16589283 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2020)

Firebird Sprinkler Company LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 12, 2020

16589283 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2020)

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. 16/589,283 10/01/2019 Jeffrey J. Pigeon FIREBIRD-P0011I1I1C1 1904 103460 7590 11/12/2020 Endurance Law Group, PLC 133 W. Michigan Ave Suite 10 Jackson, MI 49201 EXAMINER BOECKMANN, JASON J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/12/2020 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): Docketing@endurancelaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com jshack@endurancelaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JEFFREY J. PIGEON ____________ Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13–17 and 20–22.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A telephonic oral hearing was held October 8, 2020.3 We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as “Firebird Sprinkler Company LLC and inventor Jeffrey J. Pigeon.” Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 1–12, 18, and 19 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 41–44 (Claims App.). 3 The record includes a transcript of the oral hearing. Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 13, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below. 13. A method for protecting a storage area with multiple orientations of fire sprinklers, said method comprising the steps of: identifying elongated narrow flue formations within the storage area through which hot combustion gases will be naturally channeled in the event of fire, the flues being arranged parallel to one another within the storage area, suspending at least one water supply line in the storage area, fluidically connecting a side-discharge fire sprinkler to the at least one supply line, the side-discharge fire sprinkler being configured to cast a spray of liquid water exclusively over a non- circular side coverage area located substantially laterally to one side of the side-discharge fire sprinkler, the non-circular side coverage area being defined by a major diameter (L2) and a shorter minor diameter (W2), positioning the side-discharge fire sprinkler so that the major diameter (L2) of its noncircular side coverage area is parallel to and overlaps at least one flue, fluidically connecting a vertical-discharge fire sprinkler to the at least one supply line, the vertical-discharge fire sprinkler being configured to cast a spray of liquid water exclusively over a vertical coverage area located substantially below the vertical- discharge fire sprinkler, locating the vertical-discharge fire sprinkler adjacent the side-discharge fire sprinkler so that the vertical coverage area overlaps the non-circular side coverage area, whereby when concurrently activated the side-discharge fire sprinkler will cast an elongated spray of water that penetrates the deep interior regions of at least one flue with spot density and the vertical-discharge fire sprinkler will cast an overlapping spray of water that wets and displaces air with inert water vapor to form a combined multi-orientation wetting zone. Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 3 EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Loepsinger US 1,667,425 Apr. 24, 1928 Polan US 5,669,449 Sept. 23, 1997 Pigeon US 2008/0202773 A1 Aug. 28, 2008 REJECTIONS I. Claims 13–17 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Polan and Pigeon. Final Act. 2–5. II. Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Polan, Pigeon, and Loepsinger. Id. at 5–6. OPINION Claims 13–15 and 22 Appellant argues claims 13–15 and 22 as a group. Appeal Br. 11–37. We select claim 13 as the representative claim, and claims 14, 15, and 22 stand or fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that Polan teaches most of the limitations of independent claim 13, including, among other things, the step of “fluidically connecting a side-discharge fire sprinkler to . . . at least one supply line, the side-discharge fire sprinkler being configured to cast a spray of liquid water exclusively over a non-circular side coverage area located substantially laterally to one side of the side-discharge fire sprinkler,” as claimed. Final Act. 2–3. In particular, the Examiner takes the position that “sprinkler 10 [as illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6] is . . . considered a side[-]discharge sprinkler because it discharges fluid out of its side.” Id. at 2. The Examiner further Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 4 takes the position in the Answer that “[t]he claim does not require the side discharge sprinkler to have any specific structure that prevents the [E]xaminer from using sprinkler 10 of Polan to read on the claimed side discharge sprinkler.” Ans. 3. More particularly, the Examiner states that “[s]prinkler 10 of Polan will exclusively cast a spray of liquid water over a non-circular side coverage area” and “[t]hat side coverage area will be located substantially laterally to one side of the fire sprinkler because as shown in [F]igure 3, sprinkler 10 sprays out