Ex Parte Stephens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13839195 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
13/839,195 03/15/2013 Mark Benedict Stephens P2012-10-05 (290110.567) 2987
70336 7590 04/28/2017
Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110)
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
ALCON, FERNANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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 MARK BENEDICT STEPHENS and
MICHAEL JOHN BAZATA
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,1951
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3—10, and 12—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 2 and 11 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are EchoStar
Technologies L.L.C. and EchoStar UK Holdings Limited (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to systems and
methods for playing back buffered television programming when switching
between television channels (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method in a television (TV) channel buffering and
playback manager system, the method comprising:
playing TV program content on a first TV channel by at
least one computer processor that is in control of the system;
switching, by the at least one computer processor, to at
least one TV channel different from the first TV channel in
response to user input;
in response to the switching to the at least one TV channel
different from the first TV channel, record a reference associated
with a point within buffered or stored TV program content of the
first TV channel corresponding to a point at which the TV
program content being played on the first TV channel
approximately was when the switching to the at least one
different TV channel began;
switching, by the at least one computer processor, back to
the first TV channel in response to user input; and
in response to the switching back to the first TV channel,
playing, by the at least one computer processor, the TV program
content on the first TV channel from the point at which the TV
program content being played on the first TV channel
approximately was when the switching to the at least one
different TV channel began.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kaminski et al. US 2002/0199185 A1 Dec. 26, 2002
2
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
Kendall US 2009/0089832 A1 Apr. 2, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—5, 8—10, 12—14, and 16—202 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaminski and Kendall (Final Act.
5-11).
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kaminski, Kendall, and Official Notice (id. at 11—
14).
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 3, 4, 8—10, 12—14, and 16—20
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1,12, and 19 is
not obvious over Kaminski and Kendall (App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 2—3).3
The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Kaminski and
Kendall teaches or suggests “in response to the switching to the at least one
TV channel different from the first TV channel, record a reference
2 The Examiner states claims 1—21 have been rejected as obvious over
Kaminski and Kendall. However, claims 2 and 11 have been cancelled
(App. Br. 28, 31) and the Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 15, and 21 over
Kaminski, Kendall, and Official Notice (Final Act. 11—14). We consider
these typographical and heading errors harmless.
3 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action and
Answer for the positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
associated with a point within buffered or stored TV program content of the
first TV channel,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12 and
19?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—14); and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—9).
With respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kendall teaches “in
response to the switching to the at least one TV channel different from the
first TV channel, record a reference associated with a point within buffered
or stored TV program content of the first TV channel,” as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claims 12 and 19 (App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 2—3).
Specifically, Appellants argue Kendall discloses the user is “given the option
to continue buffering or [to] save an existing buffer” but “does not disclose
recording a reference within that buffer” (App. Br. 14 (citing Kendall ^fl[ 25,
29); Reply Br. 3).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 2—3, 6—7; Ans.
2-4), and we agree, Kendall teaches a TV system in which, for example,
a user is watching a time-shifted football game on the PRIME
channel and during the game he wishes to check, for example,
the weather channel[.] [T]he programming information on the
PRIME channel being received by the first tuner 108 is continued
to be buffered in the first buffer 112 and recorded by the
recording device 102 while the weather channel (i.e., the SURF
channel) is received by the second tuner 109 and displayed on
4
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
the display device 104. As such, when the user returns to
watching the time-shifted football game, no program information
is lost for the PRIME channel and the user continues to watch the
PRIME channel in a time-shifted manner.
(Kendall 124; see Kendall Tflf 19-21, 29, 32, Fig. 3). That is, Kendall pauses
PRIME TV content when a user switches away from the PRIME channel,
and, when the user returns to the PRIME channel, Kendall resumes playback
from the point at which the PRIME TV content had been switched away.
Appellants’ argument that Kendall does not “record[] a reference
within [Kendall’s] buffer” (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3) is not commensurate
with the scope of the claims. The claims do not require the reference to be
stored in the buffer. Rather, the claims recite “recording] a reference”
“associated with a point within buffered or stored TV program content”; i.e.,
the claims require some point is present within the buffered content, not that
a reference is recorded within the buffered content. Indeed, the
Specification teaches a reference is “indicative of a current index point
within the TV program,” not that the reference itself is stored within the TV
program (Spec. 178 (emphasis added); see Spec. ^fl[ 45, 55, 80). Here,
Kendall pauses buffered PRIME channel content when a user switches away
from the PRIME channel; when “the user returns to PRIME, PRIME may be
unpaused and viewed on delay” (Kendall ^fl[ 29, 32; see Kendall ]Hf 19-21,
24, Fig. 3). Kendall’s resumption of buffered content playback references
“the start point for returning to the content,” i.e., the pause/unpause point
{id.), and references a point within buffered content within the meaning of
the claims. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Kendall fails to teach or
suggest the limitations as recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 19 and
dependent claims 3, 4, 8—10, 13, 14, 16—18, and 20, not separately argued.
