Ex Parte Tamai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14530600 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/530,600 10/31/2014 Ichiro Tamai
146019 7590 09/27/2018
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
035905-3015 3863
EXAMINER
CHAU,LISAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ICHIRO TAMAI, TATSUY A HINOUE,
SHUN TONOOKA, and HIROAKI NEMOTO
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-22 and 26-28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed October 31, 2014
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated November 4, 2016 ("Final Act."),
the Appeal Brief filed April 4, 2017 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer
dated July 21, 2017 ("Ans.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Western Digital Technologies, Inc. Application
Data Sheet filed May 17, 2017; see also assignment recorded on
December 6, 2016, at Reel/Frame, 040829/0516. Appellant identifies the
real party in interest as HGST Netherlands B.V. Br. 3. However, according
to the Assignment Records of the USPTO, HGST Netherlands B.V. assigned
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to perpendicular
magnetic recording media having an oxide seed layer and a Ru alloy
intermediate layer. Spec. ,r 1. Figure 6A of the subject application, which
depicts an embodiment of Appellant's perpendicular magnetic recording
media, is reproduced below.
600,
616
' d •
~ ill
ill fil§. §.W ill ill 612
fil.QQ
+ 610B 610
I 610A
I 608B 608 I 608A
I
I fillli
I
604 I
I
fill:Z Substrate
normal
FIG. 6A
Figure 6A depicts a perpendicular magnetic medium according to one
embodiment of Appellant's invention. The perpendicular magnetic
recording medium 600 includes substrate layer 602, adhesion layer 604, soft
magnetic underlayer 606, seed layer 608, interlayer structure 610, magnetic
recording underlayer 612, protective overcoat layer 614, and lubricant
layer 616. Spec. ,r 62. As shown in Figure 6A, seed layer 608 is positioned
above soft magnetic underlayer 606 and includes first seed layer 608A and
its rights to the present application to Western Digital Technologies, Inc. on
August 31, 2016. See assignment recorded on December 6, 2016, at
Reel/Frame 040829/0516.
2
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
second seed layer 608B, which is positioned above first seed layer 608A. Id.
,r 70. Interlayer structure 610 is positioned above seed layer structure 608
and includes a first interlayer 610A, a second interlayer 610B positioned
above first interlayer 610A, and a third interlayer 610C positioned above
second interlayer 610B. Id. ,r 77.
Claims 1 and 26, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, are illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A perpendicular magnetic recording medium,
compnsmg:
a substrate [602];
a soft magnetic underlayer [ 606] positioned above the
substrate;
a seed layer structure [ 608] positioned above the soft
magnetic underlayer [606], the seed layer structure [608]
including a first seed layer [ 608A] and a second seed layer
[608B] positioned above the first seed layer;
an interlayer structure [ 61 OJ positioned above the seed
layer structure [608], the interlayer structure [610] including a
first interlayer [610A ], a second interlayer [610B] positioned
above the first interlayer, and a third interlayer [610C]
positioned above the second interlayer; and
a magnetic recording layer [612] positioned above the
interlayer structure;
wherein the second seed layer [608B] comprises a Ni
alloy including at least one oxide,
wherein the first interlayer [ 61 OA] comprises a Ru alloy.
3
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
26. A perpendicular magnetic recording medium,
compnsmg:
a substrate [ 602];
a soft magnetic under layer [ 606] positioned above the
substrate;
a seed layer structure [ 608] positioned above the soft
magnetic underlayer [606], the seed layer structure [608]
including a first seed layer [ 608A] and a second seed layer
[608B] positioned above the first seed layer;
an interlayer structure [ 61 OJ positioned above the seed
layer structure [608], the interlayer structure [610] including a
first interlayer [610A ], a second interlayer [610B] positioned
above the first interlayer [610A ], and a third interlayer [610C]
positioned above the second interlayer [610B]; and
a magnetic recording layer [612] positioned above the
interlayer structure [610];
wherein the second seed layer [608B] comprises a Ni
alloy including at least one oxide,
wherein the first interlayer [ 61 OA] comprises a Ru alloy,
wherein the third interlayer [610C] has a hexagonal close
packed (hep) structure,
wherein an amount of Ru in the second interlayer [610B]
is greater than the amount of Ru in the first interlayer [ 61 OA].
