GOOGLE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 9, 2022

2020006712 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2022)

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. 15/211,999 07/15/2016 Gil Disatnik 31730/200041-01 1177 12716 7590 02/09/2022 Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (Google) 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Willis Tower Chicago, IL 60606-6357 EXAMINER TORRES, MARCOS L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2022 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): mgbdocket@marshallip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GIL DISATNIK and SAGI HED ____________ Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,9991 Technology Center 2600 _____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-15, and 17-20. Appeal Br. 30-36 (Claims App.). Claim 8 has been conditionally allowed if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part.2 1 “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). According to Appellant, GOOGLE LLC is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed April 30, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed September 24, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 24, 2020 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed August 30, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and Specification filed July 15, 2016 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Geopositioning systems that rely on signals from satellites, such as Global Positioning Service (GPS), do not work in areas where these signals are completely or substantially occluded by obstacles. Spec. ¶ 4. Appellant’s claimed invention seeks to leverage low-energy signal sources such as Bluetooth or WiFi “beacon” or wireless APs available to track a vehicle by calculating positions of signal sources (e.g., wireless APs) disposed in an area with limited satellite coverage using a receiver within the vehicle moving along a path through the area, and then using these calculated positions to geoposition (i.e., determine the current position) of the vehicle moving along the path. Spec. ¶¶ 7, 11. Figure 1, depicting interactions between (1) signal sources (e.g., wireless APs) 360A-360F with static positions along path 352, and (2) a receiver installed in vehicle 370, is reproduced below: Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 3 Illustrative Claim Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent. Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized and brackets added for clarity: 1. A method for automatically determining geographic positions of signal sources in areas with limited satellite coverage, the method comprising: [A] receiving, by one or more processors, signal data collected by a receiver moving along a path through a geographic area with limited satellite coverage, the signal data being indicative of changes, over a period of time, in strength of respective signals detected by the moving receiver and emitted by multiple signal sources statically disposed along the path; [B] receiving, by the one or more processors, indications of a first position of the receiver at a first time prior to entering the geographic area and a second position of the receiver at a second time subsequent to leaving the geographic area; [C] calculating, by the one or more processors, static positions of the signal sources using (i) the received signal data collected by the moving receiver and (ii) the received indications of the first and second positions and the respective times; and [D] subsequently to calculating the static positions of the signal sources, using the calculated positions of the signal sources to geoposition a device moving along the path. Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App. A-1). REJECTIONS AND REFERENCES (1) Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 5-6. (2) Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata et al. (US 2013/0310067 Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 4 A1; published Nov. 21, 2013; “Nakata”) and Agrawal et al. (US 2015/0094085 A1; published Apr. 2, 2015; “Agrawal”). Final Act. 7-10. (3) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata, Agrawal, and de Koning (US 2009/0005972 A1; published Jan. 1, 2009). Final Act. 10-11. (4) Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata and Yamauchi (US 2016/0334494 A1; published Nov. 17, 2016). Final Act. 11-13. (5) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata, Yamauchi, and de Koning. Final Act. 13-14. (6) Claims 15, 17, and 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata and Oerton et al. (US 2013/0028245 A1; published Jan. 31, 2013). Final Act. 14-16. (7) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata, Oerton, and Venkatraman et al. (US 2015/0080013 A1; published Mar. 19, 2015). Final Act. 16. (8) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata, Oerton, and Smith et al. (US 2016/0231426 A1; published Aug. 11, 2016). Final Act. 16-17. Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 5 ANALYSIS Indefiniteness In support of the § 112(b) rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 15, the Examiner finds the limitation: “[B] receiving, by the one or more processors, indications of a first position of the receiver at a first time prior to entering the geographic area and a second position of the receiver at a second time subsequent to leaving the geographic area” unclear as to “what is being received” and, thus, indefinite. According to the Examiner, “it is unclear whether receiving indications of a first position of a first access point or a first position of receiver. In addition, Independent claims recite that the limitations are performed by one or more processors. Note the receiver, signal sources and the signal sources configuration system all have processors, it is unclear if the steps are performed by which processor or all processors.” Final Act. 5-6 (emphasis added). Appellant contends “claim 1 in fact clearly recites what is being received: ‘indications of a first position of the receiver at a first time prior to entering the geographic area and a second position of the receiver at a second time subsequent to leaving the geographic area.” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). In addition, Appellant contends the Specification explains how positions of a receiver can be determined and how static positions of signal sources can be calculated using this information. Id. 16- 17 (citing Spec ¶¶ 31, 52, 55, 56, 73; Figs. 5, 10). In response, the Examiner questions: “how can the method determine geographic position of the signals sources in the geographic area with limited satellite coverage, if the receiver needs to leave the geographic area with limited satellite coverage? And, if it needs to leave the geographic area with limited satellite coverage, how can use the Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 6 calculated positions of the signal sources to geoposition a device moving along the path, when the receiver already left the path through the geographic area with limited satellite coverage?” Ans. 4 (emphasis add). We do not agree with the Examiner’s position. “Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 is an issue of claim construction and a question of law that we review de novo.” Credle v. Bond, 25 F.3d 1566, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court has said that an issued patent “is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). However, “indefiniteness rejections by the USPTO arise in a different posture from that of indefiniteness challenges to an issued patent.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “The Office construes claims by giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution in an effort to establish a clear record of what the applicant intends to claim. Such claim construction during prosecution may effectively result in a lower threshold for ambiguity than a court’s determination.” MPEP § 2173.02(I). Thus, for indefiniteness prior to issuance, a well-grounded rejection should identify “ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.” Packard, 751 F.3d at 1311. For example, “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 7 bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). However, contrary to the Examiner’s position, the disputed limitation of independent claims 1, 10, and 15 expressly states that the receiver, typically, installed in a vehicle or a mobile device, and not a signal source such as a wireless AP, is configured to receive “indications” of a “first position” at a first time when the receiver enters the geographic area with limited satellite coverage and “a second position” at a second time when the receiver leaves the geographic area and as such, is not amenable to two or more plausible claim construction as alleged. The questions raised by the Examiner pertain to enablement rather than the issue of ambiguity. Regardless, Appellant’s Specification explains how positions of signal sources can be calculated as claimed [C] “using (i) the received signal data collected by the moving receiver and (ii) the received indications of the first and second positions and the respective times” in order to track a device (e.g., vehicle) when such a vehicle travels along a path within a geographical area with limited satellite coverage, as shown in Figure 5. Reply Br. 2-3; see Spec. ¶¶ 4-7. However, once the vehicle departs from the geographical area with limited satellite coverage, a person skilled in the art would understand that conventional navigation systems relying on signals from satellites (e.g., GPS) would continue to operate as normal. Spec. ¶¶ 4-6. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 8 Obviousness At the outset, we note the Examiner has indicated that (1) claim 8 is conditionally allowed if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (which we do not sustain the § 112(b) rejection) and to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (Final Act. 17), and (2) the obviousness rejection of claims 4, 13, and 17 [sic, 16] has been withdrawn. Ans. 3, 15. As such, we will not review the substance of these claims and will treat claims 4, 8, 13, and 16 as conditionally allowable if these claims were to be rewritten to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. The remaining claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are organized into three different groups, including: (1) claims 1-5, 6, 7, and 9 as obvious based on the teachings of Nakata and Agrawal; (2) claims 10-14 as obvious based on the teachings of Nakata and Yamauchi; and (3) claims 15-20 as obvious based on the teachings of Nakata and Oerton. We will be address these obviousness rejections in seriatim below. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 based on Nakata and Agarwal In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the combination of Nakata and Agrawal teaches or suggests all of the limitations of Appellant’s claim 1. Final Act. 7-8 (citing Nakata ¶¶ 55, 56, 71, 74, 104, 112; Figs. 1, 4, 13). In particular, the Examiner finds Nakata teaches or suggests most limitations of Appellant’s claim 1, including the disputed limitations: [C] calculating, by the one or more processors, static positions of the signal sources using (i) the received signal data Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 9 collected by the moving receiver and (ii) the received indications of the first and second positions and the respective times; and [D] subsequently to calculating the static positions of the signal sources, using the calculated positions of the signal sources to geoposition a device moving along the path. Id. at 7-8 (citing Nakata’s Fig. 4, S60-S90; Fig. 13, S350-S380). The Examiner relies upon Agarwal to expressly teach, what is implied in Nakata’s Figures 4 (S90) and 13 (S380), the disputed limitation: “[B] receiving, by the one or more processors, indications of a first position of the receiver at a first time prior to entering the geographic area and a second position of the receiver at a second time subsequent to leaving the geographic area” to support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 8 (citing Agrawal ¶¶ 79-80). Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings regarding Nakata and Agarwal’s teachings. In particular, Appellant presents several principal arguments against the application of Nakata and Agarwal. First, Appellant acknowledges Nakata teaches “using wireless transmitters (or ‘reference stations’) disposed at ‘predetermined installation positions’ to position a vehicle equipped with ‘a wireless communication apparatus’ and thus . . . ‘using the . . . positions of the signal sources to geoposition a device moving along the path.’” Appeal Br. 20 (emphasis added). However, Appellant contends Nakata does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations [C]-[D], that is, “‘calculating . . . static positions of signal sources [disposed along a path] using signal data’ and subsequently using these calculated positions of the signals [sic] sources to geoposition a device moving along the path.” Id. According to Appellant, Nakata’s Figure 9 relies on predetermined installation positions of reference stations 2a-2b to track a vehicle, but “is Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 10 not concerned with techniques for calculating these positions.” Id. at 21 (emphasis added). Nakata’s Figure 9 is reproduced below: Second, Appellant contends Nakata does not teach or suggest: calculating static positions of the signal sources in the specific manner recited in claim 1: “using (i) the receiver signal data collected by the moving receiver and emitted by multiple signal sources statically disposed along the path and (ii) indications of a first and second positions of the receiver at respective times related to entering and leaving the geographical area of limited coverage, respectively time” . . . where “[the] first position of the receiver at [the] first time [is] prior to entering the geographic area and [the] second position of the receiver at [the] second time [is] subsequent to leaving the geographic area.” Id. at 22 (emphasis added). Third, Appellant contends Agarwal, like Nakata, fails to teach or suggest “[B] receiving, by the one or more processors, indications of a first position of the receiver at a first time prior to entering the geographic area and a second position of the receiver at a second time subsequent to leaving Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 11 the geographic area” recited in claim 1. Id. at 23. According to Appellant, Agarwal “merely discusses positioning fixes of a mobile device interacting with an access point (AP)” but is silent regarding “whether the mobile device leaves or enters a geographic area.” Id. Finally, Appellant contends the Examiner provides “no rationale whatsoever for combining Nakata and Agrawal.” Id. Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. Instead, we find the Examiner’s findings, including the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s contentions, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence on this record. Ans. 5-11. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note the test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly disclosed in the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast to that approach, Appellant’s contentions rigidly focus on a narrow reading of Nakata and Agarwal, without taking full account of an Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 12 ordinarily skilled artisan’s “knowledge, creativity, and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Like Appellant’s disclosed invention shown in Figure 5, Nakata also teaches (1) the failure of conventional GPS systems to work in an area of limited coverage where GPS signals are completely or substantially occluded by obstacles, and (2) the use of wireless LAN “reference stations,” shown in Figure 1, to track a vehicle passing through the area of limited coverage. Nakata ¶¶ 5-7. Nakata’s Figure 1 is reproduced below: Nakata’s Figure 1 depicts wireless positioning system 1 including a plurality of wireless LAN “reference stations” 2 arranged in an out-of-service area of GPS to perform direct wireless communication with on-vehicle apparatus 3, including tracking the current location of on-vehicle apparatus 3 moving along a certain path within the out-of-service area. Nakata ¶¶ 54-56, 64, Figs. 1, 4. Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 13 As shown in Figure 4, Nakata’s on-vehicle apparatus’s CPU 21 (shown in Figure 2) receives a radio beacon including a probe quantity from the nearby wireless reference station to announce a presence of the wireless reference station 2(2a), 2(2b) and its boundary or coverage area at step S40, and detects a probe quantity, i.e., signal strength RSSI associated with the radio beacon at step S50. Nakata ¶¶ 71-73. According to Nakata, the signal strength RSSI of the radio beacon is at its highest or maximized at a time point where Nakata’s on-vehicle apparatus’s CPU 21 is nearest to the wireless reference station 2(2a) or 2(2b) and, conversely, at its lowest or minimized at a time point when Nakata’s on-vehicle apparatus’s CPU 21 is at the boundary of the wireless reference station 2(2a) or 2(2b). Nakata ¶¶ 71-73. Nakata also teaches that the on-vehicle apparatus’s CPU 21 calculates (1) a travel distance of the vehicle from the time point when the radio beacon (the “signal source” of claim 1) is initially detected (i.e., the position of the nearby wireless reference station) at step S60, and (2) a travel distance of the vehicle from an arbitrary characteristic point (CP) which corresponds, for example, to a minimal point of the probe signal, i.e., signal strength RSSI of the radio beacon at step S90 and then, calculates (3) a current location of the vehicle on the basis of the travel distance. Nakata ¶¶ 74, 77, 78. Based on Nakata’s teachings alone, the Examiner had a factual basis to find that Nakata teaches or suggests: calculate[ing] the distance of receiver 3(3a-c) moving along a path by receiving (i) radio beacons (S40) and (ii) reference trajectory information (S30) which is an indication of positioning information and time points (see par. 0014, 0067, 0070-0078, 0091-0100), the calculated distance of the receiver is used to determine the position of the reference station, so when the distance between the receiver and the reference base point is Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 14 calculated the position of the reference station is determined and/or calculated in relation to the receiver. Ans. 7. In addition, a person skilled in the art would have had the “knowledge, creativity, and common sense” to recognize that Nakata also teaches or suggests the claimed [B] “receiving . . . indications of (1) a first position of the receiver at a first time prior to [the receiver] entering the geographic area” and (1) “a second position of the receiver at a second time subsequent to [the receiver] leaving the geographic area” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1 because Nakata must determine when the receiver is entering and leaving the area of limited coverage as shown in Figure 1 to know when to apply its process. Nakata ¶¶ 55 (Fig. 1), 74, 77, 78. As such, Agarwal is not needed to support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. However, to the extent that Agarwal is applicable, as recognized by the Examiner, Agarwal also teaches receiving indications of various positions and timestamps of the position fixes of a receiver (mobile device or vehicle) as the receiver (mobile device or vehicle) moves along a path through the coverage area, including (1) a first position of the receiver at a first time prior to entering the geographic area (when the last position fix is used) and (2) a second position of the receiver at a second time subsequent to leaving the geographic area (when a new position fix is used). Ans. 11; see Agarwal ¶¶ 79-80. For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata and Agarwal and of their dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9, which are not argued separately. For the same Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 15 reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata, Agrawal, and de Koning. Claims 10-12 and 14 based on Nakata and Yamauchi Independent claim 10 is broader than claim 1, and only recites: receive signal data collected by a receiver moving along a path through a geographic area with limited satellite coverage, the signal data being indicative of changes, over a period of time, in strength of respective signals detected by the moving receiver and emitted by multiple signal sources statically disposed along the path, receive indications of positioning fixes and timestamps for endpoints of the path, calculate static positions of the signal sources using (i) the received signal data collected by the moving receiver and (ii) the positioning fixes and the timestamps of the endpoints, and subsequently to calculating the static positions of the signal sources, use the calculated positions for the signal sources to geoposition a device moving along the path. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App. A-3). Appellant contends (1) “Yamauchi does not disclose using the positioning fixes and the timestamps of the endpoints” as recited in claim 10, and (2) “the Examiner [] provides no rationale for combining the references.” Appeal Br. 24. Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Nakata already discloses receive indications positioning fixes and timestamps for points of the path (see fig. 4, S30; fig. 15, 19, step S30; 0066, 0114, 0145, 0289) and Yamauchi discloses a tunnel with positing beacons at the entrance and exit of the tunnel [endpoints], thereby, when combined Nakata with the teachings of Yamauchi teaches using the positioning fixes and the timestamps of the endpoints. It would be desirable and obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art . . . to combine the teachings Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 16 to constantly locate the desired device[s] until exiting the area with limited satellite coverage. Ans. 12. For these reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata and Yamauchi and of their dependent claims 11-12, which are not argued separately. For the same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata, Yamauchi, and de Koning. Claims 15, and 17-20 based on Nakata and Oerton Independent claim 15 is even broader than claims 1 and 10, and alternatively recites (1) “receiving . . . a description of geometry of a path along which multiple signal sources are arranged,” and (2) the signal data generated by the plurality of signals as being “management frames.” Appellant contends “[n]one of the paragraphs in Nakata cited in connection with this feature (56, 71-73, 113) or portions of the drawings (items 2 of Fig. 1, S50 of Fig. 4, S340 of Fig. 13) disclose or suggest receiving a description of geometry of the path at all, much less using this description to calculate positions of static signal sources.” Appeal Br. 25. Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error because, as recognized by the Examiner, “Nakata’s reference trajectory deals with the measurement, properties, and relationships of points, lines angles, and surfaces of the path R1-R7 [] [indicating the road curvature]” which are all geometric descriptions. Ans. 12 (citing Nakata ¶¶ 56, 67, 85, 91, 113, 218, 221, 265-267). For these reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata and Oerton and of their dependent claims 17 and 20, which are not argued separately. For the Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 17 same reasons, we also sustain (1) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata, Oerton, and Venkatraman; and (2) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nakata, Oerton, and Smith. CONCLUSION On this record, Appellant demonstrates the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. However, Appellant does not demonstrate the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the cited prior art. The remaining claims 4, 8, 13, and 16 remain conditionally allowable if rewritten to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 112(b) Indefiniteness 1-20 1-3, 6, 7, 9 103 Nakata, Agrawal 1-3, 6, 7, 9 5 103 Nakata, Agrawal, de Koning 5 10-12 103 Nakata, Yamauchi 10-12 14 103 Nakata, Yamauchi, De Koning 14 15, 17, 20 103 Nakata, Oerton 15, 17, 20 18 103 Nakata, Oerton, Venkatraman 18 Appeal 2020-006712 Application 15/211,999 18 19 103 Nakata, Oerton, Smith 19 Overall Outcome 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17-20 4, 8, 13, 16 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED IN PART