Ex Parte Ten Kate et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13046283 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/046,283 03/11/2011
909 7590 03/30/2018
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nicolaas Ten Kate
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.
081468-0392580 4547
EXAMINER
PERSAUD, DEORAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICOLAAS TEN KATE,
JOHANNES HENRICUS WILHELMUS JACOBS,
JOOST JEROEN OTTENS,
BASTIAAN ANDREAS WILHELMUS HUBERTUS KNARREN,
THIBAULT SIMON MATHIEU LAURENT, ROBBERT JAN VOOGD,
GIOVANNI FRANCISCO NINO,
JOHAN GERTRUDIS CORNELIUS KUNNEN, and
MARINUS JAN REMIE
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicants (hereinafter "Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-
15, and 17-36.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "ASML Netherlands
B.V." (Appeal Brief filed March 29, 2016, hereinafter "Appeal Br.," 2).
2 Appeal Br. 4--25; Reply Brief filed March 24, 2017, hereinafter "Reply
Br.," 2-26; Final Office Action entered July 30, 2015, hereinafter "Final
Act.," 3-29; Examiner's Answer entered January 25, 2017, hereinafter
"Ans.," 2-20.
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
We affirm-in-part.
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a lithographic apparatus and to
a method of compensating for a local heat load in such an apparatus
(Specification filed March 11, 2011, hereinafter "Spec.," i-f 2).
Representative claim 24 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 30), with key limitations emphasized, as follows:
24. A lithographic apparatus comprising:
an electrically conductive coating on a surface; and
a heater and/or temperature sensor attached on top of a
surface of the coating or embedded within the coating, wherein
the heater and/or temperature sensor is electrically connected
to the coating at the location of attachment or embedding.
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains four provisional rejections, which
we label as Rejections A through D, under the judicially-created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting of claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 17-23 as
unpatentable over certain claims in Application 13/046,211 (filed March 11,
2011), 3 either alone or in view of one of three prior art references (Ans. 2;
Final Act. 3-10). As the Examiner notes (Ans. 19), the Appellants do not
provide any arguments against these rejections (Appeal Br. 4--25).
Therefore, we summarily affirm these double patenting rejections. Cf Hyatt
v. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
3 Application 13/046,211 issued as United States Patent 9,632,435 B2 on
April 25, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
The Examiner also maintains several additional rejections under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) (Ans. 2-19; Final Act. 11-29), which
the Appellants contest (Appeal Br. 4--25), as follows:
E. Claims 24--32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cadee
et al. 4 (hereinafter "Cadee");
F. Claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cadee
and Fukuoka et al. 5 (hereinafter "Fukuoka");
G. Claims 1, 2, 6-13, 15, and 17-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cadee, Vellore et al. 6 (hereinafter "Vellore"),
and Maria Zaal et al. 7 (hereinafter "Maria Zaal");
H. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cadee,
Vellore, Maria Zaal, and Janssen et al. 8 (hereinafter "Janssen");
I. Claims 14 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cadee, Vellore, Maria Zaal, and Van Der Feltz et al. 9
(hereinafter "Van Der Feltz"); and
J. Claims 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cadee, Fukuoka, Vellore, and Maria Zaal.
III. DISCUSSION
Rejections A-D. As stated above, Rejections A through Dare
summarily affirmed because the Appellants do not contest these rejections
with any argument.
4 US 2006/0033898 Al, published February 16, 2006.
5 US 2008/0011737 Al, published January 17, 2008.
6 US 2008/0224817 Al, published September 18, 2008.
7 US 2007/0153244 Al, published July 5, 2007.
8 US 2009/0316121 A 1, published December 24, 2009.
9 US 2005/0213067 Al, published September 29, 2005.
3
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
Rejection E (Claims 24--32). Unless a claim is argued separately
pursuant to the requirements set forth in 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv), it
stands or falls with claim 24, which we select as representative.
1. Claims 24 and 28-31
The Appellants argue claims 24 and 28-31 together, so we focus only
on representative claim 24. Claims 28-31 stand or fall with claim 24.
The Examiner finds that Cadee describes every limitation recited in
claim 24 (Final Act. 11) (relying on, e.g., Cadee Figs. 23-24 and i-fi-f 117-
120). Regarding the disputed limitations highlighted above in reproduced
claim 24, the Examiner finds that some of the heaters 930 depicted in
Figure 24 are not connected to power supply/amplifier 950, and, therefore,
these heaters must necessarily be connected electrically to the surface of the
electrically conductive strip 900, which corresponds to the "electrically
conductive coating" recited in claim 24 (Ans. 3-5; Final Act. 11).
