doorselaer does not disclose
parsing a hypertext page. See App. Br. 9. Instead, as argued by Appellant,
Van Doorselaer merely discloses that a web-server includes a table
containing 20 hyperlinks referenced by a hypertext page, and fails to
disclose the 20 hyperlinks in the table were obtained from parsing the
hypertext page. See App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 8. Even if the 20
hyperlinks in the table are obtained from parsing the hypertext page, as
argued by Appellant, Van Doorselaer does not disclose: (a) the hypertext
page is displayed after the parsing has been performed; and (b) the same
processor performs both the parsing and the displaying. See App. Br. 10—11;
see also Reply Br. 8—9. Appellant additionally argues paragraph 8 of
Van Doorselaer merely discloses subsequently presenting a changed
association between a hyperlink and a user direct select action to a user, and
does not disclose subsequently presenting the hypertext page to the user.
See App. Br. 10-11. Additionally, as argued by Appellant, paragraph 8 of
6
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
Van Doorselaer does not disclose that presenting the changed association
comprises “displaying” the changed association, since the changed
association may be presented to the user in various manners (e.g., via audio
message, via text message, etc.). See App. Br. 11.
We do not find these arguments persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Van Doorselaer discloses a browsing device that retrieves a
hypertext page containing hyperlinks referring to other hypertext pages from
a web-server, retrieves corresponding hyperlink associations from the Web­
server, identifies visible hyperlinks from the hyperlinks contained within the
hypertext page, and displays the hypertext page, including the visible
hyperlinks and the corresponding hyperlink associations, within a display of
a personal computer. See Final Act. 10 (citing Van Doorselaer 123); see
also Ans. 4—5 (citing Van Doorselaer || 24—25), see also Van Doorselaer
118. Although Van Doorselaer does not use the term “parsing,” we agree
that Van Doorselaer’s disclosure of the browsing device retrieving the
hypertext page from the web-server, identifying the visible hyperlinks
contained within the hypertext page, and retrieving the hyperlink
associations from the web-server, teaches or at least suggests parsing the
hypertext page. See Ans. 4—5. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Van Doorselaer teaches or suggests “parsing ... a first web page that
comprises at least one Universal Resource Locator (URL).”
We also agree with the Examiner that Van Doorselaer discloses the
browsing device displaying the hypertext page retrieved from a web-server
and also displaying hyperlink associations retrieved from the web-server,
which correspond to visible hyperlinks. See Final Act. 11 (citing
Van Doorselaer 124); see also Ans. 5 (citing Van Doorselaer 125), see also
7
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
Van Doorselaer 118. As Van Doorselaer discloses that these operations
occur after the “parsing” operations, we agree Van Doorselaer’s disclosure
of displaying the hypertext page and corresponding hyper link associations
teaches or suggests the display of the hypertext page is initiated after the
parsing of the hypertext page has been performed. See Ans. 5. Thus, we
also agree with the Examiner that Van Doorselaer teaches or suggests
“displaying the first web page on a display screen . . . wherein said
displaying is initiated after said parsing has been performed.”
Appellant’s argument that Van Doorselaer does not disclose the same
processor performing both the parsing and the displaying is not persuasive
because, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Van Doorselaer does not teach or
suggest the “parsing” has to be performed by a processor of the web-server.
Although Van Doorselaer discloses the web-server stores a table that
contains the hyperlink associations, Van Doorselaer further discloses the
browsing device identifies the hyperlink associations from the retrieved
hypertext page, retrieves the hyperlink associations from the table stored
within the web-server, and stores the hyperlink associations in a table stored
within the browsing device. See Van Doorselaer || 23—24. Therefore,
Van Doorselaer teaches or suggests a processor of the browsing device
performs both the parsing and the displaying.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Van Doorselaer and Gentner teaches or suggests all of the
limitations of claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as dependent claims 8, 10,
18, and 20, not argued separately.
8
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
Rejection of Claims 2 and 12 under § 103(a)
Appellant argues the combination of Van Doorselaer and Gentner
fails to teach or suggest “wherein said displaying comprises depicting on the
displayed first web page: each two-key code and an indication of which
URL on the first web page each two-key code is associated with,” as recited
in claims 2 and 12. See App. Br. 12. More specifically, Appellant argues
Gentner does not display a two-key code and an indication of which URL on
a first web page the two-key code is associated with, and, instead, merely
displays a single key of a keyboard (e.g., ‘A,’ ‘B,’ etc.). See App. Br. 13;
see also Reply Br. 10—11.3
We do not find this argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Van Doorselaer discloses displaying, for each hyperlink of a
hypertext page, a corresponding description and a user direct selection
action. See Ans. 5 (citing Van Doorselaer 119). We further agree with the
Examiner that Gentner discloses displaying alphanumeric characters
superimposed on displayed graphical objects. See Ans. 5—6 (citing Gentner
col. 3,11. 46—53). Gentner further discloses the term “alphanumeric
character” can refer to a two-key sequence (e.g., shift key in combination
with another key to create an upper case character). See Gentner col. 7,
3 Appellant also argues the Examiner has not stated a reason as to why it
would have been obvious to modify Van Doorselaer by the disclosure in
Gentner relied upon by the Examiner for rejecting claims 2—4, 9, 12—14, and
19. See App. Br. 14, 16—17, and 19. However, the Examiner provided
rationale for combining Van Doorselaer and Gentner in support of the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 in the Final Office Action (see
Final Act. 11), and reiterated this rationale in the Examiner’s Answer with
respect to claims 2—4, 9, 12—14, and 19. See Ans. 6—10. As Appellant has
failed to rebut (or even argue against) this rationale, we do not find
Appellant’s argument persuasive.