5
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8—10, 12—14, and 16—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kaminski and Kendall.
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 5
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claim 5 is not obvious
over Kaminski and Kendall (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 3—5). The issue
presented by the arguments is:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Kaminski and
Kendall teaches or suggests “excluding from the group of most recently
visited TV channels, TV channels that are visited for less than a minimum
threshold amount of time,” as recited in claim 5?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kaminski teaches
“excluding from the group of most recently visited TV channels, TV
channels that are visited for less than a minimum threshold amount of time,”
as recited in claim 5 (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 3—5). Specifically, Appellants
argue the claim “requires certain channels are excluded from being able to
start from where they left of[f] when the user returns to them because they
had been visited for less than a minimum threshold amount of time,” but,
according to Appellants, “Kaminski does not disclose excluding anything
from a group of those most recently visited TV channels that a user switches
back to and returns to the point in the program where they left off’ (Reply
Br. 4—5; App. Br. 16). Additionally, Appellants argue “the Examiner
provides absolutely no suggestion or motivation why one of ordinary skill in
6
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
the art would even combine Kendall and Kaminski in a manner to arrive at
the” claimed invention (Reply Br. 5).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Kaminski
teaches providing a user access to buffered video, i.e., content features, for a
selected group of channels (Final Act. 9 (citing Kaminski 170)). The
Examiner further finds (Final Act. 9; Ans. 5), and we agree, Kaminski
teaches the displayed group of channels includes only channels which have
been “presented to a user for more than a predetermined time period”
(Kaminski 170).
Appellants’ argument does not persuade us that providing
pausing/unpausing of switched TV content, i.e., content features, for a group
of TV channels that have been presented for a minimum amount of time
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular,
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s further modification to the
original combination of Kaminski and Kendall (Ans. 5). As discussed
supra, the Examiner’s original combination of Kaminski and Kendall
teaches the pausing/unpausing of switched TV content (id. ). That original
combination is further modified — based on Kaminski’s additional teaching
that content features are only provided for a group of channels that have
been presented for a minimum amount of time — so the pausing/unpausing
content feature is only provided for a group of channels viewed for a
minimum amount of time {id. (citing Kaminski || 70—71)). Furthermore,
Appellants have not presented persuasive evidence or argument
demonstrating that providing the pause/unpause feature for a select group of
channels based on a minimum amount of channel viewing would not have
been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, such as showing combining the
7
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
teachings would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418-19(2007)).
Additionally, Appellants’ argument that “the Examiner provides
absolutely no suggestion or motivation why one of ordinary skill in the art
would even combine Kendall and Kaminski in a manner to arrive at the
invention of claim 5” (Reply Br. 5) does not address the Examiner’s
rationale for the combination, i.e., the “similar rationale” provided in claims
1, 12, and 19 (see Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 7).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination of Kaminski and
Kendall fails to teach or suggest the limitations as recited in claim 5.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Kaminski and Kendall.
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 6 and 15
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 6 and 15, is not
obvious over Kaminski, Kendall, and Official Notice (App. Br. 17—20;
Reply Br. 5—9). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 3: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Kaminski,
Kendall, and Official Notice teaches or suggests “recording TV program
content of one or more of the plurality of TV channels on a secondary
storage when available buffer memory for the one or more of the plurality of
8
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
TV channels reaches a minimum threshold,” as recited in claim 6 and
similarly recited in claim 15?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kaminski, Kendall, and Official Notice teaches “recording TV program
content of one or more of the plurality of TV channels on a secondary
storage when available buffer memory for the one or more of the plurality of
TV channels reaches a minimum threshold,” as recited in claim 6 and
similarly recited in claim 15 (App. Br. 17—20; Reply Br. 5—9). Specifically,
Appellants argue the Official Notice taken by the Examiner “mentions
nothing about what happens when one switches back to previously visited
channels, much less which particular storage is to be used (primary versus
secondary) in the specific circumstance of switching back to the one or more
channels of the plurality of channels” (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 8). Appellants
further argue the Examiner’s Official Notice “mentions nothing about what
occurs when the processor last switched away from the one or more TV
channels, much less which particular storage (primary versus secondary)
from which to continue playing particular TV program content in that
specific circumstance” (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 9). Additionally, Appellants
argue the Examiner’s Official Notice is improper (App. Br. 19—20; Reply
Br. 5-7).
We are not persuaded. Taking Official Notice, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, it is “well known in the art of video distribution to utilize a
secondary storage for storage and playback when a first storage device is
nearing capacity” (Final Act. 12).
9
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s Official Notice does not
teach secondary storage specifically used for switching TV content for
playback (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 8—9) does not persuade us that using
secondary storage to store switched TV content for playback would not have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, Appellants do
not address the Examiner’s further modification to the original combination
of Kaminski and Kendall based on the Examiner’s Official Notice (see Final
Act. 12; see also Ans. 8). As discussed supra, the Examiner’s original
combination of Kaminski and Kendall teaches the pausing/unpausing of
switched TV content stored in memory (Final Act. 7; Ans. 5). That original
combination is further modified — based on the Examiner’s Official Notice
that storing video in a secondary storage is well known — such that the
original combination’s switched TV content is stored in secondary storage
(see Final Act. 12). Furthermore, Appellants have not presented persuasive
evidence or argument persuading us that using a secondary storage to store
video data would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d at 1162 (citations omitted).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ challenge
to the Examiner’s Official Notice in this claim is untimely (Ans. 8) because
the Examiner took Official Notice in two separate and previous Actions.
Specifically, in the December 23, 2014 Non-Final Action, the Examiner took
Official Notice that “it was notoriously well known in the art of video
distribution to utilize a secondary storage for storage and playback when a
first storage device is nearing capacity” and supported that finding with US
2004/0183912 (“Szolyga”) (Dec. 23, 2014 Non-Final Act. 2, 9). Appellants’
10
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
response filed April 8, 2015 did not challenge that Official Notice (see Apr.
8, 2015 Amendment 9—11). The Examiner took Official Notice again in the
July 16, 2015 Non-Final Action (July 16, 2015 Non-Final Act. 2, 10) and,
again, Appellants’ response filed October 16, 2015 failed to challenge that
Official Notice (see Oct. 16, 2015 Response 2—5). In this light, Appellants’
contentions on appeal that the Examiner's reliance on Official Notice is
somehow improper (App. Br. 19—20; Reply Br. 5—7) are untimely. The time
to object to or challenge the Official Notice taken was in Appellants’
response made April 8, 2015, after the Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action
mailed December 23, 2014, and/or in Appellants’ response made October
16, 2015, after the Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action mailed July 16,
2015. See MPEP § 2144.03(C). Furthermore, on review of the record, we
see no error in the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in this claim. As
such, Appellants’ challenge to the Examiner’s Official Notice is
unpersuasive and untimely.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination of Kaminski,
Kendall, and Official Notice fails to teach or suggest the limitations as
recited in claims 6 and 15. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 6
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kaminski, Kendall,
and Official Notice.
ISSUE 4
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 7
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claim 7, is not obvious
over Kaminski, Kendall, and Official Notice (App. Br. 21—23; Reply Br. 9—
11). The issue presented by the arguments is:
11
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
Issue 4: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Kaminski,
Kendall, and Official Notice teaches or suggests “dynamically selecting a
size of the group of most recently visited TV channels based on an available
buffer memory size,” as recited in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kaminski, Kendall, and Official Notice teaches “dynamically selecting a
size of the group of most recently visited TV channels based on an available
buffer memory size,” as recited in claim 7 (App. Br. 21—23; Reply Br. 9—
11). Specifically, Appellants argue the “Official Notice made by the
Examiner mentions nothing about a group of most recently visited TV
channels or dynamic selection, much less dynamically selecting a size of the
group of most recently visited TV channels in a particular circumstance”
(App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 10). Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner’s
Official Notice is improper (App. Br. 22—23; Reply Br. 9—10).
We are not persuaded. Taking Official Notice, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, it is “well known in the art of video distribution to limit the
amount of stored items with respect to a given storage capacity” (Final Act.
13).
