Gerd Steinhoff et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 25, 2019

15480193 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2019)

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.
15/480,193 04/05/2017 Gerd Steinhoff 511156 3287
53609 7590 07/25/2019
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
EMPIE, NATHAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2019 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GERD STEINHOFF and STEFAN NEUMANN1
____________

Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This case is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–7 and 15–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods “for burning in a
coating of a printing plate.” E.g., Spec. ¶ 2; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced
below from page 18 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:

1 The Appellants identify Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH as the
real party in interest. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

2
1. A method for burning in a coating of a printing plate support,
wherein the printing plate comprises aluminium or an aluminium
alloy as the support material,
in the case of which
the printing plate is heated to a burning in temperature,
maintained at this temperature for a predefined duration and
subsequently cooled,
characterised in that at least in a temperature range between
150°C and the burning in temperature,
the temperature differences of the support material
temperature of the printing plate measured along a line in the
longitudinal direction of the printing plate during the heating
and during the cooling are maximum 40°C over a length of
40 cm and
the temperature differences of the support material
temperature of the printing plate measured along a line
perpendicular to the longitudinal direction are less than 10°C
during the heating and during the cooling.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. Claims 1–7, 15, 17–19, 21, and 22 over Nishiyama
(JP407295235A, published Nov. 10, 1995) and Luellau (DE004134161A1,
published Apr. 15, 1993)3;
2. Claim 20 over Nishiyama, Luellau, and Bos (US 6,354,208 B1,
issued Mar. 12, 2002);

2 In an Advisory Action dated Nov. 19, 2018, the Examiner withdrew a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
3 The Appellants and the Examiner rely on machine translations (of record)
of Nishiyama and Luellau.
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

3
3. Claims 1–17, 15–19, 21, and 22 over Nishiyama and Strauss (US
2,931,882, issued Apr. 5, 1960);
4. Claim 20 over Nishiyama, Strauss, and Bos.
ANALYSIS
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellants and the Examiner, we determine that
the Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below,
in the Final Action dated June 7, 2018, and in the Examiner’s Answer.
Rejection 1
The Appellants argue the claims as a group. We select claim 1 as
representative, and the remaining claims subject to Rejection 1 will stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Nishiyama teaches a method that comprises
each step of claim 1, including that the temperature of the plate is uniformly
maintained during cooling, but that Nishiyama does not expressly teach
maintaining a uniform temperature of the plate during heating. Final
Act. 3–4. As to maintaining a uniform temperature during cooling, the
Examiner cites ¶ 15 of Nishiyama, which discloses in relevant part the
following:
In the case of cooling the printing plate with cooling water, it is
possible to cool the printing plate to a uniform temperature . . . .
It is possible to efficiently cool the plate uniformly over the entire
region of the printing plate to a desired temperature by cooling
water of a predetermined temperature . . . .
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

4
(emphasis added). The Examiner finds that ¶ 15 discloses that cooling
“occur[s] uniformly (thus 0°C difference) over the entire surface area.”
Final Act. 3.
As to maintaining a uniform temperature during heating, the Examiner
relies on Luellau. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Luellau teaches a
similar method of forming printing plates that involves “applying uniform
temperature distribution to the surface area of the printing plates,” which
“allows for reduced energy consumption and compact design.” Id. The
Examiner determines that “it would have been obvious . . . to have
performed heating so that the entire surface area is heated uniformly (thus
0°C difference over the entire surface area in all directions[)] as it would
allow for reduced energy consumption and more compact design.” Id.
As is evident from the above discussion of the Examiner’s rejection,
the Examiner finds that “uniform” heating and cooling, as disclosed by
Nishiyama and Luellau, encompasses a 0°C temperature difference across
the entire surface area of the printing plate during the heating or cooling
operation. See id. at 3–4.
In view of those and other findings less material to the issues raised
by the Appellants in this appeal, the Examiner concludes that the subject
matter of claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. Id.
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellants argue that “Nishiyama does not
state that cooling occurs uniformly over the surface of the printing plate . . .
but instead, Nishiyama discloses that cooling is performed to achieve a
uniform end temperature.” App. Br. 6. In so arguing, the Appellants rely
only on Nishiyama’s disclosure that “it is possible to cool the printing plate
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