9
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
11. 13—18. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Van Doorselaer and Gentner teaches or suggests “wherein said displaying
comprises depicting on the displayed first web page: each two-key code and
an indication of which URL on the first web page each two-key code is
associated with,” as recited in claims 2 and 12. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection of Claims 3 and 13 under § 103(a)
Appellant argues the combination of Van Doorselaer and Gentner
fails to teach or suggest “wherein said depicting comprises depicting each
two-key code near an icon that represents the URL that each two-key code is
associated with,” as recited in claims 3 and 13. See App. Br. 14. More
specifically, Appellant argues Gentner does not display a two-key code near
an icon representing a URL that the two-key code is associated with, and,
instead, merely displays an icon of an oval shape enclosing a single key of a
keyboard. See App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 12.
We do not find this argument persuasive. As previously discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner that Van Doorselaer discloses
displaying, for each hyperlink of a hypertext page, a corresponding
description and a user direct selection action. See Ans. 7 (citing
Van Doorselaer 119). As also previously discussed, we further agree with
the Examiner that Gentner discloses displaying alphanumeric characters
superimposed on displayed graphical objects. See Ans. 7 (citing Gentner
col. 3,11. 46—53). As also previously discussed above, Gentner further
discloses the term “alphanumeric character” can refer to a two-key sequence
(e.g., shift key in combination with another key to create an upper case
10
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
character). See Gentner col. 7,11. 13—18. Gentner also discloses
superimposing the alphanumeric character on an icon button in an icon
button panel. See Gentner col. 5,11. 48—50. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Van Doorselaer and Gentner teaches or
suggests “wherein said depicting comprises depicting each two-key code
near an icon that represents the URL that each two-key code is associated
with,” as recited in claims 3 and 13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection of Claims 4 and 14 under § 103(a)
Appellant argues the combination of Van Doorselaer and Gentner
fails to teach or suggest “wherein said depicting comprises depicting on the
first web page a box that lists each two-key code and the URL that each two-
key code is associated with,” as recited in claims 4 and 14. See App. Br. 16.
More specifically, Appellant argues Gentner does not display a two-key
code in a menu box, and, instead, merely displays a menu box including
single keys of a keyboard. See App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 13—14.
We do not find this argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Gentner discloses displaying alphanumeric characters
superimposed on graphical objects displayed within a menu box. See
Ans. 8; see also Gentner col. 5,11. 46-48. As previously discussed, Gentner
further discloses the term “alphanumeric character” can refer to a two-key
sequence (e.g., shift key in combination with another key to create an upper
case character). See Gentner col. 7,11. 13—18. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Van Doorselaer and Gentner teaches or
suggests “wherein said depicting comprises depicting on the first web page a
11
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
box that lists each two-key code and the URL that each two-key code is
associated with,” as recited in claims 4 and 14. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection of Claims 9 and 19 under § 103(a)
Appellant argues the combination of Van Doorselaer and Gentner
fails to teach or suggest the limitations recited in claims 9 and 19:
after said displaying the first web page, scanning a keyboard data
stream for detection of a first two-key code of the displayed two-
key codes on the first web page, the URL on the first web page
associated with the first two-key code having a link to a second
web page, said keyboard data stream having been generating
from use of the keyboard by a user of the computer system
following said displaying.
See App. Br. 18. More specifically, Appellant argues Gentner fails to
disclose: (i) scanning a keyboard data stream for detection of a first two-key
code after displaying a first web page: and (ii) the URL on the first web page
associated with the first two-key code having a link to a second web page.
See App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 15—16.