The Appellants contend that "the cited portions of Cadee fail to
disclose heater 930 of Cadee as being attached on top of a surface of strip
900 or embedded within strip 900, let alone the heater 930 of Cadee as being
electrically connected to the strip 900 at the location of attachment or
embedding" (Appeal Br. 6; bolding added). According to the Appellants,
"heater 930 appears only to be electrically connected to power
supply/amplifier 950" (id. at 7; bolding added).
We discern no reversible error in the Examiner's factual finding that
Cadee describes the disputed claim limitations. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Cadee describes a lithographic apparatus in which electrically
conductive strips are used as one or more temperature sensors or heating
4
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
elements on a substrate table (Cadee i-fi-f 117-118). Such an embodiment is
illustrated in Figure 24, which is reproduced as follows:
Catlee's Figure 24 above depicts an electrically conductive strip 900, which
is provided with local substrate heaters 930 and through which current 910
flows, such that the strip 900 is arranged to have a temperature-dependent
resistivity (id. i-f 118). Although Cadee teaches that the local substrate
heaters 930 are powered by localized power supplies/amplifiers 950 (id.),
Figure 24 discloses that not all heaters 930 are connected directly to power
supplies/amplifiers 950---i.e., three of the five heaters 930 are not connected
directly to any power supply/amplifier 950. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069,
1072 (CCP A 1972) (description for purposes of anticipation can be found in
drawings alone as well as in words).
Because Cadee teaches that heating depends on temperature-
dependent resistivity and "[t]he power supplied to each substrate heater 930
5
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
is controlled by reference to a measurement of the local resistivity in a
segment of an electrically conductive strip 900 that is closest to the substrate
heater 930 in question" (id.; bolding added), a person having ordinary skill
in the art would have drawn a reasonable inference that heaters 930 that are
not directly connected to any power supply/amplifier 950 must necessarily
be connected electrically to the electrically conductive strip 900' s surface on
which the heaters 930 are attached. In re Preda, 401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA
1968) ("[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take
into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.").
The Appellants argue that "Figure 24 of Cadee is a top view and so
Figure 24 can't identify that heater 930 is attached on top of a surface of the
strip 900 or embedded within strip 900" (Appeal Br. 6; bolding added). That
argument fails because Cadee does not describe, either explicitly or
inherently, that any unidentified intervening element exists between heater
930 and strip 900.
For these reasons, and those given by the Examiner, we uphold the
Examiner's rejection as to claim 24.
2. Claim 25
Claim 25, which depends from claim 24, recites that "an electrical
assembly is electrically connected to the heater and/or temperature sensor
via the coating" (Appeal Br. 30). The Appellants argue that "the Examiner
does not identify what is the recited electrical assembly in Cadee" (id. at 9).
According to the Appellants, "it doesn't make logical sense for strip 900 to
electrically connect 'via' itself heater/sensor 900 to an electrical assembly,
6
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
since strip 900 and heater/sensor 900 are one and the same" (id.; bolding
added).
The Examiner, however, finds that Catlee's strip 900 and heater 930
are, respectively, an "electrically conductive coating" and "heater" as recited
in claims 24 and 25 (Final Act. 11-12). The Appellants do not explain why
Catlee's power supply/amplifiers 950 and/or electrodes 940 cannot
reasonably be considered as "an electrical assembly," as specified in claim
25.
Therefore, we uphold the Examiner's rejection as to claim 25.
3. Claim 26
Claim 26, which depends from claim 24, recites that "an electrically
insulating gap is provided between the surface and the heater and/ or
temperature sensor" (Appeal Br. 30). The Appellants argue that the
Examiner erroneously "refers to gaps between strips 900 in Cadee" to
account for claim 26 (id. at 10; bolding added).
The Examiner points to Cadee' s Figures 23-24 and paragraphs 118-
120 (Final Act. 12; Ans. 5---6). Nothing in these disclosures, however,
indicate the existence of any gap between any of Cadee' s strips 900 and
heaters 930.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection as to claim 26.