Br. 37, 40-41 (Claims App.) (bracketed labels to elements found in
Appellant's Figure 6A added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1: Claims 1-22, 26, and 27 are rejected for obviousness-
type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-23 of Tamai et al.
4
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
(US 8,592,060 B2, issued November 26, 2013) ("Tamai '060") 3 in view of
Sakamoto (US 2012/0141835 Al, published June 7, 2012) and Iwasaki
(US 2010/0296200 Al, published November 25, 2010) (Ans. 2);
Rejection 2: Claim 28 is rejected for obviousness-type double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-23 of Tamai '060 in view of
Sakamoto, Iwasaki, and Hirotsune et al. (US 2012/0087034 Al, published
April 12, 2012) ("Hirotsune") (Ans. 2); 4
Rejection 3: Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tamai et al. (US 2012/0154948 Al,
published June 21, 2012) ("Tamai '948") in view of Sakamoto (Ans. 2);
3 According to the Assignment Records of the US PTO, the present
application, Application No. 14/530,600 (Reel/Frame 034994/0161,
executed October 23, 2014), and Tamai '060, which issued from Application
No. 12/975,197,, were, as of the effective filing date of the present
application, October 31, 2014, commonly owned by HGST Netherlands
B.V. See assignment for Application No. 14/530,600, executed October 23,
2014, and recorded on February 20, 2015 at Reel/Frame 034994/0161, and
assignment for Application No. 12/975,197, recorded on October 25, 2012,
at Reel/Frame 029341 /0777.
4 When the Examiner lists the rejections "applicable to the appealed claims"
in the Answer, the Examiner inadvertently omits Rejection 2. Ans. 2. The
Examiner, however, states, "Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office
action dated 11 /4/16 from which the appeal is taken is being maintained by
the examiner except for the grounds of rejection (if any) listed under the
subheading "WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS." Id. The Examiner does not
list any grounds of rejections as "withdrawn." See Ans. generally. In fact,
the Answer states, "The Examiner maintains the nonstatutory obviousness-
type double patenting as set forth in the Office Action dated 11 /4/16." Id. at
12. Thus, it appears the Examiner's omission of Rejection 2 at page 2 of the
Answer was a typographical error. Accordingly, we consider Rejection 2
maintained and before us on appeal.
5
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
Rejection 4: Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tamai '948 in view of Sakamoto and Iwasaki (Ans. 2);
Rejection 5: Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tamai '948 in view of Sakamoto and Iwasaki
(Ans. 3); and
Rejection 6: Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tamai '948 in view of Sakamoto, Iwasaki, and Hirotsune (Ans. 3).
DISCUSSION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner's rejections .... "). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant's arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action,
the Answer, and below.
Rejections 5 and 6- Claims 26-28
Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 27 and 28.
Br. 7-15. We therefore limit our discussion to independent claim 26.
Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013),
claims 27 and 28 stand or fall with claim 26.
The Examiner finds that Tamai '948's Figure 1, reproduced below,
teaches a perpendicular magnetic recording medium with a similar layered
6
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
arrangement as claim 26's perpendicular recording medium. Final Act. 14--
15 (citing ,r,r 39, 42--44, 46--48, 59; Fig. 1).
~--·····························································
11 Q j,~,c~c::·,cc1ec:l,:· ,:,ccc·:,1·din'"· ;~2·:\i;1m
~
18
_;--17
16
·11
10
FIG.1
Figure 1 depicts a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of
Tamai '948's perpendicular magnetic recording medium 110.
The Examiner finds that Tamai '948's seed structure includes a first
seed layer ( a face-centered cubic (fee) structure used in a top portion of soft
magnetic underlayer 12 (Tamai '948, ,r 43)), and a second seed layer (13)
positioned above the first seed layer. Final Act. 14.
As to the intermediate layer, the Examiner finds that Tamai '948
teaches that its first intermediate layer ( 14) is formed in a three-stage
structure, which the Examiner finds corresponds to Appellant's first, second,
7
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
and third interlayers. Final Act. 15 ( citing Tamai '948, ,r,r 4 7, 59; Fig. 19).
