Ex Parte Van Liempd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

12863201 (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.
12/863,201 07/16/2010 Marieke Johanna Catharina Van Liempd 2008P00087WOUS 4413
138325 7590 05/02/2017
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
OWENS, DOUGLAS W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
kim.larocca@philips.com
j o. c angelosi @ philips. com
Gigi.Miller@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIEKE JOHANNA CATHARINA VAN LIEMPD,
ABRAHAM FRANCISCUS MARIA HENDRIKS,
JUDITH MARIA TRIPPELVIZT, LOTTE VAN LIER,
NINA ROELANDE HORSTRA,
WILLEMIJN ELISE DAMAI PRINS, and
LUCIUS THEODORUS VINKENVLEUGEL
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
1 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Specification filed July 16, 2010 (Spec.),
the Non-Final Office Action mailed Nov. 20, 2014 (Non-Final Act.),
Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed May 11, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s
Answer mailed Oct. 23, 2015 (Ans.), and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply
Br.) filed Dec. 28,2015.
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—11 and 13. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The claims on appeal are directed to color selection input devices and
color selection input methods (see, e.g., claims 1 and 11).
Appellants disclose that modem lighting systems may create lighting
atmospheres by providing different kinds of lighting, such as colored
lighting. Spec. p. 1,11. 11—12. These lighting systems include a remote
control that allows the user to navigate in the hue/saturation/brightness color
space to adjust the lighting settings. The user interface of the remote control
includes a wheel for adjusting hue and separate buttons for adjusting
saturation and brightness, respectively. Spec. p. 1,11. 13—18. However,
according to Appellants, user tests with color input devices have shown that
many users have difficulty navigating to the hue/saturation color space and
difficulty distinguishing between the concepts of saturation and dimming.
Spec. p. 2,11. 1—3. To address this, Appellants disclose an improved color
selection input device and method in which a hue input means and saturation
input means are arranged to partially overlap in an area that indicates a
selected color setting in the hue/saturation color space. Spec. p. 2,11. 11—14.
As a result, users are able to intuitively navigate the hue/saturation color
space and comfortably select a desired color. Spec. p. 2,11. 15—16.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N V. Appeal Br. 4.
2
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief with
portions at the center of the dispute emphasized:
1. A color selection input device comprising:
a hue selection object representing selectable colors with
hue gradation along a direction thereof,
a saturation selection object representing a selectable
saturation gradation along a direction thereof
wherein the hue selection object and the saturation
selection object are arranged to form fixed overlapping region,
and wherein the saturation selection object is transparent and
shaded such that the saturation selection object varies from fully
transparent to fully white in a plane by including portions of the
saturation selection object in the plane that have different colors
for visualizing a hue and saturation selection in the overlapping
region; and
an electronic circuit configured to detect positions of the
hue selection object and the saturation selection object and to
generate a color selection signal that depends on the detected
positions.
Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 33 (emphasis added).
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1—11 and 13 under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement;
(2) claims 1—11 and 133 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite;
3 Although claim 13 is not listed in the statement of the rejection at page 22
of the Non-Final Office Action, a rejection of claim 13 is set forth at pages
25—26 of the Non-Final Office Action. Appellants identify claim 13 as
rejected. Appeal Br. 13. Moreover, the Examiner lists claim 13 as rejected
in the Answer. Ans. 2. Thus, the error was harmless.
3
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
(3) claims 1—3, 5—8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tudor4 in view of Miyazaki;5
(4) claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tudor in view of Miyazaki and further in view of Greenewalt;6 and
(5) claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Tudor in view of Miyazaki and further in view of Heifer.7
OPINION
In order to properly consider the issues in this case, it is necessary to
begin by considering the intertwined issues of claim interpretation and claim
indefiniteness. See Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561,
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“Analysis begins with a key legal question—what is
the invention claimed?”); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971)
(stating in the context of a review of rejections under both the first and
second paragraph of § 112 that “[a]ny analysis in this regard should begin
with the determination of whether the claims satisfy the requirements of the
second paragraph.”); Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d
1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“an analysis under § 112,12 is inextricably
intertwined with claim construction.”).