to the side.” Id. at 4. The Examiner takes the position that “[A]ppellant’s [S]pecification does not define the side discharge fire sprinkler to . . . spray fluid to one side and not the other side.” Id. The Examiner also explains that Polan’s sprinkler 10 provides “a non- circular side coverage area . . . located substantially laterally to one side of the side-discharge fire sprinkler, the non-circular side coverage area being defined by a major diameter (L2) and a shorter minor diameter (W2)” and is positioned “so that the major diameter (L2) of its non-circular side coverage area is parallel to and overlaps at least one flue.” Final Act. 3 (citing Polan 6:55–65, 7:3, Fig. 6). The Examiner acknowledges that Polan “fails to specifically disclose the steps of fluidically connecting a vertical-discharge fire sprinkler to the at least one supply line . . . , locating the vertical-discharge fire sprinkler adjacent the side-discharge fire sprinkler so that the vertical coverage area [of the vertical-discharge sprinkler] overlaps the non-circular side coverage area [of the side-discharge sprinkler].” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that “Pigeon teaches mounting vertical discharge fire sprinklers (10) in between parallel beams or in a flue.” Id. (citing Pigeon Figs. 3, 4). The Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 5 Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to add the vertical fire sprinklers 10 of Pigeon to the water supply line of Polan, and have them located in each of the flues adjacent the side-discharge fire sprinklers of Polan.” Id. The Examiner indicates that “[t]he [E]xaminer is locating the additional sprinkler [of Pigeon] somewhere along pipe 60 between the rafters 74 as shown in [Polan’s] [F]igure 6.” Ans. 5; see also Pigeon Fig. 3 (illustrating fire sprinklers 10, 30 along a supply line in between rafters of a structure); see also Appeal Br. 26 (“The placement of a Pigeon vertical- discharge sprinkler on a branch line . . . would be the most likely choice for a PHOSITA [(person having ordinary skill in the art)]. As shown in Pigeon’s Figure 4, Pigeon clusters vertical-discharge sprinklers along branch lines.”). The Examiner determines that the inclusion of Pigeon’s vertical- discharge fire sprinklers “would allow for the sprinkler system to spray fire extinguishing fluid below the fire sprinkler system in the patter[n] as shown in [F]ig[.] 4 of Pigeon and to increase the amount of water provided per unit time.” Final Act. 3. As to (i) the vertical coverage area of the vertical-discharge fire sprinkler overlapping the non-circular side coverage area of the side- discharge fire sprinklers and (ii) the vertical-discharge fire sprinkler being located adjacent to the side-discharge fire sprinklers, as claimed, the Examiner takes the position that (i) the coverage areas of Polan “cover the entire area in the storage area” such that the coverage provided by the added vertical discharge sprinkler “must overlap the side discharge sprinkler’s non- circular coverage areas” and (ii) “if the vertical sprinklers are added in the storage area then they must be adjacent or in close proximity to the side discharge sprinklers that are already installed.” Final Act. 6. Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 6 Appellant argues that Polan’s bi-directional sprinklers “do not satisfy the [c]laim 13 definition of a side-discharge sprinkler, as they are not configured to cast spray exclusively . . . substantially laterally to one side.” Appeal Br. 19.4 Appellant has not persuaded us that Polan’s bi-directional sprinklers cannot satisfy the requirements of a claimed side-discharge sprinkler. Rather than reciting that the claimed side-discharge sprinkler is configured to cast spray exclusively substantially laterally to one side, as alleged by Appellant, claim 13 actually recites that the sprinkler is configured to cast spray “exclusively over a non-circular side coverage area located substantially laterally to one side of the side-discharge fire sprinkler.” Appeal Br. 43 (Claims App.). In other words, the sprinkler exclusively casts spray over a non-circular side coverage area that is located substantially laterally to one side. Polan’s bi-directional sprinklers 10 exclusively cast spray over a first non-circular side coverage area and a second non-circular side coverage area, each non-circular side coverage area located substantially laterally to one side of the side-discharge fire sprinkler. See, e.g., Polan Fig. 6. Appellant next argues that Polan’s bi-directional sprinklers are each confined to respective regions of the attic which means by themselves none could ‘cover all the area in the storage room.’” Appeal Br. 19 (italics omitted). We understand the Examiner’s rejection to be premised on each of Polan’s bi-directional sprinklers providing a spray coverage area on both 4 Appellant’s arguments relating to Polan’s side-discharge sprinklers 610 (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 19, 25–26) have been considered, but are not persuasive of Examiner error because they are not responsive to the rejection articulated by the Examiner. Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 7 sides of center beam 72 (coextensive with water supply line 60), with the elliptical coverage area on each side of center beam 72 ultimately extending between adjacent joists 74, which are secured to center beam 72. Polan Fig. 6; Final Act. 6. With such a coverage area, Appellant has not explained adequately how the inclusion of Pigeon’s vertical-discharge sprinklers along water supply line 60 between adjacent joists 74, as articulated by the Examiner, would fail to provide a vertical coverage area having at least some overlap with the non-circular side coverage area of Polan’s bi- directional sprinklers 10. Appellant then argues that Polan’s teaching to space bi-directional sprinklers at least 4 feet apart in order to prevent cold solder failure (i.e., “when water spray from a first-activated sprinkler splashes onto the trigger of a nearby unactuated sprinkler retarding its ability to sense heat”) (Appeal Br. 22), along with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards that suggest a minimum spacing of 6 feet between standard pendant and upright spray sprinklers (considering that Pigeon’s sprinkler is “unlisted/conceptual” and is not specifically addressed in the NFPA Standards), would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to avoid placing Pigeon’s vertical discharge sprinklers adjacent to Polan’s bi-directional sprinklers 10. Id. at 20–25, 30–32 (citing Polan 13:7–10, 15:55–60, 16:7–11 and NFPA Standards 13 Section 8.6.3.4.1). Pigeon, however, discloses “an improved fire sprinkler that reduces or eliminates the risk of cold soldering” (Pigeon ¶ 5) by including a deflector 16 that “accomplish[es] the function of reducing or eliminating the risk of cold soldering in any suitable method or design” (id. ¶ 17) and/or thermal insulator 32 that “functions to further reduce or eliminate the risk of cold Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 8 soldering” (id. ¶ 19). In other words, Pigeon is explicitly concerned with providing sprinklers that enable adjacent sprinklers to be located close to each other, while still reducing or eliminating the risk of cold soldering. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from placing Pigeon’s vertical discharge sprinklers along the supply line between rafters and adjacent to Polan’s bi-directional sprinklers for spraying fire extinguishing fluid below the fire sprinkler system in the pattern as shown in Figure 4 of Pigeon and/or to increase the amount of water provided per unit of time. Moreover, as to the NFPA Standards, the Examiner “also notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would not need to follow any standards or guidelines to simply add an additional sprinkler to an existing sprinkler system” and “[n]owhere in the claims do they require the system to meet a specific standard.” Ans. 6. Appellant also argues that if a person having ordinary skill in the art wanted to spray fire extinguishing fluid below the fire sprinkler system, “Polan directs them to the embodiments of bi-directional sprinklers [410], [510][,] or [710], all of which are designed with an integral down-spray feature[].” Appeal Br. 27. Appellant further argues that if a person having ordinary skill in the art wanted to “increase the amount of water provided per unit of time, Polan directs them to increase the size of the sprinkler body (i.e., increase its ‘K-factor’) or add a pressure boosting pump.” Id. (citing Polan 11:6–17). Consequently, Appellant queries “[w]hy would a PHOSITA look outside of Polan for a different solution to increase the amount of water provided per unit of time?” Id. In our view, Polan’s disclosure of other ways to (i) provide a downwardly-directed spray and/or (ii) increase an amount of water provided per unit time does not prevent the Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 9 Examiner’s stated reasoning (Final Act. 3) from lacking rational underpinnings. Appellant also argues that “the lack of any explanation why a PHOSITA would ignore or reject Polan’s intrinsic teachings to add Pigeon’s vertical-discharge sprinklers strongly suggests an impermissible use of a hindsight reconstruction” (Appeal Br. 28) and that “the only teaching of locating separately triggered side- and vertical-discharge sprinklers so that their coverage areas overlap in a multi-orientation wetting zone comes from the Appellant’s disclosure” (id. at 26). Appellant’s hindsight argument is unavailing because it does not identify adequately any flaw in the articulated reasoning for combining Polan and Pigeon (Final Act. 3), nor point to any knowledge relied on by the Office that was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”). That no single reference discloses separately triggered side- and vertical- discharge sprinklers is not dispositive as to the obviousness of such subject matter based on a combination of Polan and Pigeon in accordance with the reasoning articulated by the Examiner. As noted by the Examiner, “the fact that the motivation comes from outside the Polan reference has no bearing on whether or not it is a proper motivation to support an obviousness rejection.” Ans. 6; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 10 (2007) (“Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.”). Appellant next argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Polan and Pigeon in that “[t]he amount of water that can be distributed is limited by the size of the supply line and its pressure source.” Appeal Br. 29–30. That is, Appellant argues that “[a]dding sprinklers to Polan’s professionally designed/installed fire suppression system, without further adding a pressure boosting pump, will only cause a fatal pressure drop” and also that “Polan is singularly focused on the goal of projected sprays to wet sloped ceiling flues” and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not “expect that success would result from adding Pigeon’s water-robbing vertical-discharge sprinklers to Polan’s system.” Id. at 30. In our view, Appellant’s argument itself suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to add a pressure boosting pump so as to achieve an increased amount of water over time without suffering a fatal pressure drop. The Examiner also takes the position that “adding an additional sprinkler(s) of Pigeon would clearly result in more water provided per unit time” and “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would know how to modify the combined system to provide the proper amount of fluid to pipe 60 to get the desired spray patterns from each sprinklers 10 of Polan and those added from Pigeon.” Ans. 6–7. Appellant has not persuaded us otherwise. Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 11 We have also considered Appellant’s argument that “[t]he claimed invention achieves greater hydraulic efficiency (i.e., lower water consumption with smaller diameter piping) by the arranging side- and vertical-discharge sprinkler heads so that they work in conjunction with one another.” Appeal Br. 33. In particular, Appellant asserts that the invention creates “a dense curtain of water droplets” with “[a]ny sprinklers located behind the water curtain [being] less likely to activate because heat from the fire will be blocked” such that “[w]ater is . . . not wasted spraying in the wrong direction” and “[t]he result is more effective fire protection and lower water consumption.” Id. In sum, Appellant argues that the inventive orientation of sprinklers keeps the initial sprinklers that are triggered to a minimum, so as to “allow[] full strength flow and pressure to those activated,” resulting in the “paradox” that “more sprinkler heads use less water and are more effective” and thereby achieving “[n]ew and unexpected results [to be] achieved by the claimed invention.” Id. at 33–34. Assertions of unexpected results, however, must be supported by factual evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. . . . [A]ppellants have not presented any experimental data showing that prior heat-shrinkable articles split. Due to the absence of tests comparing appellant’s heat shrinkable articles with those of the closest prior art, we conclude that appellant’s assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument.”). In this case, attorney statements in the briefing and/or conclusory statements in the Specification (Appeal Br. 33–34) cannot take the place of evidence in the record to support that Appellant’s claimed location of vertical-discharge sprinklers relative to side-discharge sprinklers Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 12 would result in improved hydraulic efficiency, and moreover, that such improved hydraulic efficiency would have been unexpected. See In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506 (CCPA 1972). Here, Appellant has not presented any experimental data supported by affidavit or declaration testimony showing that its claimed location of vertical-discharge sprinklers relative to side- discharge sprinklers results in improved hydraulic efficiency, or that other placements of vertical-discharge sprinklers relative to side-discharge sprinklers cannot achieve such improved hydraulic efficiency. Accordingly, Appellant’s assertions regarding new and unexpected results constitutes mere attorney argument in its briefing and conclusory statements in the Specification that cannot establish patentability. Moreover, the Examiner takes the position that by “adding the sprinkler(s) of Pigeon to the pipe 60 of Polan and operating them in addition to the sprinklers 10 of Polan, all the unexpected results of the [A]ppellant’s invention would be achieved” and that “claim 13 . . . only requires two separate sprinklers, which most sprinkler systems have.” Ans. 7. Appellant does not appear to contest that, if Pigeon’s vertical discharge sprinklers were located “adjacent” Polan’s side-discharge sprinklers, the multi-orientation wetting zone would be achieved (Appeal Br. 36), and such adjacent placement is what is contemplated by the Examiner’s articulated rejection because of the disclosed placement of Pigeon’s sprinklers along the supply line between adjacent rafters. Consequently, Appellant does not challenge adequately the Examiner’s determination that the combination of Polan and Pigeon would achieve the same results as Appellant’s invention. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that Polan and Pigeon render obvious the Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 13 subject matter of independent claim 13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13, and claims 14, 15, and 22 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Polan and Pigeon. Claims 16 and 17 Dependent claim 16 requires both a “left side-discharge fire sprinkler” that casts a spray over a left-side coverage area and a “right side-discharge fire sprinkler” that casts a spray over a right-side coverage area. Appeal Br. 44 (Claims App.). In rejecting dependent claim 16, the Examiner takes the position that “Polan specifically teaches that the discharge from each nozzle of [bidirectional] sprinkler 10 is typically like that of an individual sidewall sprinkler.” Final Act. 5 (citing Polan 6:58–59). The Examiner asserts “that there are reasons as to why one would want to use two individual sidewall sprinklers vs[.] just a single sprinkler as in Polan,” such as “[f]or example, if one sprinkler fails, the other sprinkler will still be able to spray fluid.” Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to use two separate side discharge sprinklers, instead of just the one [bidirectional] sprinkler of Polan, just in case one sprinkler fails to turn on or becomes blocked, the other one will still spray fluid.” Id. Appellant argues that “Polan teaches away from use of two individual sidewall sprinklers as proposed in the Final Office Action.” Appeal Br. 39. In particular, Appellant points to Polan’s teaching that: [w]hen pairs of conventional sidewall sprinklers were installed in the peak of a pitched test roof, each sprinkler directed to throw its water down a separate one of the two courses which come together at the peak, it was found impossible to locate such sidewall sprinklers in a way in which the spray from one would not cover the other, cooling the other sprinkler and preventing its activation. Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 14 Id. (quoting Polan 2:38–48) (underlining omitted). The Examiner responds that the passage cited by Appellant “is located in the background of the prior art and is taken out of context.” Ans. 8. According to the Examiner, because Polan’s “sprinkler 10 already has a spray pattern equivalent to two separate side discharge [sprinklers], then why not replace sprinkler 10 with two separate side discharge sprinklers” and “[t]he motivation for this comes from one of ordinary skill in the art and is to have a backup sprinkler in case one is clogged or does not open up to spray fluid, at least the other one will spray some fluid.” Id. Appellant replies that “[t]he fact [that] the statement appears in Polan’s Background section makes it no less powerful” and “[t]he Examiner’s proposed modification of Polan is the very thing Polan believes ‘impossible.’” Reply Br. 13. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGSImporters Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (alteration in original). Also, a reference teaches away from a modification when the reference, taken as a whole, “criticiz[es], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]” the modification. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Polan discloses that it was “impossible” to locate a pair of sprinklers, each sprinkler casting a spray in opposite directions of a course, without cooling one of the sprinklers and preventing its activation. Polan 2:38–48. This portion of Polan criticizes, discredits, and discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from the use of a pair of sprinklers, rather than Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 15 Polan’s bi-directional sprinkler having two separate water-directing channels to divide and direct water outwardly from the bi-directional sprinkler simultaneously in two distinct and different directions, by discussing the impossibility of proper activation of at least one of the pair of sprinklers. We agree with Appellant that the identified passage of Polan teaches away from modifying Polan’s bi-directional sprinkler so as to be two separate side-discharge sprinklers because of concerns about preventing activation of one of the sprinklers in certain locations and/or situations. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant apprises us of error in the Examiner’s determination that Polan and Pigeon render obvious the subject matter of claim 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16, and claim 17 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Polan and Pigeon. Rejection II Appellant relies on the same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 13 as the basis for seeking reversal of claims 20 and 21. Appeal Br. 40. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Polan, Pigeon, and Loepsinger. Appeal 2020-005307 Application 16/589,283 16 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 13–17, 22 103 Polan, Pigeon 13–15, 22 16, 17 20, 21 103 Polan, Pigeon, Loepsinger 20, 21 Overall Outcome 13–15, 20–22 16, 17 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART