Ex Parte Yadav

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2017

12415832 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 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.
12/415,832 03/31/2009 Shekhar Yadav 011653-5005-US 3328
43850 7590 10/26/2017
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (SF)
One Market, Spear Street Tower, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94105
EXAMINER
COLBERT, ELLA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2017 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):
sfipdocketing @ morganlewis.com
donald.mixon@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHEKHAR YADAV
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,8321
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shekhar Yadav (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 1—3, 12, and 16—72. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellant identifies Strongview Systems, Inc., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method of optimizing a response of a computer based digital
message campaign using computer based processing, the method
comprising:
(A) electronically accessing a first plurality of digital message
addresses of a first plurality of targeted recipients from one or more
data structures containing digital message addresses of said first
plurality of targeted recipients;
(B) creating a first plurality of digital messages, each digital
message in the first plurality of digital messages comprising a
plurality of elements independently selected from a library of
elements based on one or more campaign rules, wherein
a first digital message in the first plurality of digital messages
comprises a first plurality of elements independently selected from the
library of elements based upon the one or more campaign rules for the
computer based digital message campaign,
a second digital message in the first plurality of digital
messages comprises a second plurality of elements independently
selected from the library of elements based upon the one or more
campaign rules, and
at least one element in the first plurality of elements is not in
the second plurality of elements or at least one element in the second
plurality of elements is not in the first plurality of elements;
(C) sending said first plurality of digital messages from a server
over an electronic network to said first plurality of digital message
addresses of said first plurality of targeted recipients, wherein
said first digital message is sent to a first digital message
address in said first plurality of digital message addresses, and
said second digital message is sent to a second digital message
address in said first plurality of digital message addresses,
2
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
(D) electronically tracking at least one selected response event
occurring after said first plurality of digital messages is sent to said
first plurality of digital message addresses of said first plurality of
targeted recipients;
(E) segmenting the library of elements based upon one or more
relationships between (i) differences in usages of elements in the first
plurality of digital messages and (ii) the at least one selected response
event, thereby discovering a relationship result;
(F) modifying, without human intervention, at least one of the
one or more campaign rules based upon the relationship result;
(G) electronically accessing a second plurality of digital
message addresses of a second plurality of targeted recipients from
one or more data structures containing digital message addresses of
said second plurality of targeted recipients;
(H) creating a second plurality of digital messages, each digital
message in the second plurality of digital messages comprising a
plurality of elements independently selected from the library of
elements based on the one or more campaign rules as modified by the
modifying (F); and
(I) sending said second plurality of digital messages from a
server over an electronic network to said second plurality of digital
message addresses of said second plurality of targeted recipients,
wherein
the relationship result is a correlation between (i) the usage of a
first combination of elements in the first plurality of digital messages,
the first combination of elements comprising a first element and a
second element, and (ii) performance in the selected response event,
wherein the relationship result is used to establish a correlation
between the first and second element; and
the modifying (F) comprises modifying a campaign rule in the
one or more campaign rules based on the correlation between the first
and second elements so that the campaign rule specifies a new
frequency of incorporation of the first combination of elements in a
plurality of digital messages, wherein the new frequency is higher or
lower than an original frequency of incorporation of the first
3
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
combination of elements in a plurality of digital messages specified by
the campaign rule before the modifying (F), thereby causing the first
combination of elements to be present in a higher or lower percentage
of the second plurality of digital messages than in the first plurality of
digital messages.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Phelan et al.,
Warded
Thomas
Chang et al.,
US 2004/0093296 Al
US 2006/0047563 Al
US 2006/0253537 Al
US 2008/0281627 Al
May 13,2004;
hereinafter
“Phelan”
Mar. 2, 2006
Nov. 9, 2006
Nov. 13, 2008;
hereinafter
“Chang”
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1—3, 12, and 16—722 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non—statutory subject matter. (Ans. 104—108).
2. Claims 1—3, 16—21, 28, 29, 32—35, and 37—72 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas and Chang.
(Ans. 3-84).
3. Claims 12, 22—27, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thomas, Chang, and Warded. (Ans. 84—102).
2 Herein, we refer to the Specification filed Jan. 31, 2009 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action mailed June 3, 2014 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Feb. 3,
2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 17, 2015 (“Ans.”);
and the Reply Brief filed Aug. 17, 2015 (“Reply Br”).
4
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
4. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Thomas, Chang, Warded, and Phelan. (Ans. 102—104).
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—3, 12, and 16—72 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non—statutory subject matter?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—3, 16—21, 28, 29, 32—35,
and 37—72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas and
Chang?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 12, 22—27, 30, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas, Chang, and
Warded?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Thomas, Chang, Warded, and Phelan?
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1—3, 12, and 16—72 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non—statutory subject matter.