The Examiner further finds that Tamai '948 teaches that its second interlayer
has a hexagonal close packed (hep) structure. Final Act. 16; Ans. 4.
As the Examiner acknowledges, Tamai '948 does not teach its second
seed layer (13) comprises at least one oxide. Final Act. 15. To account for
this difference, the Examiner finds that Sakamoto teaches a perpendicular
magnetic recording medium (100) comprising a seed layer structure (140)
positioned above a soft magnetic underlayer (130), the seed layer structure
(140) including a first seed layer (142) and a second seed layer (144)
positioned above the first seed layer (142), wherein the second seed layer
( 144) includes an Ni alloy with at least one oxide selected from a group
consisting of Si02, Ti02, and Ta20 5 with a concentration of 1-10 mole
percent. Sakamoto ,r,r 31, 32, 34, 37, 38; Fig. 1.
Based on Sakamoto' s teachings, the Examiner determines that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to incorporate Sakamoto' s
second seed layer, and optimize the oxide concentration therein, as the
second seed layer (13) in Tamai '948's perpendicular magnetic recording
medium "to control crystal orientation and particle diameter to improve
[Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)]." Final Act. 15 (citing Sakamoto ,r,r 30, 32,
33).
Appellant argues that none of Tamai, Sakamoto, and Iwasaki teach
"the third interlayer has a hexagonal close packed (hep) structure." Br. 8.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Appellant
does not dispute or identify error in the Examiner's finding that Tamai '948
teaches its first intermediate layer comprises three layers, which corresponds
to claim 26's first, second, and third interlayers. Compare Final Act. 15,
8
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
and Ans. 4 (citing Tamai '948, ,r,r 47, 59; Fig. 19), with Br. 8. Appellant
also does not dispute or identify error in the Examiner's finding that
Tamai '948 teaches that its intermediate layer may be formed of Ru or Ru
alloy having "a hexagonal close packed (hep) structure." Compare Final
Act. 16 (citing Tamai '948, ,r,r 36, 46), and Ans. 4, with Br. 8. Thus,
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's finding that
Tamai '948 reasonably teaches its third interlayer has a hexagonal close
packed (hep) structure. Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that Tamai teaches away from a third interlayer
having an hep structure. Br. 10.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Although
Tamai '948 teaches that it is "advantageous" or "preferred" that its top
interlayer does not have a hep structure (Tamai '948, ,r,r 49, 50, 53), we are
not persuaded that Tamai '948 would tum one of ordinary skill in the art
away from using a top intermediate layer ( third interlayer when
Tamai '948's intermediate layer has a three-stage structure) having a
hexagonal close packed structure. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he fact that a specific [embodiment]
is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior
art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered." (second
alteration in original) (citation omitted)); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one
alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives
because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
the solution claimed in the ... application.").
9
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify
Tamai '948 as proposed by the Examiner because "attempting to do so
would change the principle of Tamai's operation" (Br. 10), or Appellant's
argument that because of a lack of predictable results, one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation that the Examiner's
proposed modification would have been successful, e.g., because "inserting
Sakamoto's seed layer with oxide below Tamai's intermediate layers could
result in degradation of the recording characteristics and unpredictable
outcomes" (Br. 11-15). First, Appellant appears to misunderstand the
Examiner's proposed modification of Tamai '948. The Examiner does not
propose modifying Tamai '948's magnetic recording medium by inserting
Sakamoto's second seed layer as an additional layer under Tamai '948's
intermediate layer, as Appellant alleges. Br. 11. Rather, the Examiner finds
that based on Sakamoto's teachings (Sakamoto ,r,r 30, 32, 33), one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to incorporate Sakamoto' s
second seed layer, and optimize the oxide concentration therein, as second
seed layer 13 in Tamai '948's perpendicular magnetic recording medium "to
control crystal orientation and particle diameter to improve [Signal-to-Noise
Ratio (SNR)]." Final Act. 15; see also Ans. 7-8. Appellant does not
identify reversible error in these findings.
Moreover, as the Examiner responds in the Answer, Appellant does
not provide sufficient evidence to support the argument that modifying
Tamai '948 in view of Sakamoto, as proposed by the Examiner, would
destroy Tamai '948's principle of operation or that the proposed
modification could result in degradation of the perpendicular magnetic
10
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
recording medium. Ans. 6-9; In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
( CCP A 197 4) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence.").