Indefiniteness
Claims 1 and 11 each recite a “hue selection object representing
selectable colors with hue gradation along a direction thereof’ and a
“saturation selection object representing a selectable saturation gradation
along a direction thereof.” The Examiner determines, and Appellants do not
4 Tudor, US 3,088,227, issued May 7, 1963 (“Tudor”).
5 Miyazaki, US 2005/0212980 Al, published Sept. 29, 2005 (“Miyazaki”).
6 Greenewalt, US 1,731,772, issued Oct. 15, 1929 (“Greenewalt”).
7 Heifer, US 2006/0211494 Al, published Sept. 21, 2006 (“Heifer”).
4
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
dispute, that the “hue selection object” and “saturation selection object”
clauses of claims 1 and 11 are means-plus-function clauses that must be
interpreted as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6. Non-Final Act. 10—11, 17—
18; Appeal Br. 10, 14. However, the Examiner finds “[a] review of the
specification shows no sufficiently definite corresponding structure is
described for achieving the claimed functions in their entirety.” Non-Final
Act. 11-13.
Thus, the first step in our analysis is to “look to the specification and
interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or
acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the
specification provides such disclosure.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189,
1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). One must “determine[] whether sufficient
structure was disclosed in the specification based on the understanding of
one skilled in the art.” Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d
at 1378.
Here, the Examiner fails to set forth a sufficient analysis of the
relevant parts of the Specification to support the determination that the
Specification does not describe sufficiently definite structure corresponding
to the claimed functions. Moreover, we agree with Appellants that the
Specification provides sufficient structure when read by the ordinary artisan.
Appeal Br. 10-14. The Specification discloses that the hue selection means,
saturation selection means, and/or the brightness selection means may be
selection wheels, which may be rotated to make a selection. Spec. p. 3,1. 29
to p. 4,1. 3 and p. 8,11. 3—15. The wheels may be mechanically rotated
wheels or may be provided on a touch screen display. Spec. p. 4,11. 27—29,
p. 5,11. 8—11, p. 7,11. 14—22. The Specification also discloses selection bars,
5
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
which may include a potentiometer for determining the position of the bars.
Spec. p. 4,11. 7—9, p. 5,11. 3—7. These are described as devices for inputting
a color selection for a lighting system like Appellants’ LivingColors™ lamp
or for a TV set or computer display. Spec. p. 1,11. 11—18; p. 7,11. 4—12.
These disclosures present structures for performing the functions recited in
claims 1,2, 11, and 13. Asa result, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the § 112, | 6 recitations of claims 1,2, 11, and 13 to be limited
to those structures disclosed in the Specification and their equivalents.
Claims 3—10 recite the corresponding structures, such as selection
wheels, selection bars, mechanically rotated wheels, and objects on touch
screen displays for at least one of the mean-plus-function clauses of the
claim from which each depends. These are sufficient structures to maintain
the presumption that § 112, | 6 does not apply for the particular clause of the
independent claim further restricted by these dependent claims.
The Examiner more specifically rejects claims 1—11 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite, concentrating on the
limitations of claims 1 and 11. Non-Final 22—26. But, again, the Examiner
reads the claim language in a way divorced from the context of the
Specification.
The Examiner finds the word “object” in claim 1 “lacks a structural
modifier by which ‘object’ could be unambiguously interpreted as intending
to refer to a tangible object as opposed to, e.g., a rainbow.” Non-Final Act.
22—23. This finding does not set forth a prima facie case of indefmiteness
because the Examiner has correctly concluded § 112, | 6 applies to claim 1.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand an “object” of
claim 1 to cover those structures disclosed in Appellants’ Specification for
6
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
performing the recited functions, as well as equivalents thereof, as discussed
above. Those structures are tangible structures such as mechanical
structures or visual representations on a touch screen that result from
programming of touch screen structures.
The Examiner further finds terms such as “color,” “hue,” “direction,”
“transparent,” and “white” are indefinite because they denote perceptions or
concepts, the word “representing” is indefinite because it is unclear how a
hue selection object represents selectable colors with hue gradation, and it is
unclear how a hue selection object manifests its position. Non-Final Act.
23-24.
The test for determining the question of indefmiteness may be
formulated as whether the claims “set out and circumscribe a particular area
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.” In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). “[T]he definiteness of the language
employed must be analyzed—not in a vacuum, but always in light of the
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it
would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art.” Id. The Examiner’s analysis has been performed in a vacuum
without consideration of how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret
Appellants’ invention, as disclosed in Appellants’ disclosure, and whether
the claim terms have been recited with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. As argued by Appellants at pages 15—18, some of these terms
are defined within claim 1 itself and one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the meaning and scope of the claimed terms in view of
Appellants’ Specification.
7
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
With regard to claim 11, the Examiner finds it is unclear how “an
overlapping region is ‘fixed,’” that the term “region” does not provide a
sufficient structural arrangement so one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the metes and bounds of the claim, and the steps recited in claim
11 generally use vague and indefinite language. Non-Final Act. 25.
These findings are also insufficient to support a rejection for
indefmiteness. As discussed above, the Examiner correctly interprets § 112,
| 6 to apply to the method of claim 11. The hue selection object and
saturation object recited in claim 11, and therefore the fixed overlapping
region provided by these objects, cover the structures disclosed in the
Specification as corresponding to the recited functions, as well as their
equivalents. Therefore, to the extent the language of claim 11 is vague and
indefinite because it recites functions with little structure, the scope of claim
11 is outlined determined by § 112, | 6 and Appellants’ disclosure.
The Examiner rejects claims 2—10 for the same reasons as claim 1 and
claim 13 for the same reasons as claim 11. Appeal Br. 25—26. For the
reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1—11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Written Description Rejection
Claims 1—11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Specifically, the Examiner finds “[tjhere is no written description of a
sufficiently definite structure corresponding to ‘object’ to achieve, e.g., the
function ‘hue selection.’” Non-Final Act. 20.
For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner reversibly erred in
finding Appellants’ Specification does not set forth sufficient structure for
8
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
performing the functions recited in claims 1,2, 11, and 13. Moreover,
claims 3—10 themselves recite structures, such as selection wheels and bars,
for performing the recited functions. These structures have written
description support in Appellants’ Specification, as discussed above with
regard to the interpretation under § 112, | 6 and the rejection under § 112, |
2.
In addition, the Examiner finds “the written description describes
features of the invention virtually entirely in terms of concepts and
functions,” “[t]he terms ‘color wheel’ ‘color circle’ and ‘color space’ are
commonly understood to denote concepts. . . .‘color’ is commonly
understood to refer to a human perception,” and “[tjhere is no written
description of a structure by which ‘color’ (or selectable color) is displayed
to an observer.” Non-Final Act. 20—21. The Examiner further finds a circle
is a geometric shape and “is not commonly understood to denote a structure”
and Appellants’ description of the invention’s use in other devices, such as
TV sets or a computer display, is unclear and does not provide structural
significance for the context of the claims. Non-Final Act. 21.
These findings are insufficient to support the first paragraph rejection.
The test for sufficiency of a written description is whether the disclosure
“‘clearly allow[s] persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the
inventor] invented what is claimed.’” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2010) (enbanc) (quoting Vas—Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562—63 (Fed.Cir.1991)). The Examiner’s
findings parse individual terms recited in the claims or disclosed in
Appellants’ Specification and adopt meanings for those terms without
determining whether one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize written
9
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
descriptive support for Appellants’ claimed invention, particularly in view of
how the invention is described in Appellants’ disclosure. For example, the
Examiner does not consider how a circle, such as in the form of a wheel, is
described in Appellants’ disclosure as an object that can be rotated, either
mechanically or as an object on a touchscreen, to vary hue, saturation, or
brightness. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1—11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement.
Obviousness Rejection of claims 1—3, 5 8, and 11
Claims 1—3, 5—8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tudor in view of Miyazaki. Appellants focus their
arguments on the rejection of claim 1, on the rejection of claims 5 and 7 as a
group, and provide additional arguments for claim 7. Appeal Br. 22—26.
We select claims 1, 5, and 7 as representative for deciding the issues on
appeal. The remaining claims under this rejection stand or fall with the
claim from which they depend.
Claim 1
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Appellants have identified
a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Tudor discloses a hue
selection object and a saturation selection object arranged to form a fixed
overlapping region, as recited in claim 1.
Appellants have not identified such an error.