4. Claim 27
Claim 27, which depends from claim 24, recites that "the heater
and/or temperature sensor is embedded in the coating" (Appeal Br. 30). The
Appellants argue that "there is no indication that heater 930 of Cadee is
embedded within strip 900" (Appeal Brief 10; bolding added).
7
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
The Examiner merely repeats the claim limitations and points to
Catlee's Figures 23-24 and paragraphs 117-120 (Final Act. 12; Ans. 5---6).
The Examiner, however, does not point to any sufficiently specific
disclosure regarding any embedded heater or temperature sensor.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection as to claim 27.
5. Claim 32
Claim 32, which depends from claim 24, recites that "the coating is
configured to provide electrical power to, or receive electrical signals from,
the heater and/or temperature sensor" (Appeal Br. 30). The Appellants
argue that "the Examiner has not identified any clear and unmistakable
disclosure that Cadee' s heater 930 is electrically connected to strip 900 at
the location of attachment or embedding" (id. at 10; bolding added). For the
reasons given above for claim 24, we find the Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive.
Therefore, we uphold the Examiner's rejection as to claim 32.
Rejection F (Claim 33). Claim 33, which depends from claim 24,
recites that "a thickness of the coating is less than 10 µm" (Appeal Br. 31 ).
The Appellants contend that "Fukuoka fail[ s] to overcome the deficiencies
of the cited portions of Cadee" (id. at 12). The Appellants argue that, in
view of the differences between Fukuoka and the claimed subject matter,
"the cited portions of Fukuoka fail to provide any guidance or teaching
regarding the thickness of a coating attached on top of which, or embedded
in which, there is a heater and/or sensor" but rather "the cited portions of
Fukuoka appear merely be directed to the thickness of a layer of a heater or
sensor itself' (id. at 12-13). According to the Appellants, the Examiner
8
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
"improperly reconstructed the claimed invention from the prior art by using
the claimed invention as a 'blueprint"' (id. at 13).
We disagree with the Appellants. First, we find no deficiency in
Cadee relative to the base claim (i.e., claim 24) based on the Appellants'
arguments, as we discussed above. Second, the Examiner specifically finds
that Cadee "discloses a desire to control the material and the dimensions of
the strip so as to control rate of heat produced by resistive heating strip"
(Final Act. 14) (relying on Cadee i-f 117). The Appellants do not specifically
refute the Examiner's reasonable finding, based on Cadee' s disclosure, that
resistivity (and therefore the amount of heat) would be dependent on the
dimensions of the strip 900. Given that undisputed finding, we conclude
that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at optimum
or suitable strip dimensions, including a strip thickness within the range
recited in claim 33, by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed
in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
ranges by routine experimentation.").
For these reasons, we uphold Rejection F.
Rejection G (Claims 1, 2, 6--13, 15, and 17-23). Unless a claim is
argued separately, it stands or falls with claim 1, which we select as
representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
1. Claim 1
Claim 1 recites (Appeal Br. 27):
1. A lithographic apparatus comprising:
a heater and a separate temperature sensor on a surface
between projection structures of a pimple or burl plate, each of
the heater and the temperature sensor having a major surface that
is elongate and the heater associated with the temperature sensor
9
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
such that the heater and the temperature sensor control the
temperature of the same area of the surface.
The Examiner acknowledges that Cadee does not describe (1) the
heater and the temperature sensor to be placed "on a surface between
projection structures of a pimple or burl plate" and (2) a separate
temperature sensor having a major surface that is elongate (Final act. 15-
16). With respect to difference (1 ), the Examiner relies on Maria Zaal (id. at
16-17). With respect to difference (2), the Examiner relies on Cadee and
also Vellore (id. at 15-16). Regarding difference ( 1 ), the Examiner
concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to add heaters and associated temperature sensors between the
burls, as taught by Maria Zaal ... in the lithographic apparatus
of Cadee ... because such a modification allows for an enhanced
thermal control of the substrate and substrate table by allowing a
high thermal conductance pathway between the substrate and
substrate table ....
The Appellants contend that the Examiner's reliance on Maria Zaal is
misplaced because Maria Zaal "at best merely suggests providing a
thermally conductive material between the burls" and not a heater (Appeal
Br. 14 ). The Appellants argue that, instead, Maria Zaal teaches the
placement of the heaters in a different location (id. at 15).