We do not find this argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Gentner discloses checking for depression of an “Alt” key and
a character key. See Ans. 10 (citing Gentner col. 9,11. 1—9); see also
Gentner col. 9,11. 47 49. Further, as previously discussed, Van Doorselaer
discloses displaying a retrieved hypertext page, where the retrieved
hypertext page includes a hyperlink referencing another hypertext page. See
Final Act. 10 (citing Van Doorselaer 123); see also Ans. 4—5 (citing
Van Doorselaer || 24—25), see also Van Doorselaer 118. Thus, we agree
12
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
with the Examiner that the combination of Van Doorselaer and Gentner
teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claims 9 and 19:
after said displaying the first web page, scanning a keyboard data
stream for detection of a first two-key code of the displayed two-
key codes on the first web page, the URL on the first web page
associated with the first two-key code having a link to a second
web page, said keyboard data stream having been generating
from use of the keyboard by a user of the computer system
following said displaying.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection of Claims 5 and 15 under § 103(a)
Appellant argues the combination of Van Doorselaer, Gentner, and
Baird fails to teach or suggest the limitations recited in claims 5 and 15:
said processor forming a joined first web page by joining a
computer code with the transformed first web page, wherein the
computer code associates each URL on the first web page with
its associated two-key code; and
said processor directing the joined first web page to the display
screen, wherein said displaying is in response to said joined first
web page arriving at the display screen.
See App. Br. 21. More specifically, Appellant argues Baird discusses
downloaded web page source code, but fails to disclose directing, to a
display screen, a first web page joined with computer code. See App.
Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 19.
We do not find this argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Baird discloses a Web browser which displays a downloaded
Web page corresponding to a bookmark contained within a bookmark list,
where the Web browser further joins indicators of non-local links contained
13
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
within the downloaded web Page (i.e., computer code) with the bookmark
list (i.e., transformed web page), and further displays the joined bookmark
list (i.e., joined web page) on a display screen. See Ans. 11—12 (citing Baird
117,10); see also Baird ]Hf 30, 47, and 51. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Van Doorselaer, Gentner, and Baird
teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claims 5 and 15:
said processor forming a joined first web page by joining a
computer code with the transformed first web page, wherein the
computer code associates each URL on the first web page with
its associated two-key code; and
said processor directing the joined first web page to the display
screen, wherein said displaying is in response to said joined first
web page arriving at the display screen.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 15 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection of Claims 6 and 16 under § 103(a)
Appellant argues the combination of Van Doorselaer, Gentner, and
Baird fails to teach or suggest “after said parsing has parsed the entire first
web page, said processor looping over the appended two-key codes on the
first web page, said looping comprising generating the computer code that
associates each URL on the first web page with its associated two-key
code,” as recited in claims 6 and 16. See App. Br. 22. More specifically,
Appellant argues Baird discloses analyzing source code to determine
whether links associated with anchor tags are local links, but fails to disclose
14
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
generating source code or computer code. See App. Br. 23; see also Reply
Br. 20.4 * 6
We do not find this argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Baird discloses a Web browser which parses source code of a
downloaded Web page, determines non-local links within the Web page,
extracts text from anchor tags of non-local links and displays indicators of
the extracted text (i.e., generating computer code). See Ans. 13 (citing Baird
H 10, 37). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Van Doorselaer, Gentner, and Baird teaches or suggests “after said parsing
has parsed the entire first web page, said processor looping over the
appended two-key codes on the first web page, said looping comprising
generating the computer code that associates each URL on the first web page
with its associated two-key code,” as recited in claims 6 and 16.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Rejection of Claims 7 and 17 under § 103(a)
Appellant argues the combination of Van Doorselaer, Gentner, and
Baird fails to teach or suggest “wherein the generated computer code is in a
4 Appellant also argues the Examiner has not stated a reason as to why it
would have been obvious to modify Van Doorselaer in view of Gentner by
the disclosure in Baird relied upon by the Examiner for rejecting claims 6, 7,
16, and 17. See App. Br. 23—24. However, the Examiner provided rationale
for combining Van Doorselaer, Gentner, and Baird in support of the
rejection of claims 5 and 15 in the Final Office Action (see Final Act. 17),
and reiterated this rationale in the Examiner’s Answer with respect to claims
6 and 16. See Ans. 13. As Appellant has failed to rebut (or even argue
against) this rationale, we do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive.
15
Appeal 2016-008438
Application 13/534,054
JavaScript language,” as recited in claims 7 and 17. See App. Br. 23. More
specifically, Appellant argues Baird discloses employing JAVA to create
web pages, but fails to disclose generating computer code wherein the
generated computer is in a JavaScript language. See App. Br. 24; see also
Reply Br. 21.
We do not find this argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Baird discloses the JavaScript programming language is used
to create a web page. See Ans. 14 (citing Baird 127). Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that the combination of Van Doorselaer, Gentner, and Baird
teaches or suggests “wherein the generated computer code is in a JavaScript
language,” as recited in claims 7 and 17. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 on the ground of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1—20 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,188,318.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 on the ground of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1—12 of U.S.
Patent No. 8,250,485.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
16