In sum, we have carefully considered Appellant's arguments, but are
not persuaded of reversible error in Rejections 5 and 6. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejections of claims 26-28.
Rejections 3 and 4 - Claims 1-22
Appellant does not separately argue claims 2---6 and 8-22. Br. 16-21,
22-23. Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013),
claims 2-6 and 8-22 stand or fall with claim 1. We also address below
Appellant's separate arguments regarding claim 7 (Br. 21-22).
The Examiner's findings and reasoning regarding Tamai '948 and
Sakamoto for Rejections 3 and 4 are the same as those discussed above with
regard to Rejections 5 and 6. Compare Final Act. 8-9, with Final Act. 14--
15.
Claims 1-6 and 8-22
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not set forth facts or reasons
to support the finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to incorporate Sakamoto' s oxide seed layer into Tamai '948 's structure.
See Appeal Br. 17-18. We disagree.
As discussed above with respect to Rejections 5 and 6, Appellant
misunderstands the Examiner's proposed modification of Tamai '948. The
Examiner does not propose modifying Tamai '948's magnetic recording
medium by inserting Sakamoto' s second seed layer as an additional layer
under Tamai '948 's intermediate layer, as Appellant alleges. Br. 18.
11
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
Moreover, the Examiner identifies Sakamoto's paragraphs 30, 32, and 33 as
support for finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led
to incorporate Sakamoto's second seed layer, and optimize the oxide
concentration therein, as second seed layer 13 in Tamai '948's perpendicular
magnetic recording medium "to control crystal orientation and particle
diameter to improve [Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)]." Final Act. 15. On this
record, Appellant does not identify reversible error in the Examiner's
finding.
Appellant's argument that because of a lack of predictable results, one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation that
the Examiner's proposed modification would have been successful because,
for example, "inserting Sakamoto' s seed layer with oxide below Tamai' s
intermediate layers could result in degradation of the recording
characteristics and unpredictable outcomes" (Br. 19--20) is unpersuasive
because Appellant's argument is not supported by sufficient evidence. In re
Pearson, 494 F .2d at 1405 ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the
place of evidence.").
Because Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of reversible error,
we sustain the rejections of claims 1---6 and 8-22.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and requires "the third interlayer has a
hexagonal close packed (hep) structure."
As with claim 26, Appellant argues that Tamai '948 teaches away
from a perpendicular magnetic recording medium with a third interlayer
having a hexagonal close packed structure. Br. 21-22. However, for the
same reasons as discussed above with regard to Rejections 5 and 6, we are
12
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
not persuaded that Tamai '948 teaches away from a third interlayer having a
hep structure.
Rejections 1 and 2 - Claims 1-22 and 26-28
The Examiner's position for these rejections are set forth on pages 6-
7 of the Final Office Action, which we do not repeat herein.
Appellant's arguments for claims 26 and 27 are essentially the same
as those presented with respect to claims 1-22. See Br. 23-35. Thus, we
discuss Rejections 1 and 2, and the arguments in response to both rejections
together below. Appellant does not separately argue claims 2-22 (Br. 23-
29), depending from independent claim 1, or claims 27 and 28 (Br. 29-35),
depending from independent claim 26. We therefore limit our discussion to
independent claims 1 and 26. Consistent with the provisions of 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), claims 2-22 stand or fall with claim 1, and
claims 27 and 28 stand or fall with claim 26.
First, Appellant argues that the rejection does not present sufficient
allegations to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability because: (1) the
rejection does not map each and every limitation of the present claims to
claim(s) of a commonly owned patent----contending that Tamai '060 does
not teach or suggest "the second seed layer comprises a Ni alloy including at
least one oxide," recited in claims 1 and 26 (Br. 25, 28, 29, 31 ), and the
"amount of Ru in the second interlayer is greater than the amount of Ru in
the first interlayer," recited in claim 26 (id. at 31 ); and (2) the rejection fails
to clearly articulate the reasons why the claimed subject matter would have
been considered obvious over the commonly owned patent under the
appropriate framework. Id. at 23, 29.
13
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
Second, Appellant argues that the rejection does not establish a prima
facie case of unpatentability because the facts of record do not support the
conclusion that: (1) the subject matter of the present claims is patentably
indistinct from the subject matter of the claims of the Tamai patent; and (2) a
skilled artisan reviewing the Tamai patent claims would have found
Appellant's claims 1-22 and 26-28 unpatentable under all three elements of
prima facie obviousness. Id.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. First, we
note that Application No. 12/975,197, which published on June 21, 2012, as
Tamai '948, the primary reference relied upon in Rejections 3---6, later issued
on November 26, 2013, as Tamai '060.
According to the Examiner's statement of rejection, independent
claims 1 and 26 are rejected for obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1-23 of Tamai '060. Final Act. 6. Tamai '060's claims, for example
independent claim 1, recite a perpendicular magnetic recording medium
having a layered arrangement similar to the layered arrangement in claim 1
and 26 of the present application. Tamai '060, claim 1. We note that
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that claim 1 's
perpendicular recording medium includes a face-centered cubic (fee)
structure in a top portion of the soft magnetic underlayer (Tamai '060, 6:7-
9), which the Examiner finds corresponds to Appellant's "first seed layer."
Compare Final Act. 8, 14 (citing Tamai '948, ,r 43), with Br. generally. Nor
does Appellant dispute that Tamai '060 teaches its first intermediate layer,
such as recited in Tamai '060's claim 1, is formed in a three-stage structure
corresponding to Appellant's first, second, and third interlayers, and further
teaches that any of those interlayers, including the third interlayer, may have
14
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
a hexagonal close packed (hep) structure. Compare Final Act. 9, 15-16
(referencing Tamai '948, ,r,r 36, 46, 47, 59; Fig. 19), with Br. generally.
As with the § 103 rejections of claims 1-22 and 26-28 over
Tamai '948, the Examiner relies on Sakamoto, not Tamai '060, for teaching
a second seed layer comprising at least one oxide. Final Act. 6. Likewise,
the Examiner relies on Iwasaki, not Tamai '060, for teaching the
concentration of Ru in the second interlayer is greater than the amount of Ru
in the first interlayer. Id. at 7.
Appellant's argument that the obviousness-type double patenting
rejections provide no reason why a skilled artisan would allegedly be
motivated to, much less reasonably expect to succeed in, modifying
Tamai '060's claimed perpendicular recording medium to achieve claim 1 's
perpendicular magnetic recording medium (Br. 26) is not supported by the
record. The Examiner has provided a reason why a skilled artisan would
have been motivated to modify Tamai '060's claimed recording medium
based on Sakamoto----"to control the crystal orientation and particle diameter
to ultimately improve SNR." Final Act. 6-7 (citing Sakamoto ,r,r 30, 32, 33,
48; Iwasaki ,r,r 30, 31, 42 (Ex. 1 ), 65 (Ex. 2)). The Examiner has also
provided a reason why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
modify Tamai '060's claimed recording medium based on Iwasaki- "to
obtain a high crystallinity and improve grain size of the magnetic recording
layer." Final Act. 7 (citing Iwasaki ,r,r 30-31. Appellant does not identify
reversible error in the Examiner's reasoning. Final Act. 6-7.
Because Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
obviousness-type double patenting rejections over claims 1-23 of
15
Appeal 2017-011578
Application 14/530,600
Tamai '060 in view of Sakamoto and Iwasaki, alone or further in view of
Hirotsune, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-22 and 26-28.
DECISION
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-22, 26,
and 27 over claims 1-23 of Tamai '060 in view of Sakamoto and Iwasaki is
affirmed.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 28 over
claims 1-23 of Tamai '060 in view of Sakamoto, Iwasaki, and Hirotsune is
affirmed.
The§ 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-22 over Tamai '948
in view of Sakamoto is affirmed.
The§ 103 rejection of claims 9 and 12 over Tamai '948 in view of
Sakamoto and Iwasaki is affirmed.
The § 103 rejection of claims 26 and 27 over Tamai '948 in view of
Sakamoto and Iwasaki is affirmed.
The§ 103 rejection of claim 28 over Tamai '948 in view of
Sakamoto, Iwasaki, and Hirotsune 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).
AFFIRMED
16