Ex Parte Thomson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 20, 2009

09872300 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ANDREW THOMSON
____________
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,3001
Technology Center 2400
____________
Decided: October 20, 2009
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and CAROLYN
D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on May 31, 2001. The real party in interest is National Instruments
Corp. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 82 through 106. Claims 1 through 81 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method, apparatus, and computer-accessible
memory medium for providing web server capabilities for existing
instruments without inherent networking capabilities. (Spec. 8, ll. 2-4.) In
particular, an instrument server connected to a network operates to provide
network server capabilities for one or more instruments. (Id. at 9, ll. 10-12.)
Further, a client system controls the one or more instruments by executing a
client web browser that accesses the respective instruments through a
network. (Id. at 9, ll. 12-14.) Additionally, the client system works in
conjunction with the instrument server to communicate with the one or more
instruments via a bus by utilizing instrument drivers. (Id. at 9, ll. 17-20.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 82 further illustrates the invention as follows:
82. A method comprising:

a first device coupled to a network sending a request to a
second device coupled to the network to access a traditional
instrument, wherein the traditional instrument is coupled to the
second device via an instrumentation bus, wherein an
instrument driver is required by the second device to
communicate with the traditional instrument, wherein the
second device is not configured with the instrument driver,
wherein the traditional instrument does not include inherent
Internet capabilities, and wherein the instrumentation bus is not
the Internet;
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

3

the second device receiving the request to access the
traditional instrument;

the second device receiving the instrument driver in
response to said receiving the request to access the traditional
instrument, wherein the instrument driver is downloaded
directly from the network, and wherein the instrument driver is
usable by the second device to communicate with the traditional
instrument;

the second device accessing the traditional instrument via
the instrumentation bus in response to said request to access the
traditional instrument;

the traditional instrument sending instrument data to the
second device via the instrumentation bus in response to the
second device accessing the traditional instrument;

the second device receiving the instrument data sent from
the traditional instrument via the instrumentation bus; and

the second device sending the instrument data to the first
device via the network.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Nagaoka 2002/0180579 A1 Dec. 5, 2002
(PCT filed Sep. 27, 2001)2

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:

2 The PCT filing date of Sep. 27, 2001, relies on the foreign priority of
application 2000-295110, filed on Sep. 27, 2000.
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

4
1. Claims 93 and 97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.
2. Claims 82 through 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Nagaoka.3
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in concluding that
claims 93 and 97 are indefinite. In particular, Appellant argues that the
“and/or” clause is not a contradictory statement since an ordinarily skilled
artisan would understand that the “and/or” clause is an inclusive “or”
conjunction for two or more phrases. (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4.) Further,
Appellant argues that the phrase “the processor to communicate and/or
control” means that the processor can communicate, control, or
communicate and control and, therefore, reinterpreting the “and/or” clause is
inappropriate. (Reply Br. 4.)
2. Appellant contends that Nagaoka does not teach a first device
coupled to a network sending a request to a second device coupled to a
network to access a traditional instrument, wherein the second device is not
configured with the instrument driver, and, further, the second device
receiving the instrument driver in response to receiving a request to access
the traditional instrument, as recited in independent claim 82. (App. Br. 11-
13; Reply Br. 5-6.) According to Appellant, Nagaoka discloses a home
network management system which enables a user to remote control home-
located electronic devices by requiring a user to manually install new driver

3 In the listing of claims provided by Appellant in the Appeal Brief, claim 92
depends from cancelled claim 1. For purposes of appeal, we will treat claim
92 as depending from independent claim 82.
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

5
software corresponding to a new home-located electronic device. (Id.)
Appellant argues that Nagaoka’s disclosure of manually installing driver
software does not amount to the second device receiving the instrument
driver in response to receiving the request to access the traditional
instrument, as required by the instant claim. (Id.)
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. The Examiner concludes that claims 93 and 97 are indefinite
because the “and/or” clause is unclear. In particular, the Examiner finds that
it is unclear as to whether Appellant is interpreting the “and/or” clause as
“the processor to communicate and control” or “the processor to
communicate or control.” (Ans. 15.) For examination purposes, the
Examiner interprets the “and/or” clause as “the processor to communicate or
control.” (Ans. 15.)
2. The Examiner finds Nagaoka’s disclosure of a terminal device
sending a request to a home server for performing remote access and control
of a home-located electronic device, in conjunction with downloading driver
software from a management facility via the network whereby the driver
software is used by the home server to control the home-located electronic
device, teaches the cited limitations. (Ans. 15-16; 20-21.)