The Appellant argued these claims as a group. See Reply Br. 6—13.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 2, 3, 12, and 16—72 stand or fad with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Alice Corp. Proprietary Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct.
2347 (2014) identifies a two-step framework for determining whether
claimed subject matter is judicially-excepted from patent-eligibility under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
5
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to [a] patent-ineligible concepts],” such as an
abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
In that regard, the Examiner determined that
[c]laim(s) 1—3, 12, 16—53, 60—66, and 72 are directed to a method,
claims 54, 56, 57, 67, and 69 are directed to a computer program
product, and claims 55, 58,59, 68,70, and 71 are directed to a system
and series of steps for optimizing a computer based digital message
campaign ... which is a fundamental economic practice, as well as a
method of mathematical formulas/relationships (algorithms) and
organizing human activities, and thus an abstract idea of optimizing a
digital message campaign and providing for target population
discovery and/or validation based on an evaluation of user activity.
Additionally, the courts have recognized similarly directed claims of
the use of a computer employed for the performance of calculations
(Bancorp), using a computer to send and receive information
(buySAFE), and transmitting information (Cyberphone [sic,
Cyberfone]) all are directed to abstract ideas. Also, the steps of the
claims could be performed through the use of organized human
activities given enough time. ... Additionally, the claims are directed
to an abstract idea of optimizing a digital message campaign and
providing for target population discovery and/or validation based on
an evaluation of user activity ....
Ans. 105-107.
The Appellant does not appear to dispute the Examiner’s
characterization of the claimed concept as being directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's
determination under step one of Alice that the claims are directed to an
abstract idea.
Step two is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
6
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
concept] itself.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72—
73).
In that regard, the Examiner determined
[t]he claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the
claims do not provide improvements to another technology or
technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer
itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general
linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological
environment. ... [Additional generic computer elements
(Specification—page 13, line 18—page 16, line 8 and Fig. 3) [ ] do not
add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no
more than a generic computer, a network, and software to perform
generic computer, network, and software functions that are well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to
the industry.
Ans. 107.
The Appellant argues that
[e]ven if the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea as
apparently alleged in the Examiner's Answer —which is not conceded
— the pending claims would still be patentable because they do not
preempt essentially all uses of the abstract idea. Instead, the pending
claims: (1) improve the function of delivering digital message
campaigns, (2) add limitations other than what is well-understood,
routine and conventional in the field; and (3) amount to significantly
more than the (alleged) abstract idea itself. See Alice Guidelines at
74624 (parenthetical added).
Reply Br. 7. In an effort to show that claim 1 on appeal is patent-eligible,
claim 1 is compared to claim 2 of Example 21 of the July 2015
Update Appendix 1 of the 2014 Interim Guidance Matter Eligibility,
which was found to be patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Google
Inc. v. Simpleair, Inc., Covered Business Method Case No. CBM
2014—00170 (Jan. 22, 2015) (hereinafter "Example 21").
7
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
Id. For doing so, a table is provided that corresponds the limitations of
claim 1 and those of claim 2 of Example 21. Ans. 7—10 and 10—12.
Claim 2 of Example 21 of the July 2015 Update Appendix 1 of the
2014 Interim Guidance Matter Eligibility is not a strong basis for arguing
that claim 1 on appeal is patent-eligible.
First, claim 2 of Example 21 is a hypothetical claim, not an actual
claim present in US 7,035,914 B1 that was at issue in Google Inc. v.
Simpleair, Inc., Covered Business Method Case No. CBM 2014-00170 (Jan.
22, 2015).
Second, contrary to the Appellant's statement, the Board did not hold
a claim like claim 2 of Example 21, or any claim in US 7,035,914 B1 for
that matter, patent-eligible as a matter of law. Rather, the Board found that
the Petitioner had not "shown sufficiently that claims 1—3, 7, and 22—24 [of
US 7,035,914 Bl] are more likely than not unpatentable as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101." Id. at 16.
("Petitioner’s generalized arguments, not directed to the specific language of
the challenged claims, are insufficient to show that the claims more likely
than not are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.")
Third, be that as it may, claim 2 of Example 21 is not comparable to
what is claimed. Claim 2 of Example 21 includes the limitation
“[an] alert [which] activates [a] stock viewer application to cause the stock
quote alert to display on the remote subscriber computer and to enable
connection via the URL to the data source over the Internet when the
wireless device is locally connected to the remote subscriber computer and
8
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
the remote subscriber computer comes online.” Claim 1 on appeal contains
no comparable limitation.
Fourth, reliance on examples in USPTO guidance is problematic at
best. The Board decides cases in accordance with the law, not in accordance
with hypothetical “examples [ ] intended to be illustrative only” (page 1 of
July 2015 Update).
Finally, with regard to the law, we note that the Examiner cited three
decisions showing that “the courts have recognized similarly directed claims
... are directed to abstract ideas” (Ans. 107): Bancorp Servs., L.L.C., v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012); BuySAFE, Inc.
v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and, Cyberfone Sys., LLC v.
CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(nonprecedential). This is consistent with the current decisional mechanism
courts now apply. See Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841
F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Instead of a definition [for what an
‘abstract idea’ encompasses], then, the decisional mechanism courts now
apply is to examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive
nature can be seen—what prior cases were about, and which way they were
decided.”) The Appellant has not addressed these decisions.
The question is not whether claim 1 is similar to a hypothetical claim
the USPTO might consider to be patent-eligible but whether claim 1
includes an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the
claim 1 subject matter in practice amounts to significantly more than to be
about the abstract idea that the Examiner determined the claim to be directed
to (i.e., "optimizing a digital message campaign and providing for target
9
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
population discovery and/or validation based on an evaluation of user
activity").
More specifically, the question is whether the claims as a whole
“focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology”
or are “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely
invoke[s] generic processes and machinery.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It is “relevant to ask
whether the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality
versus being directed to an abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice
analysis.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
The Appellant argues that "claim 1 solves a problem that is
necessarily rooted in computer technology." Reply Br. 12. "[T]he claim
solves an Internet-centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily
rooted in computer technology, similar to the additional elements in DDR
Holdings." Reply Br. 12.
However, claim 1 calls for using a "computer," and provides no
further details. Reasonably broadly construed, the computer technology
recited in claim 1 covers generic computers. And the tasks recited in claim 1
— such as accessing addresses, creating a message, sending a message from a
server over a network to addresses, and tracking responses — are common
computer functions. “Taking the claim elements separately, the function
performed by the computer at each step of the process is ‘ [p]urely
conventional.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (citingMayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298).
10
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
The Specification supports the view that the method of claim 1 uses
conventional generic systems. See the BACKGROUND OF THE
INVENTION (Specification 1—6) which describes conventional computer
systems employed by the invention.
The Specification does not adequately support the Appellant's
argument that the invention solves a computer problem. The invention is
disclosed as seeking to optimize "the success of an e-mail campaign" while
still using the same computer technology already known in the art. See
Specification 6:2. Computer technology is used but it is not the heart of the
claimed invention. The heart of the claimed invention is a scheme for
improving the informational content that is otherwise conventionally
electronically communicated. Cf. Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Erie
Indemnity Company, 850 F.3d 1315, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("the heart of the
claimed invention lies in creating and using an index to search for and
retrieve data ... an abstract concept.") In fact, that is what the Appellant
actually discusses; i.e., the scheme rather than computer technology. (See
Reply Br. 12—13.) The Appellant reproduces steps recited in claim 1 which
when performed, in part, correlates the response to a first plurality of digital
messages with elements and discovers a relationship result and modifies a
rule based on it; in addition, it segments a library of elements based on the
relationship result, and creates a second plurality of digital messages with
elements selected from the library based on the modified rule. But this
scheme does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of "optimizing a
digital message campaign and providing for target population discovery
11
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
and/or validation based on an evaluation of user activity" (Ans. 106—107).
The abstract idea does not become any less abstract.
The record does not adequately support the Appellant's argument that
claim 1 "recites additional limitations that when considered as an ordered
combination demonstrates a technologically rooted solution to an Internet-
centric problem and thus amounts to significantly more than comparing and
organizing information for transmission.” Reply Br. 13. Neither the plain
terms of the claim nor claim 1 as a whole in light of the Specification
supports the Appellant's view that the claim 1 recites additional limitations
for solving a problem that is necessarily rooted in computer technology.
“Considered ‘as an ordered combination,’ the computer components of
petitioner’s method ‘ad[d] nothing . . . that is not already present when the
steps are considered separately.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. See also Enfish,
LLCv. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335—36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("whether
the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”) Cf. Credit Acceptance
Corp. v. Westlake Services, LLC, 859 F3d. 1044, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2017):
Significantly, the claims do not provide details as to any non—
conventional software for enhancing the financing process.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that “[o]ur law demands more” than
claim language that “provides only a result-oriented solution, with
insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it”); Elec. Power
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 [Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]; (explaining that claims are directed
to an abstract idea where they do not recite “any particular assertedly
inventive technology for performing [conventional] functions”).
12
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
Because the Appellant has not persuasively shown claim 1 includes an
element or an ordered combination of elements sufficient to ensure that
claim 1 in practice amounts to significantly more than to be on an abstract
idea, the rejection is sustained.
The rejection of claims 1—3, 16—21, 28, 29, 32—35, and 37—72 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas and Chang.
The Appellant argues that independent claims 1, 50, 54—55, and 60,
and consequently dependent claims 2—3, 32—35, 37-48, 61, 63, 67—68, and
72 as well, include, a claim limitation involving a “ relationship result”
which Thomas does not disclose as the Examiner alleges. App. Br. 54. We
agree.
Independent claim 1 recites that the relationship result “is a
correlation between (i) [a] usage of a first combination of elements in the
first plurality of digital messages, [a] first combination of elements
comprising a first element and a second element, and (ii) performance in [a]
selected response event," and “is used to establish a correlation” between the
first and second elements (claim 1). The Examiner found said claim
limitation disclosed in paras. 13—15, 19, 22—27, and 68—71 of Thomas. Final
Act. 11. Said passages are reproduced in the Appeal Brief at pages 55—59.
According to the Examiner,
Note: Thomas specifically teaches: "This is accomplished by
constantly comparing observed conversion or other response statistics
Tor messages with different message or content elements against a
database oTrules that indicates at what threshold changes or version
substitutions need to be made. Alternatively the system can use
software algorithms to alter message or content elements
dynamically, measure conversion or other response statistics and
13
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
make decisions on changing message or content elements or switch
versions [0022]... Modification of the content will automatically occur
when the rules based software detects selected conversion events
reaching a prescribed threshold or comparing conversion events
among selected recipients. At step 107, the email server sends the
modified marketing message in an email to recipients in other
portions of the list [0070]." Thus is teaching a relationship that can
be established based on one or more elements — correlation between
the first and second element in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Ans. 11.
We have reviewed said cited passages, but do not find there, the claim
limitation at issue.
The Examiner reasons that Thomas "teach[es] a relationship that can
be established based on one or more elements [and a] correlation between
the first and second element [given the claim's] broadest reasonable
interpretation" (Ans. 11).
But this is a matter of speculation. Also, the question is not whether
Thomas discloses a relationship based on one or more elements and a
correlation between a first and second element. The question is whether one
of ordinary skill in the art given Thomas would have been led to use a
relationship result to establish a correlation between a first and second
element, where the "relationship result is a correlation between (i) [a] usage
of a first combination of elements in the first plurality of digital messages,
[a] first combination of elements comprising a first element and a second
element, and (ii) performance in [a] selected response event" (claim 1). This
has not been established by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly,
a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter has not been
14
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
established in the first instance and thus the rejection of claims 1—3, 32—35,
37-48, 50, 54—55, 60, 61, 63, 67—68, and 72 is not sustained.
The Appellant argues that independent claims 16, 19, 49, 51—53, and
56—59, and consequently dependent claims 17—18, 20-21, 28—29, 62, 64—66,
and 69—71 as well, include, in part, the claim limitation
determining whether (i) a variation in the presence or absence of a
first element across the first plurality of digital messages and (ii) a
variation in the performance of the at least one selected response
event across the first plurality of targeted recipients are correlated
conditional on a variation in the one or more demographics across the
first plurality of targeted recipients,
which the cited prior art does not disclose as the Examiner alleges. App. Br.
60. We agree.
The Examiner cites paras. 13—27 and 68—72 of Thomas as disclosing
ah that the claim limitation describes but for "demographics" for which
Chang is relied upon. Ans. 17—18. "Chang teaches to using demographics
as a limiter in optimizing email advertising or marketing [See 0006-0015,
0021-0030]." Ans. 16.
We agree with the Appellant that ""teaching demographics as a
limiting factor" is very different from determining whether a variation of
[sic, the first] variable and a variation of a second variable are correlated
conditional on the variation of one or more demographics." App. Br. 62.
Modifying Thomas to use demographics as a limiter in optimizing email
advertising or marketing as Chang discloses would not have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to make a correlation as claimed "conditional on a
variation in the one or more demographics across the first plurality of
targeted recipients" (claim 16).
15
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
The rejection of claims 16—21, 28, 29, 49, 51—53, 56—59, 62, 64—66,
and 69—71 is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 12, 22—27, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thomas, Chang, and Warded.
The rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Thomas, Chang, Warded, and Phelan.
Independent claims 22 and 25 include limitations to making a
correlation "conditional on a variation in the one or more demographics
across the first plurality of targeted recipients." Their rejection is not
sustained for the same reason discussed above in not sustaining the rejection
of, for example, claim 16. The other claims here rejected are dependent
claims. Their rejection is not sustained for the reasons given in not
sustaining the rejections of the corresponding independent claims from
which they depend.
CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 1—3, 12, and 16—72 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non—statutory subject matter is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1—3, 16—21, 28, 29, 32—35, and 37—72 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas and Chang is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 12, 22—27, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas, Chang, and Warded is
reversed.
16
Appeal 2015-007596
Application 12/415,832
The rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thomas, Chang, Warded, and Phelan is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—3, 12, and 16—72 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
17