The Examiner finds Tudor discloses a color selection input device
including a hue selection object representing selectable colors with a hue
gradation along a direction of the object, citing color band 14 of Tudor’s
disc 26, and a saturation selection object representing a selectable saturation
10
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
gradation along a direction of the object, citing color band 16 of Tudor’s
other discs. Non-Final Act. 26—27; Ans. 8, 9. The Examiner finds the discs
26, 28, and 30 overlap at band 14, citing an annotated copy of Figure 1 of
Tudor. Non-Final Act. 27; Ans. 9.
Appellants contend color bands 14, 16 are different regions of the
discs of Tudor and that bands 14, 16 do not overlap with each other. Appeal
Br. 23; Reply Br. 8—9. Appellants argue Tudor does not provide a region
where a hue selection band will overlap with a saturation selection band and
bands 14, 16 are instead regions where the discs vertically align so the three
colors of the discs may combine. Appeal Br. 23; Reply Br. 8—9.
Appellants’ arguments do not identify a reversible error. Although
the Examiner identifies band 14 as a hue selection object and band 16 as a
saturation selection object, the Examiner relies upon the overlap of the three
discs 26, 28, and 30 to support the rejection. Non-Final 26—28. The
findings regarding the overlapping discs support the Examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness. The Examiner’s findings in the Examiner’s Answer
illustrate how the color chart of Tudor includes the hue selection and
saturation selection structures corresponding to Appellants’ disclosure (e.g.,
mechanically rotatable discs), or equivalents thereof, for performing the
functions recited in claim 1. Figure 1 of Tudor is reproduced below.
11
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
it?
Figure 1 is a plan view of a component of Tudor’s color harmony chart.
Tudor discloses a color harmony chart including an outer color band
14 divided into segments of varying saturation (i.e., of increasing saturation
in a clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 1) and an inner color band 16
also divided into segments of varying saturation in an opposite direction
relative to band 14 (i.e., in a counterclockwise direction, as depicted in
Figure 1). Tudor col. 2,11. 41—71. Thus, saturation varies in a
circumferential direction within each band 14, 16.
The color harmony chart includes three monochromatic discs (i.e.,
yellow, red, and blue) superimposed upon one another, as shown in Figure 2
of Tudor, which is reproduced below.
Figure 2 is a sectional view of the color harmony chart.
12
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
Tudor discloses disc 26 may be a yellow disc, disc 28 a red disc, and
disc 30 a blue disc, which each vary in saturation, as shown in Figure 1, and
are joined via a central pin 32 so they may be rotated relative to each other
to produce various colors in one of the bands 14 and 16 and a
complementary color in the other of bands 14 and 16. Tudor col. 3,11. 48—
52, col. 4,11. 40-44. Therefore, discs 26, 28, 30 are mechanical rotation
discs and have the same structure as the mechanical rotation wheels
Appellants disclose8 as structure for performing the functions recited in
claim 1, or are at least equivalents thereof.
There is no dispute that each of the discs 26, 28, 30 include both hue
gradation and saturation gradation. Appeal Br. 23—24; Reply Br. 8—9.
Because the discs overlap, the hue selection object of one disc overlaps the
saturation selection object of the other two discs.
When arguing Tudor does not disclose “hue and saturation wheels
overlapping in a fixed region,” Appellants state “the Tudor reference shows
a single wheel that includes both hue and saturation.” Appeal Br. 22
(emphasis added). More specifically, Appellants state “[i]n contrast,
Tudor’s single wheel that includes hue gradations and saturation gradations
fails to read on the two distinct selection objects that are recited in the
present claims” because there is no region in which a hue selection band
overlaps with a saturation selection band. Reply Br. 8 (emphasis added).
By concentrating on a single disc, Appellants overlook the Examiner’s
findings with regard to the multiple discs. As correctly determined by the
Examiner, claim 1 does not require a hue selection object to represent only
hue gradation and the saturation selection object to represent only saturation
8 Spec. p. 4,11. 27-29.
13
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
gradation. Ans. 7. There is no dispute that each disc of Tudor includes both
a hue selection object with hue gradation and a saturation selection object
with saturation gradation. Thus, the overlapping discs of Tudor have
overlapping regions that read on the overlapping regions of claim 1.
This is further illustrated in an example disclosed by Tudor. Tudor
discloses pure yellow color is obtained by rotating the yellow disc 26 so its
sector of maximum saturation in the outer band 14 (i.e., tone 9 in Figure 1)
is superimposed at that location along a vertical direction (i.e., the vertical
direction shown in Figure 2) with segments having zero tone (i.e., zero
saturation, as depicted for tone 0 of outer band 14 in Figure 1) for the red
disc 28 and the blue disc 30. Tudor col. 4,11. 7—20. In other words, a viewer
looking at the color chart will observe pure yellow at that location due to the
superimposition of the particular sectors of discs 26, 28, 30 along the
vertical direction. Due to this alignment of the discs, a complementary color
for the pure yellow, deep purple, will be visible in the radially adjacent
sector within the inner band 16 because the red disc 28 and the blue disc 30
will each have maximum saturation (i.e., tone 0 for inner band 16) at that
location and the yellow disc 26 will have zero saturation (i.e., tone 9 for
inner band 16). Tudor col. 4,11. 14—20.
As for the fixed overlapping region recited in claim 1, any of the
radial sectors of Tudor in either of the bands (i.e., any of tones 0-9 of outer
band 14 or any of tones 0—9 of inner band 16 depicted in Figure 1) may
serve as a fixed overlapping region. In Tudor’s example, the complementary
color, deep purple, is produced at a location within a band (e.g., within band
16 in Tudor’s example) because each of the red disc 28 and the blue disc 30
has maximum saturation at the location and the yellow disc 26 has zero
14
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
saturation at the same location. Any of the discs 26, 28, 30 functions as a
hue selection object, as recited in claim 1, because rotation of any disc
relative to the others will alter the hue from deep purple to another color at
that location. In addition, any of the discs 26, 28, 30 functions as a
saturation selection object, as recited in claim 1, because each of the discs
26, 28, 30 has saturation gradation along a circumferential direction within
bands 14 and 16, due to the gradation of saturation (i.e., tone) depicted in
Figure 1. Even the yellow disc 26, which has zero saturation at the location
where deep purple is produced, functions as a saturation selection object, as
recited in claim 1.
Therefore, Appellants’ argument that Tudor does not disclose or
suggest a hue selection object and a saturation object arranged to form a
fixed overlapping region, as recited in claim 1, does not identify a reversible
error.
Claims 5 and 7
Claim 5 depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1, and
further recites, among other things, “wherein the hue selection object and the
saturation selection object are implemented by respective selection wheels.”
Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 34. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and
includes the same recitation as claim 5.
Appellants argue the above recitation in claims 5 and 7 requires
distinct, separate wheels. Appeal Br. 25; Reply Br. 9. This argument does
not direct us to a reversible error in view of how the separate, distinct discs
26, 28, 30 of Tudor’s color chart function, as described above.
15
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites, among other things,
“wherein one of the selection wheels has a smaller diameter than the other
selection wheel.” Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 34.
Appellants argue the discs of Tudor have the same diameter and
therefore do not disclose or suggest a disc having a smaller diameter than
another disc. Appeal Br. 25. Appellants’arguments are persuasive. The
Examiner does not find that any of the discs 26, 28, 30 of Tudor have a
different diameter than another (one cannot say the bands 14, 16 provide
different diameters because they are merely different regions of discs 26, 28,
30) and the Examiner does not provide any rationale for modifying any of
Tudor’s discs so one has a smaller diameter.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim
7 over Tudor and Miyazazki.
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 4, 9, and 10
For claims 4, 9, and 10, Appellants merely reiterate the arguments set
forth in support of the patentability of claim 1 and contend Greenewalt and
Heifer do not remedy the deficiencies of the references applied in the
rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 26—30 and Reply Br. 9—10. For the reasons
set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that
require curing by Greenewalt or Heifer.
DECISION
On the record before us, we:
A. do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—11
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement; and
16
Appeal 2016-002860
Application 12/863,201
B. do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—11
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite;
C. sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8,
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tudor in view
of Miyazaki;
D. do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tudor in view of Miyazaki;
E. sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tudor in view of Miyazaki
and further in view of Greenewalt; and
F. sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tudor in view of Miyazaki and
further in view of Heifer.
We affirm-in-part the decision of the Examiner to reject the claims.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17