5
to a uniform temperature,” and the Appellants fail to address the very next
sentence of Nishiyama, which teaches that “[i]t is possible to efficiently cool
the plate uniformly over the entire region of the printing plate to a desired
temperature.” Id.; see also Nishiyama ¶ 15.
The Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because, as noted above,
the Appellants fail to address the specific disclosure of Nishiyama relied on
by the Examiner and quoted above, which contradicts the Appellants’
argument that “Nishiyama does not state that cooling occurs uniformly over
the surface of the printing plate.” See App. Br. 6; Nishiyama ¶ 15 (“It is
possible to efficiently cool the plate uniformly over the entire region of the
printing plate . . . .”); see also Nishiyama ¶ 95 (“[T]he entire area is set to a
constant temperature without causing temperature unevenness in the printing
plate . . . .”).
The Appellants also argue that, because Nishiyama discloses that
cooling may occur by movement of the printing plate through a water spray
“at constant speed” on a conveyor, Nishiyama’s disclosed method could not
result in uniform cooling of the printing plate. App. Br. 8–9.
That argument is not persuasive. As set forth above, ¶ 15 of
Nishiyama expressly discloses that “[i]t is possible to efficiently cool the
plate uniformly over the entire region of the printing plate to a desired
temperature” (emphasis added). Even assuming that Nishiyama discloses
one method that may not result in completely uniform cooling of the entire
printing plate, the Appellants fail to argue or establish that implementing a
cooling method that yields uniform cooling, as disclosed by ¶ 15, would
have been beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

6
For example, in the context of discussing elution, Nishiyama discloses
timing of spraying means such that spraying is “performed at regular time
intervals” rather than continuously, and that “[t]he conveying means may be
maintained at a predetermined temperature more efficiently by combining
the intermittent operation and the continuous operation.” Nishiyama ¶ 13.
Additionally, it appears that it would have been within the ordinary level of
skill in the art to adjust the conveyor and the spray pipes as desired to
achieve the uniform cooling that is expressly disclosed by ¶ 15 of
Nishiyama. See ¶ 38 (discussing conveying path, conveying rollers, and
spray pipes “for spraying water of a predetermined temperature toward the
printing plate 20 passing through the inside of the cooling tank 102”), ¶ 94
(discussing speed of conveyance), ¶ 95 (discussing cooling “the entire
area . . . without causing temperature unevenness in the printing plate 20”
(emphasis added)).
In view of those disclosures and Nishiyama’s express disclosures of
uniform cooling, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to and capable of operating Nishiyama’s apparatus to achieve
uniform cooling through the use of only ordinary creativity. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see
also id. (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.”); cf. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1287–88
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (prior art references are presumed to be enabled); In re
Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 194 (CCPA 1963) (indicating that operation of process
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

7
in batch or continuous manner is typically within the ordinary level of skill
in the art).
In the Reply Brief, the Appellants argue for the first time that the
disclosure of “uniform” cooling in Nishiyama cannot mean uniformity to a
0°C temperature difference, as the Examiner finds, and that the Examiner
has not adequately established that Nishiyama discloses the uniform cooling
required by claim 1 (i.e., 40°C or less over a length of 40 cm). See Reply
Br. 5–8.
As noted above, the Examiner expressly relied on the finding that
uniform cooling includes a 0°C temperature difference throughout the Final
Action. See Final Act. 3, 4, 7. The Appellants’ argument is untimely
because it was not presented in the Appeal Brief, and the Appellants have
not attempted to show good cause for presenting it for the first time in the
Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Thus, we decline to consider it.
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that Nishiyama teaches uniform cooling of the
printing plate within the scope of claim 1. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”).
As to the Examiner’s reliance on Luellau, the Appellants appear to
acknowledge that Luellau teaches uniform heating. App. Br. 7 (“As a result,
the temperature distribution on the plate is uniformly formed.”). The
Appellants argue, however, that a method disclosed by Luellau for heating
the plates would not actually result in uniform heating. Id.
That argument is not persuasive because it is attorney argument
unsupported by evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