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s Official Notice does not
teach “dynamically selecting a size of the group of most recently visited TV
channels” (App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 10) does not persuade us that changing
the size of a group of channels based on available storage would not have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, Appellants do
not address the Examiner’s further modification to the combination of
Kaminski and Kendall based on the Examiner’s Official Notice (see Final
12
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
Act. 13; see also Ans. 8). As discussed supra, the Examiner finds the
combination of Kaminski and Kendall teaches the pausing/unpausing of
switched TV content for a selected group of channels (Final Act. 9 (citing
Kendall 170); Ans. 5). That combination is further modified — based on
the Examiner’s Official Notice that the number of stored items is based on
available storage — such that the group of channels providing
pausing/unpausing of switched TV content is selected based on available
storage (see Final Act. 13). Furthermore, Appellants have not presented
persuasive evidence or argument persuading us that selecting a group of
channels to provide content features based on available storage would have
unobvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan such as by showing combining the
teachings would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d at 1162 (citations omitted).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ challenge
to the Examiner’s Official Notice in this claim is untimely (Ans. 8) because
the Examiner took Official Notice in two separate and previous Actions. As
discussed supra, the Examiner twice previously took Official Notice and
provided support for the Official Notice in the December 23, 2014 Non-
Final Action (Dec. 23, 2014 Non-Final Act. 2, 10) and the July 16, 2015
Non-Final Action (July 16, 2015 Non-Final Act. 2, 11). Both of Appellants’
responses to those Non-Final Actions failed to refute that Official Notice
(see Apr. 8, 2015 Amendment 9-11; see also Oct. 16, 2015 Response 2—5)
and are, accordingly, untimely. Furthermore, on review of the record, we
see no error in the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in this claim. As
13
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
such, Appellants’ challenge to the Examiner’s Official Notice is
unpersuasive and untimely.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination of Kaminski,
Kendall, and Official Notice fails to teach or suggest the limitations as
recited in claim 7. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kaminski, Kendall, and Official
Notice.
ISSUE 5
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 21
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claim 21, is not
obvious over Kaminski, Kendall, and Official Notice (App. Br. 24—26;
Reply Br. 11—12). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 5: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Kaminski,
Kendall, and Official Notice teaches or suggests “buffered or stored TV
program content of the first TV channel is stored in non-volatile storage on a
storage device located geographically remote from a presentation device,” as
recited in claim 21?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kaminski, Kendall, and Official Notice teaches “buffered or stored TV
program content of the first TV channel is stored in non-volatile storage on a
storage device located geographically remote from a presentation device,” as
recited in claim 21 (App. Br. 24—26; Reply Br. 11—12). Specifically,
Appellants argue neither Kaminski nor the Examiner’s Official Notice teach
a “specific buffered or stored TV program content of the first TV channel
14
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
begin stored remotely” (App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 12). Additionally,
Appellants argue the Examiner’s Official Notice is improper (App. Br. 25—
26).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, “network
attached storage (NAS) and storage area network[s] (SAN),” i.e., remote
storage, are “well known in the art of video distribution” (Final Act. 13).
Appellants’ arguments that Kaminski and the Examiner’s Official
Notice do not teach remote storage of buffered TV content (App. Br. 24;
Reply Br. 12) do not persuade us that storing buffered TV content remotely
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular,
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s further modification to the
original combination of Kaminski and Kendall based on the Examiner’s
Official Notice (see Final Act. 13—14; see also Ans. 8). As discussed supra,
the combination of Kaminski and Kendall teaches storing buffered TV
content (Final Act. 7; Ans. 5; see Kendall 120 (“the programming
information on the PRIME channel being received by the first tuner 108 is
able to be buffered in the first buffer 112 and recorded by the recording
device 102)). That original combination is further modified — based on the
Examiner’s Official Notice that data can be stored remotely — such that
buffered TV content data is stored remotely (see Final Act. 13—14).
Furthermore, Appellants have not presented persuasive evidence or
argument persuading us that storing buffered TV content remotely would
have been unobvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan such as by showing
combining the teachings would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious
15
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d at 1162 (citations
omitted).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ challenge
to the Examiner’s Official Notice in this claim is untimely (Ans. 8) because
the Examiner took Official Notice in two separate and previous Actions. As
discussed supra, the Examiner twice took Official Notice and provided
support for the Official Notice in the December 23, 2014 Non-Final Action
(Dec. 23, 2014 Non-Final Act. 2, 10) and the July 16, 2015 Non-Final
Action (July 16, 2015 Non-Final Act. 2, 12). Both of Appellants’ responses
to those Non-Final Actions failed to refute that Official Notice (see Apr. 8,
2015 Amendment 9-11; see also Oct. 16, 2015 Response 2—5) and are,
accordingly, untimely. Furthermore, on review of the record, we see no
error in the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in this claim. As such,
Appellants’ challenge to the Examiner’s Official Notice is unpersuasive and
untimely.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination of Kaminski,
Kendall, and Official Notice fails to teach or suggest the limitations as
recited in claim 21. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kaminski, Kendall, and Official
Notice.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 8—10, 12—14, and 16—20
under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaminski and Kendall is
affirmed.
16
Appeal 2017-003391
Application 13/839,195
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over Kaminski, Kendall, and Official Notice
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