II. ISSUES
1. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that claims 93 and 97 are indefinite? In particular, this issue turns on
whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been apprised of the scope
of the “and/or” clause?
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

6
2. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Nagaoka anticipates independent claim 82? In particular, this issue turns on
whether:
(a) Nagaoka teaches a first device coupled to a network sending a
request to a second device coupled to a network to access a traditional
instrument, wherein the second device is not configured with the instrument
driver, as recited in independent claim 82?
(b) Nagaoka teaches the second device receiving the instrument
driver in response to receiving a request to access the traditional instrument,
as recited in independent claim 82?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (“FF”) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Nagaoka
1. Nagaoka generally relates to a method for remote control of
home-located electronic devices and a management facility. (Pg. 1, Para.
[0001].) Nagaoka’s Figure 1 depicts a home network management system
comprising a plurality of terminals (1), mobile packet communication
network (2), gateway server (3), the Internet (4), home network management
facility (5), a plurality of home networks (6), and notification server (7).
(Pg. 4, Para. [0082].) In particular, Nagaoka discloses a home network (6)
installed in a respective house. (Pg. 5, Para. [0090].) The home network (6)
comprises a home server (61), a home-located electronic device group (62),
and a security system (63), each of which are mutually connected by home
bus (64). (Id.) Further, Nagaoka discloses that the home-located electronic
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

7
devices in the home-located electronic device group are a microwave, a rice
cooker, a refrigerator, lighting fixtures, an air conditioner, a video recorder,
a gas leakage detection device, a water heater and so forth. (Pg. 5, Para.
[0091].) Each home-located electronic device has a function to
communicate with the home server (61) via home bus (64). (Id.)
2. Nagaoka’s Figure 1 discloses that terminal (1) communicates
directly with home network management server (5) through a World Wide
Web (“WWW”) browser and an access browser. (Pg. 5, Para. [0086].) In
particular, Nagaoka discloses displaying a screen for prompting the user to
input control instructions of the home-located electronic devices on the
display of terminal (1). (Pg. 10, Para. [0179].) Further, the home network
management facility (5) manages the home network (6). (Pg. 5, Para.
[0095].) Therefore, when the home network management facility (5)
receives a control instruction for remote control from a user of terminal (1),
home network management facility (5) seeks for home network (6)
corresponding to the user, and transmits the received control instruction to
home server (61) in home network (6) via mobile packet communication
network (2). (Id.) Additionally, when a user requests status information by
utilizing terminal (1), the status information is transmitted to home server
(61) corresponding to the user via home network management facility (5).
(Pg. 6, Para. [0111].) Nagaoka’s Figure 2 depicts that control unit (611) in
home server (61) transmits home-located electronic device categories
provided in status information table TBL1-m, and the status information to
home network management facility (5) when receiving the status
information request. (Id.)
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

8
3. Nagaoka discloses that the management facility comprises
driver software for performing control of home-located electronic devices
controlled by a server connected to the management facility via a network.
(Pg. 3, Para. [0041].) In particular, the terminal transmits to the
management facility a request signal showing that the driver software is
downloaded from the management facility by the server and an identifying
signal. (Id.) Further, the management facility transmits to the server
corresponding to the identifying signal the driver software corresponding to
the request signal. (Id.) As depicted in Nagaoka’s Figure 2, the home server
(61) comprises a control unit (611) containing a hard disk that stores the
driver software for controlling home-located electronic device group (62).
(Pgs. 5-6, Para. [0099], [0100].)

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Indefiniteness
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it does
not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention.
Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (citations omitted). In particular, our reviewing court held that the
claim as a whole must be considered to determine whether the claim
apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and therefore serves the
notice function required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, by providing
clear warning to others as to what constitutes the infringement of the patent.
Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir 2000)
(citations omitted). If the language of the claim is such that a person of
ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

9
claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is deemed appropriate.
Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn.
Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d
1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim
at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference. In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow
the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art,
then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also
covers subject matter not in the prior art.

Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999)
(internal citations omitted).

V. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph, Rejection
We do not agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the “and/or”
clause in claims 93 and 97 is indefinite. An ordinarily skilled artisan would
readily understand that the “and/or” clause in the phrase “the processor to
communicate and/or control” means that the processor can communicate,
control, or communicate and control. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan
would understand that a broad, but reasonable interpretation of the phrase
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

10
“the processor to communicate and/or control” is “the processor to
communicate or control.” It follows that Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in concluding that claims 93 and 97 are indefinite.
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Rejection
Claims 82 through 85, 88 through 90, 105 and 106
Independent claim 82 recites, in relevant parts:
1) a first device coupled to a network sending a request to a
second device coupled to a network to access a traditional
instrument, wherein the second device is not configured with
the instrument driver; and 2) the second device receiving the
instrument driver in response to receiving a request to access
the traditional instrument.

As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Nagaoka discloses a
remote terminal connected to a home network management facility and a
home server via the Internet. (FF 1.) In particular, the home server is
connected to a plurality of home-located electronic devices via a bus. (Id.)
Further, based on a request from the remote terminal, the home network
management facility transmits a driver software for accessing and
controlling a home-located electronic device to the home server via the
Internet. (FF 3.) We find that Nagaoka’s disclosure teaches that the remote
terminal sends a request to the home server via the home network
management facility to access and control a home-located electronic device.
Further, we find that the home server receives the driver software for
accessing and controlling a specific home-located electronic device from the
home network management facility based on a request from the remote
terminal. Thus, we find that the cited disclosure of Nagaoka teaches the
disputed limitations, as set forth above. It follows that Appellant has failed
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

11
to show that the Examiner erred in finding that Nagaoka anticipates
independent claim 82.
Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to claims
83 through 85, 88 through 90, 105, and 106. Therefore, we select
independent claim 82 as being representative of the cited claims.
Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 83 through 85, 88 through 90, 105, and 106 for the reasons set forth
in our discussion of independent claim 82 above. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 86 and 87
Appellant contends that Nagaoka’s disclosure of providing
information from the terminal to the home server via the home network
management facility does not teach that the user input that generates the
request to access the traditional instrument is received by a web browser in a
web page provided by the second device, as recited in dependent claim 86.
(App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6-7.)
As detailed in the Findings of Fact Section above, Nagaoka discloses
that the remote terminal communicates directly with the home network
management facility through a web browser. (FF 2.) In particular, Nagaoka
discloses that a user is prompted to input control instructions for the home-
located electronic devices on the display of the remote terminal. (Id.)
Therefore, when the home network management facility receives access and
control instructions from the remote terminal, the home network
management facility transmits the received access and control instructions to
the home server via the Internet. (Id.) We find that Nagaoka’s disclosure
teaches that the remote terminal requests access and control of home-located
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

12
electronic devices from the home server via the home network management
facility by inputting instructions into a web browser displayed on the remote
terminal. However, we find that the cited disclosure falls short of teaching
that the web page displayed on the web browser is provided by the second
device. Although Nagaoka discloses that the remote terminal requests
access and control of home-located electronic devices from the home server
by inputting instructions into a web browser displayed on the remote
terminal, an ordinarily skilled artisan would view Nagaoka’s disclosure as a
mere suggestion that the web page in the web browser may be provided by
the home server. While such a suggestion might be adequate to show
obviousness, it is insufficient to show anticipation. Absent a showing that
Nagaoka expressly or inherently describes that the web page displayed in the
web browser is provided by the home server, we find that the Examiner has
improperly relied upon Nagaoka’s disclosure to teach the disputed
limitation. It follows that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Nagaoka anticipates dependent claim 86.
Because claim 87 also recites the limitation discussed above, we find
that Appellant has also shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of this claim
for the reasons set forth in our discussion of dependent claim 86.
Claims 96 and 100
Dependent claims 96 and 100 recite, in relevant part, the program
instructions are further executable by the processor to transmit a web page to
the network, wherein the web page comprises the data.
As set forth above, we find that Nagaoka’s disclosure teaches that the
remote terminal requests access and control of home-located electronic
devices from the home server via the home network management facility by
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

13
inputting instructions into a web browser displayed on the remote terminal.
In particular, we find that by allowing users to input instructions into a web
browser displayed on a remote terminal in order to access and control home-
located electronic devices, Nagaoka teaches that the remote terminal
transmits a web page containing instructions for accessing and controlling
home-located electronic devices via a network. Thus, we find that the cited
disclosure of Nagaoka teaches the disputed limitation. It follows that
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in finding that Nagaoka
anticipates dependent claims 96 and 100.
Claim 91
Appellant contends that Nagaoka’s disclosure of various
communication standards utilized by the home server to control home-
located electronic devices does not teach detecting one or more traditional
instruments coupled to the instrumentation bus including the traditional
instrument, as recited in dependent claim 91. (App. Br. 15.) As detailed in
the Findings of Fact section above, Nagaoka discloses that when the remote
terminal requests status information, the status request is transmitted to the
home server via the home network management facility. (FF 2.) In turn, the
home server transmits the status information of each home-located electronic
device to the remote terminal via the home network management facility.
(Id.) Further, as set forth above, the home server is connected to the home-
located electronic devices via a bus. (FF 1.) We find that Nagaoka’s
disclosure teaches that the remote terminal requests and receives access,
control, and status updates of home-located electronic devices from the
home server via the home network management facility. In particular, we
find that that in order to access and control the home-located electronic
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

14
devices, the remote terminal needs to first detect the home electronic devices
coupled to the home server via the bus. Therefore, Nagaoka does teach one
or more traditional instruments coupled to the instrumentation bus including
the traditional instrument, as recited in dependent claim 91.
Further, Appellant argues that Nagaoka’s disclosure of transmitting
status information of a home-located electronic device does not teach
receiving instrument information from each of the detected one or more
traditional instruments, as recited in dependent claim 91. (App. Br. 15.) As
detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Nagaoka discloses that when
the remote terminal requests status information, the home server transmits
the status information for each home-located electronic device in an
information table. (FF 2.) We find that Nagaoka’s disclosure of the remote
terminal requesting status information and the home server transmitting a
status information table amounts to the remote terminal receiving status
information about each home-located electronic device from the home
server. Therefore, we find that Nagaoka’s disclosure of the remote terminal
receiving status information about each home-located electronic device from
the home server teaches receiving instrument information from each of the
detected one or more traditional instruments, as recited in dependent claim
91.
Additionally, Appellant contends that Nagaoka’s disclosure of
security access and status information does not teach wherein the one or
more traditional instruments are user-selectable from the first device using
the instrument information, as recited in dependent claim 91. (App. Br. 15.)
As set forth above, we find that Nagaoka’s disclosure teaches that the remote
terminal receives status information about each home-located electronic
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

15
device from the home server. Further, we find that Nagaoka’s disclosure
teaches that the remote terminal sends a request to the home server via the
home network management facility to access and control a home-located
electronic device. In particular, we find that Nagaoka’s disclosure of the
remote terminal receiving status information about each home-located
electronic device from the home server, in conjunction with the remote
terminal requesting access and control of a home-located electronic device,
amounts to selecting one or more home located electronic devices based on
the status information. Thus, we find that the cited disclosure of Nagaoka
teaches wherein the one or more traditional instruments are user-selectable
from the first device using the instrument information, as recited in
dependent claim 91. It follows that Appellant has failed to show that the
Examiner erred in finding that Nagaoka anticipates dependent claim 91.
Claim 92
Appellant contends that that Nagaoka fails to disclose that the
instrumentation bus is a general-purpose interface bus (“GPIB”), as recited
in dependent claim 92. (App. Br. 15-16.) The amendment submitted in the
Response to the Final Office Action filed February 22, 2007, was not
entered by the Examiner. (App. Br. 5; 15-16.) Further, as admitted by
Appellant, the claim language does not specifically require a GPIB
instrumentation bus. (App. Br. 15-16.) Therefore, Appellant’s argument is
not commensurate in scope with the claim language. It follows that
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in finding that Nagaoka
anticipates dependent claim 92.

Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

16
Claims 93 through 95
Appellant contends that Nagaoka fails to disclose a device which
detects a first traditional instrument coupled to the instrumentation bus,
wherein a first instrument driver is required by the device to communicate
with the traditional instrument, wherein the device is not configured with the
first instrument driver, as recited in independent claim 93. (App. Br. 16.)
Appellant has failed to provide substantive arguments regarding the specific
claim limitations of claims 93 through 95. Appellant recites the limitations
of independent claim 93 verbatim and makes a general allegation that the
cited text does not teach the claim language. (Id.) Appellant is reminded
that a statement that merely points out what the claim recites will not be
considered as an argument for separate patentability of a claim. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellant is further reminded that a general allegation that
the claim defines a patentable invention without specifically pointing out
how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the
references does not constitute a persuasive response. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b).
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to claims
94 and 95. Therefore, we select independent claim 93 as being
representative of the cited claims. Consequently, Appellant has not shown
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 94 and 95 for the reasons set
forth in our discussion of independent claim 93 above. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 97 through 99
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s assertion that it would have
been obvious to perform the claimed methods is erroneous because these
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

17
claims are rejected as being anticipated by Nagaoka. (Reply Br. 7.)
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Nagaoka teaches each
limitation of dependent claim 97. As set forth above, we find that
Nagaoka’s disclosure teaches that the remote terminal requests access,
control, and status updates of home-located electronic devices from the
home server via the home network management facility. Further, we find
that the home server receives driver software for accessing and controlling a
specific home-located electronic device from the home network
management facility based on a request from the remote terminal.
Additionally, Nagaoka discloses that the driver software is stored on a hard
disk located in the home server. (FF 3.) In summary, we find that Nagaoka
discloses the remote terminal detecting one or more electronic devices,
receiving the respective driver software, and subsequently storing the
respective driver software. Thus, we find that the cited disclosures of
Nagaoka teaches detecting a second traditional instrument, receiving, from
the network, a second instrument driver, and storing the second instrument
driver in memory, as recited in dependent claim 97. It follows that
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in finding that Nagaoka
anticipates dependent claim 97.
Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to claims
98 and 99. Therefore, we select dependent claim 97 as being representative
of the cited claims. Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 98 and 99 for the reasons set forth in our
discussion of dependent claim 97 above. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

18
Claims 101, 102, 103, and 104
Appellant contends that Nagaoka’s disclosure of a home server that
executes driver software memorized in a hard disk to control home-located
devices does not teach automatically receiving, from the network, the
instrument driver which is associated with the traditional instrument, as
recited in independent claim 101. (App. Br. 17.) As set forth above, we find
that Nagaoka’s disclosure teaches that the remote terminal sends a request to
the home server via the home network management facility to access and
control a home-located electronic device. (FF 1, 2.) Further, we find that
the home server receives driver software for accessing and controlling a
specific home-located electronic device from the home network
management facility based on a request from the remote terminal. (FF 3).
In summary, we find that Nagaoka’s disclosure teaches automatically
receiving the respective driver software for accessing and controlling a
home-located electronic device from the home network management facility
based on a request from the remote terminal. Thus, we find that the cited
disclosure of Nagaoka teaches automatically receiving, from the network,
the instrument driver which is associated with the traditional instrument, as
recited in independent claim 101. It follows that Appellant has failed to
show that the Examiner erred in finding that Nagaoka anticipates
independent claim 101.
Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to claims
102 through 104. Therefore, we select independent claim 101 as being
representative of the cited claims. Consequently, Appellant has not shown
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 102 through 104 for the reasons
Appeal 2009-001259
Application 09/872,300

19
set forth in our discussion of independent claim 101 above. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
claims 93 and 97 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
2. Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Nagaoka anticipates claims 86 and 87 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
3. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Nagaoka anticipates claims 82 through 85 and 88 through 106 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

VII. DECISION
1. We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 93 and 97
as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
2. We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 86 and 87
as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
3. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 82 through
85 and 88 through 106 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRM-IN-PART
nhl

MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398