8
1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).
Moreover, Luellau itself explicitly states that its method “ensures uniform
heating of each plate.” Luellau at Abstract. Luellau states that “[t]he object
of the invention” is to “provide a method and apparatus for heat treatment of
thin plates, which results in a uniform temperature distribution in the plates
even with continuous operation.” Id. at 1–2. Luellau discloses that its
method, “[s]urprisingly,” results in “temperature distribution on the plate
advantageously form[ing] uniformly.” Id. at 2. In view of those disclosures
and the fact that the Appellants’ argument is not supported by evidence, we
are not persuaded that Luellau’s heating uniformity falls beyond the scope of
claim 1. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
Additionally, we observe that the Appellants’ own Specification states
that the benefits of uniform heating were known in the art at the time of the
invention. See Spec. ¶ 7 (“It has indeed be[en] known that an even
temperature distribution during the heating leads to a reduction of the
deformation of the printing plate[;] however, the fact that the cooling
process also plays a very important role had not been known hitherto.”).
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Rejection 3
The Appellants argue most of the claims as a group but provide
separate section headers for claims 5 and 6. We select claim 1 as
representative of the grouped claims, and the remaining grouped claims
subject to Rejection 3 will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We address claims 1, 5, and 6 below.
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

9
Claim 1. The Examiner relies on Nishiyama as discussed above with
respect to Rejection 1. Final Act. 6–7. As above, the Examiner finds that
Nishiyama does not expressly disclose uniform heating within the scope of
claim 1. Id. The Examiner finds that Strauss teaches a method of forming
printing plates “wherein applying uniform temperature distribution to the
surface area of the printing plates prevents distortion and buckling of plates
as well as accumulation of foreign matter.” Id. at 7. The Examiner
determines that “it would have been obvious . . . to have performed heating
so that the entire surface area is heated uniformly (thus 0°C difference over
the entire surface area in all directions[)] as it would prevent distortion /
buckling of the plate as well as accumulation of foreign matter.” Id.
The Appellants argue that, because Strauss is a batch process and
Nishiyama is a continuous process, the Examiner’s proposed modification
“would render Nishiyama unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of
providing a continuous process of automatic plate making” and “would
change Nishiyama’s principle of operation.” App. Br. 12–13.
Those arguments are not persuasive for at least two reasons. First, we
are not persuaded that a “continuous” process is so central to Nishiyama’s
purpose that incorporating some element of discontinuity into the process
would render Nishiyama unsatisfactory for its purpose or would change
Nishiyama’s principle of operation in a way that defeats the Examiner’s
proposed obviousness rejection. The “purpose” of Nishiyama is identified
as follows: “To prevent generation of uneven temp[.] distribution in a
printing plate.” Nishiyama at Abstract. Nishiyama would continue to be
suitable for that purpose even if some discontinuity were required to achieve
uniform heating. In view of the stated purpose quoted above, uniform
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

10
temperature distribution in the printing plate appears to be more central to
Nishiyama’s purpose than the continuity of Nishiyama’s process. In that
regard, and as set forth above in our discussion of Rejection 1, Nishiyama
itself suggests elements of discontinuity in its process. E.g., Nishiyama ¶ 13
(disclosing “intermittent operation and . . . continuous operation”).
Second, even were the continuity of Nishiyama’s process critical to
Nishiyama, the Appellants fail to allege that achieving uniform heating in a
continuous process would have been beyond the ordinary level of skill in the
art. Cf. Nishiyama ¶ 38 (discussing conveying path, conveying rollers, and
spray pipes “for spraying water of a predetermined temperature toward the
printing plate 20 passing through the inside of the cooling tank 102”), ¶ 94
(discussing speed of conveyance), ¶ 95 (discussing cooling “the entire
area . . . without causing temperature unevenness in the printing plate 20”
(emphasis added)).
On this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s proposed
reliance on Strauss would render Nishiyama unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose or would change Nishiyama’s principle of operation in a way that
establishes reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
The Appellants also argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving
uniform heating if the proposed combination were made because (1) the
combination would allegedly “require increasing the contact between the
printing plate and the support structure, namely the conveyor system of
Nishiyama,” and (2) Strauss allegedly teaches heating temperatures of 60°C,
while Nishiyama teaches higher temperatures, “thus, there is no reasonable
expectation of success that the oven of Strauss would be able to heat up
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