We disagree with the Appellants. Maria Zaal describes a lithographic
apparatus in which a non-fluid coupling medium (e.g., "indium foil, which is
very soft and a good conductor of heat") is provided between burls as shown
in Figure 11 (Maria Zaal i-fi-179, 82). According to Maria Zaal, such an
embodiment provides an enhanced thermal pathway between the substrate
and/or substrate holder and the substrate table and/or cover plate, thereby
stabilizing the substrate temperature (id. i183). Thus, although Maria Zaal
10
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
teaches that the arrangement in Figure 11 "does not comprise any heating or
cooling means in the substrate holder 2" (id. i-f 79) and does not use
resistivity to generate the heat as in Cadee, a person having ordinary skill in
the art would have reasonably expected that placing Cadee' s substrate heater
930 (that are not directly connected to any power supply) between burls
would provide advantages similar to those suggested by Maria Zaal (i.e.,
enhanced thermal pathway and stabilized substrate temperature). KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f 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.").
For these reasons, we uphold the rejection as to claim 1.
2. Claim 8
Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, recites that "the heater and
temperature sensor is formed, in plan, as a line following a tortuous path"
(Appeal Br. 27). Referring to Catlee's Figure 9, the Appellants argue that
"the Examiner merely cites to a glow wire heater 85 following a tortuous
path" and not "that both the heater and temperature sensor are formed, in
plan, as a line following a tortuous path" as in claim 8 (id. at 16; bolding
added).
The Examiner, however, further relied on Vellore (Final Act. 16; Ans.
10-11). Merely attacking the Examiner's citation to Catlee's Figure 9 does
not demonstrate that the Examiner's reliance on the collective teachings in
both Cadee and Vellore constituted reversible error. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be
11
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.").
Therefore, we uphold the rejection as to claim 8.
3. Claim 10
The Appellants' arguments for claim 10 are similar to those presented
for claim 25 (Appeal Br. 16-17). Therefore, we uphold the rejection as to
this claim for the same or similar reasons.
4. Claim 12
Claim 12, which depends from claim 1, recites that "the pimple or
burl plate is of a substrate table, the substrate table comprising one heater
and temperature sensor per die on the substrate" (Appeal Br. 28). The
Appellants contend that "[ t ]he cited portions of Cadee provide no connection
between its disclosure regarding dies of a substrate and its heaters and
sensors" and, therefore, "a person of ordinary skill in the art would see no
logical connection to jump from those disparate disclosures to providing one
heater and temperature sensor per die on the substrate" (id. at 18). The
Appellants argue that "while a person of ordinary skill in the art may
consider providing a plurality of sensors and/or heaters in view of Cadee,
there is no suggestion in Cadee to do so in a manner that there is one heater
and temperature sensor per die on the substrate" (id.). According to the
Appellants, "having one heater and temperature sensor per die on the
substrate would greatly increase the number of heaters and temperature
sensors" (id.).
The Appellants' arguments, however, do not address the Examiner's
findings that Cadee discloses the use of both temperature sensors 60 and
heaters 85 (Final Act. 19--20) (citing, e.g., Cadee Figs. 8, 15, 20). Indeed,
12
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
Catlee's Figure 8, for instance, shows heaters 85, 86 embedded in a substrate
table along with temperature sensors 60 (Cadee i-fi-176, 80).
For these reasons, we uphold the rejection as to claim 12.
5. Claim 19
Claim 19, which depends from claim 1 through intervening claim 1 7,
recites that "the heater and associated sensor form a micro-electro-
mechanical system" (Appeal Br. 29). The Appellants argue that the
Examiner's "cited portion of Cadee [i-f 103] merely provides that MEMS
techniques can be used to construct the structures disclosed in the"
paragraph (id. at 19).
We discern no merit in the Appellants' argument. Cadee explicitly
discloses a miniature temperature control system including a miniature
temperature sensor and a miniature heater (Cadee i-f 103). The Appellants do
not explain why this disclosure is insufficient to meet the further limitations
recited in claim 19.
Therefore, we uphold the rejection as to claim 19.
6. Claim 20
Claim 20, which depends from claim 1 through intervening claims 17
and 19, recites that "the associated sensor comprises a thermally activated
switch" (Appeal Br. 29). The Appellants argue that this limitation is not
described in Cadee because "[a] thermally activated switch is [a] known
term of art and uses thermal expansion and/or contraction of a material to
cause the switch to be open above or below a certain temperature" (id. at 19)
(citing Spec. i-f 181 ).
We disagree with the Appellants. Cadee teaches that "[t]he miniature
control systems 600 are arranged so that the heater component 620 is
13
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
activated to emit heat when the local temperature of the substrate, as
measured by the miniature temperature sensor 610, falls below a
predetermined threshold value" (Cadee i-f 103). Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we find that
Cadee' s disclosure is sufficient as a description of the disputed limitations.
The cited Specification description (Spec. i-f 181) does not compel a contrary
finding because that disclosure merely describes an embodiment-not a
definition that limits the scope of "a thermally activated switch" as that term
is used in the claim. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
13 79 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("[W]e look to the specification to see if it provides a
definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.").
Therefore, we uphold the rejection as to claim 20.
7. Claim 21
Claim 21, which depends from claim 1 through intervening claim 1 7,
recites that "the heater and associated sensor are a self-regulated heater
having an electromagnetic property that varies as a function of temperature
such that a change in temperature results in a change in heat output at
constant applied voltage" (Appeal Br. 29). The Appellants contend that the
Examiner did not adequately address this limitation (id. at 19--20).
We disagree with the Appellants. The Examiner relied on Cadee' s
teaching that temperature affects resistivity (Cadee i-f 103). Given that the
heater material's resistivity is affected by temperature, it would reasonably
appear that the material's electromagnetic property would also be affected.
The Appellants direct us to no concrete evidence (e.g., experimental
evidence) to indicate the contrary. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA
1977).
14
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
Therefore, we uphold the rejection as to claim 21.
Rejection H (Claim 5). Claim 5, which depends from claim 1,
recites that the apparatus further comprises "another heater and another
temperature sensor on a surface of a final element of a projection system"
(Appeal Br. 27). The Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on
Janssen for this feature constitutes reversible error because Janssen does not
overcome the deficiencies in the Examiner's reliance on the other references
(id. at 20). In addition, the Appellants argue that Janssen does not disclose a
temperature sensor per se (id.).
We disagree with the Appellants. First, the Examiner's reliance on
the other references has not been shown to be deficient. Second, the
Examiner specifically finds that Janssen describes temperature sensors
(Janssen i-f 76). The Appellants' mere reference to Janssen's Figure 7 (Reply
Br. 21) is insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner's
reasonable position that Janssen's general teachings in combination with the
other references would have suggested the claimed subject matter.
Therefore, we uphold the rejection.
Rejection I (Claims 14 and 36).
1. Claim 14
Claim 14, which depends from claim 1 through intervening claim 13,
recites that "the plurality of heaters and plurality of temperature sensors are,
in plan, laid out in a two dimensional grid" (Appeal Br. 28). The Appellants
argue that Van Der Feltz does not disclose heaters (id. at 24). The
Examiner, however, also relies on Catlee's Figure 7 (Ans. 15). Catlee's
Figure 7 shows a plurality of heaters 85 and temperature sensors 60 in a two-
dimensional grid arrangement.
15
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
Therefore, we uphold the rejection as to claim 14.
2. Claim 36
Claim 36, which depends from claim 34, recites, in relevant part, that
"the plurality of heaters and/or temperature sensors are, in plan, laid out in a
two dimensional grid among the projection structures" (Appeal Br. 31 ). The
Appellants contend that Van Der Feltz does not describe a "two dimensional
grid among the projection structures" (Appeal Br. 25). The Examiner,
however, relies on the collective teachings found in Cadee, Fukuoka,
Vellore, and Van Der Feltz. Therefore, the Appellants cursory attack on
Van Der Feltz is insufficient to identify a reversible error.
Therefore, we uphold the rejection as to claim 36.
Rejection J (Claims 34 and 35).
1. Claim 34
The Appellants arguments for claim 34 are similar to those presented
for claim 1 in Rejection G (Appeal Br. 22-23), which we found
unpersuasive. Therefore, we uphold the rejection as to claim 34.
2. Claim 35
The Appellants arguments for claim 3 5 are similar to those presented
for claim 8 in Rejection G (id. at 23-24), which we found unpersuasive.
Therefore, we uphold the rejection as to claim 35.
IV. SUMMARY
Rejections A through D, E (except as to claims 26 and 27), and F
through I are sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's final decision to reject
claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 17-36 is affirmed as to claims 1, 2, 5-15, 17-25, and
28-36 but reversed as to claims 26 and 27.
16
Appeal2017-006999
Application 13/046,283
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-IN-PART
17