11
printing plates to the higher temperatures required in Nishiyama.” App. Br.
14–15.
Those arguments are not persuasive. As set forth above, “[a] person
of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. As to argument (1), the Appellants do not allege that
it would have been beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art, using only
ordinary creativity, to incorporate Strauss’s low contact support system into
the apparatus of Nishiyama. Nor do the Appellants establish that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been capable of operating
Nishiyama’s apparatus to achieve uniform heating even absent the use of
Strauss’s low contact supports. The Examiner relies on Strauss broadly for
the proposition that uniform heating, without regard to specific methods or
components, yields desirable results. See Final Act. 7.
As to argument (2), the Appellants provide no reason to believe that
Strauss’s oven would be unable to uniformly heat plates to temperatures
beyond those expressly disclosed by Strauss, or that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not have been capable of operating ovens or other
heating elements in a way that achieves uniform heating. In that regard, we
observe that obviousness does not require certainty of success; it requires
only a reasonable expectation of success. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm.,
Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The reasonable expectation of
success requirement for obviousness does not necessitate an absolute
certainty for success.”). Additionally, we again observe that the Examiner’s
rejection relies on Strauss broadly for the proposition that uniform heating,
without regard to specific methods or components, yields desirable results.
See Final Act. 7. The Examiner’s rationale does not require the use of
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

12
Strauss’s specific oven. Cf. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
We agree with the Examiner that, in view of Strauss’s teaching of the
desirability of uniform heating, in combination with the knowledge of the
person of ordinary skill in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving uniform heating at
the claimed temperature ranges. We again note that the Appellants’ own
Specification states that the benefits of uniform heating were known in the
art at the time of the invention. See Spec. ¶ 7 (“It has indeed be[en] known
that an even temperature distribution during the heating leads to a reduction
of the deformation of the printing plate . . . .”).
The Appellants also argue that the prior art does not teach uniform
heating and cooling at the recited temperature range of “between 150°C and
the burning in temperature.” App. Br. 15. In support of that argument, the
Appellants state that “the highest temperature disclosed in Nishiyama is
100°C.” Id.
We disagree. As the Examiner explains in the Answer, Nishiyama
discloses temperatures of “100°C or more” and “100°C or higher.”
Nishiyama ¶¶ 24, 32 (emphases added). The Appellants do not address
those disclosures or otherwise allege that temperatures falling within the
claimed range would not have been obvious in view of those disclosures.
“[E]ven a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of
obviousness.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

13
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
Claim 5. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “the
burning in temperature of the support material of the printing plate is
between 220°C and 320°C with a burning in duration of between 1 and 15
minutes.” The Appellants repeat the argument that Nishiyama and Strauss
“do not disclose a temperature over 100°C.” App. Br. 16.
For reasons set forth above, we disagree. The Appellants fail to
address or show error in the Examiner’s reliance on Nishiyama’s disclosures
of temperatures of “100°C or more” and “100°C or higher.” Nishiyama
¶¶ 24, 32. Nor do the Appellants address or show error in the Examiner’s
determination that time and temperature are result-effective variables, and
that optimization of those variables—including to values that fall within the
scope of the claims—would have been within the ordinary level of skill in
the art.4 See Final Act. 4–5, 8.
The Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
Claim 6. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “the
printing plates are transported using transport means which prevent heat
dissipation from the printing plate support via the transport means.”
The Examiner finds that Strauss teaches the use of transport means
that prevent heat dissipation from the printing plate support. Final Act. 8.

4 To the extent the Appellants attempt to address that rationale for the first
time in the Reply Brief, see Reply Br. 11, we decline to consider those
arguments because the Appellants have not shown good cause for presenting
them for the first time in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

14
The Examiner cites Strauss at 1:36–52, which discloses, inter alia, that
“[t]he printing plates are supported within the invention oven upon a support
assembly including a main body portion of mesh-like configuration whereby
a small area of the surface of the printing plate is in contact with the body
portion,” resulting in “the printing plate [being] uniformly heated” and the
“minimiz[ation]” of “heat transferred from the plate to the supporting body.”
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to have
incorporated transporting the printing plates using transport means which
prevent heat dissipation . . . since such an incorporation would predictabl[y]
aid achieving uniform temperature distribution.” Final Act. 8.
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellants argue that “Nishiyama does not
disclose a transport means that prevents heat dissipation, and Strauss is
directed to a batch process that does not have a transport means.” App.
Br. 16.
Those arguments are unpersuasive because they attack the references
individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426 (“[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”). The Examiner does
not rely on Nishiyama for the disclosure of a transport means that prevents
heat dissipation. And even assuming that Strauss does not have “transport
means” because it is a batch process, Strauss plainly teaches the use of
support assemblies for printing plates that minimize or prevent heat transfer
from the plate to the supporting body. Strauss at 1:36–52. Nishiyama
discloses, e.g., “printing plate conveying means.” E.g., Nishiyama ¶ 9. In
the Appeal Brief, the Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner’s finding that it
would have been obvious to incorporate Strauss’s low contact support
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

15
assemblies into Nishiyama’s conveying means to prevent heat transfer and
achieve uniform temperature distribution.
In the Reply Brief, the Appellants raise a new argument concerning
claim 6, and the Appellants argue that they did not understand the Final
Action’s analysis of claim 6 to rely on the combination of Strauss with
Nishiyama. Reply Br. 12 (“The Examiner did not rely on any portion of
Nishiyama in the statement of the rejection.” / “Now in the Examiner’s
Answer, for the first time, the Examiner states that the actual rejection is
based on Strauss as applied to Nishiyama’s transport means.”).
The Appellants new argument is untimely because it was not
presented in the Appeal Brief, and the Appellants have not shown good
cause for presenting it for the first time in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2). The Appellants assertion that it was unclear in the Final
Action that the Examiner was relying on the combination Nishiyama and
Strauss does not provide good cause for presenting the untimely argument.
The Examiner’s stated ground of rejection relies on Nishiyama, as the
primary reference, in combination with Strauss. See Final Act. 6.
Additionally, the Examiner expressly proposes “incorporat[ing]” transport
means which prevent heat dissipation. Id. at 8. It is sufficiently clear from
the Examiner’s statement of rejection that the Examiner is proposing
“incorporate[ing]” Strauss’s low contact support assembly into Nishiyama’s
apparatus.
Even if the Appellants had shown good cause for presenting a new
argument in the Reply Brief, the new argument would be unpersuasive. The
Appellants argue that, because the Examiner asserts that Nishiyama may use
a batch process, and a batch process would allegedly not need transport
Appeal 2019-004158
Application 15/480,193

16
means, there would be no transport means in the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Nishiyama and Strauss. Reply Br. 12. However, the
Appellants fail to provide any explanation as to why Nishiyama’s conveying
means would cease to fall within the scope of the term “transport means” if
certain limited discontinuities were introduced into Nishiyama’s process. As
noted above, the Appellants also fail to allege that it would have been
beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art to achieve uniform heating and
cooling even while maintaining a continuous process.
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 6. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
Rejections 2 and 4
The Appellants argue only that Bos does not remedy the alleged
deficiencies of Nishiyama, Luellau, and Strauss. App. Br. 10 (Rejection 2),
16 (Rejection 4). Because we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s reliance on Nishiyama, Luellau, and Strauss, we likewise are
unpersuaded of reversible error in Rejections 2 and 4.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7 and 15–22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED