GRAPHISOFT SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 15, 2021

2020005885 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2021)

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.
14/788,552 06/30/2015 Peter Mohacsi 013916.00022 7345
33649 7590 07/15/2021
Mr. Christopher John Rourk
Jackson Walker LLP
2323 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201
EXAMINER
VU, KHOA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER MOHACSI and GABOR HORVATH
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18, 20, and 21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on June 3, 2021.
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Graphisoft SE.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and a method for building
information modeling “that includes a plurality of 2D documentation sets
associated with a building, such as floor plans and elevation views.” See
Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for building information modeling
comprising:
a plurality of separate 2D documentation sets associated
with a building:
a 3D model associated with the building that is separate
from each of the plurality of 2D documentation sets, the 3D
model including a plurality of user-selectable controls operating
on a processor, wherein each user-selectable control comprises
an icon and an associated balloon that is generated by the
processor when the icon is user-selected;
the balloon for each user-selectable control comprising a
first selection control that causes the processor to generate an
animation sequence that ends with one of the plurality of 2D
documentation sets; and
the balloon for each user-selectable control comprising a
second selection control that causes the processor to generate an
animation sequence that ends with a view of the 3D model
having an overlay of one of the 2D documentation sets.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Warner US 2014/0082557 A1 Mar. 20, 2014
Appleman US 2014/0095122 A1 Apr. 3, 2014
Dishno US 2015/0091906 A1 Apr. 2, 2015
Fedosov US 2016/0240011 A1 Aug. 18, 2016

Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 8, 10–14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dishno and Fedosov. Final Act. 13–25.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dishno, Fedosov, and Warner. Final Act. 25–28.
Claims 9, 18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dishno, Fedosov, and Appleman. Final Act. 28–37.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner errs. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 13–37; Ans. 3–28) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 28–37) in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the applicable conclusions
reached by the Examiner and emphasize the following.
CLAIM 1
The Rejection
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on Dishno as
disclosing the recited system including “a plurality of separate 2D
documentation sets associated with a building” and “a 3D model associated
with the building that is separate from each of the plurality of 2D
documentation sets.” Final Act. 13–14 (citing Dishno ¶¶ 3, 9–11, 238, 239,
Fig. 25). The Examiner also finds Dishno discloses “the 3D model
including a plurality of user-selectable controls operating on a processor,
wherein each user-selectable control comprises an icon and an associated
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

4
balloon that is generated by the processor when the icon is user-selected”
and “the balloon for each user-selectable control” including “a first selection
control” and “a second selection control” that generates an animation
sequence resulting in “one of the plurality of 2D documentations” or “a view
of the 3D model,” respectively. Final Act. 14–15 (citing Dishno ¶¶ 62, 110,
167, 239, 287, Fig. 25). The Examiner finds Fedosov discloses the recited
“associated balloon that is generated by the processor when the icon is user-
selected” and the recited animation sequence that ends with either a 2D
documentation or a view of the 3D model related to the 2D documentation.
Final Act. 15–17 (citing Fedosov ¶¶ 75, 91, 107, Figs. 1a, 1b, 9). As for the
rationale for combining the references, the Examiner states the proposed
modifications by Fedosov “would improve user experience in retrieving,
visualizing and interacting with information about real objects (e.g.
landmarks or building) that surround a user in a particular real environment
(Fedosov, [0027]).” Final Act. 17.
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Dishno and Fedosov does not teach or suggest the recited features of claim
1. Appeal Br. 8. With respect to Dishno, Appellant asserts that the
reference is concerned with “grids” that are used to create a 3D environment
in the form of “a system for web browsing that includes a 3D client that is
able to interpret 3D structure definitions and display 3D environments
associated with various sets of websites,” which does not represent “a 3D
model, and the term ‘model’ is not used anywhere in Dishno, either for a 2D
model or a 3D model.” Id. Appellant highlights the alleged deficiencies of
Dishno as follows:
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

5
(1) Dishno does not disclose a plurality of 2D documentation
sets associated with a building.
(2) Dishno does not disclose a 3D model associated with a
building.
(3) The structure definitions of Dishno do not include user-
selectable controls, and thus cannot be a plurality of user-
selectable controls of a 3D model.
(4) The kiosk of Dishno is not a user-selectable control of a 3D
model.
(5) Dishno discloses animation associated with a user
interaction, but does not disclose an animation sequence that
starts with a control in the 3D model and that ends with a view
of the 3D model having an overlay of one of the 2D
documentation sets.
See Id. at 9. With respect to the teachings of Fedosov, Appellant asserts that
the disclosed computer-generated virtual object is not the same as “a 3D
building model or a plurality of 2D documentation sets associated with a
building” (Appeal Br. 11) and highlights the alleged deficiencies of Fedosov
as follows:
(6) Fedosov does not disclose a 2D model[sic] [documentation
sets] associated with a building.
(7) Fedosov does not disclose a 3D model associated with a
building.
(8) The indicators of Fedosov are at best a single user-selectable
control that are associated with a point of interest and which are
not associated with a model.
(9) Fedosov does not disclose any animation.
See id. at 12. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we focus our analysis on the argued
limitations related to the recited “2D documentation sets associated with a
building” and “3D model associated with the building.”
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

6
Claim Construction
“Claim construction is a question of law that may involve underlying
factual questions.” Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC, 945 F.3d 1368, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S.
318, 332 (2015)). Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Our reviewing court states that “the words of a claim ‘are generally
given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). However,
the broadest reasonable interpretation differs from the broadest possible
interpretation. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification is “an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the
specification.’” Id. at 1382–83 (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Regarding the recited “2D documentation sets associated with a
building,” Appellant’s disclosure provides the following:
2D documentation system 104 provides a plurality of 2D
user design tools for generating documentation sets, such as 2D
floor plans, elevation plans, section plans and other suitable
design and model information, including but not limited to 2D
locations and dimensions for walls, floors, doors, windows,
stairs, rooms, closets, appliances and other suitable building
features.
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

7
Spec. ¶ 15. Regarding the recited “3D model associated with the building,”
Appellant’s disclosure provides the following:
3D model system with embedded controls 106 provides a
plurality of user design tools for generating 3D design
documents or models, such as models of a building having
associated building design features including but not limited to
walls, floors, doors, windows, stairs, rooms, closets, appliances
and other suitable building features. . . . In one exemplary
embodiment, a building design can include multiple floors and
associated 2D floor plans for each floor, 2D elevation views of
the building from a number of different locations that are
outside of the building, 2D section views that show a section of
the building from a point internal to the building, and other
suitable 2D information, and 3D model system with embedded
controls 106 can include one or more user controls that allows a
designer to create a hyperlink control for the 2D documentation
sets within the 3D building design model.
Spec. ¶ 16. Additionally, we find Appellant’s drawings include only general
references to these recited terms such as “an associated 3D model 304”
depicted in Figure 3 and referenced in paragraphs 34–36 of Appellant’s
Specification, and elements 314 and 316 depicted in Figure 3, which are
only labeled as “elevation A open” and “plan A open” in the figure. Given
this related description, we conclude that a broad but reasonable
interpretation of the claim 1 terms “2D documentation sets” and “3D model”
would encompass a general, traversable 3D representation of a 3D structure
based on 2D documentation sets defining zones and connecting grids based
on the websites visited by a user, as described in Dishno. See e.g., Dishno
Abstract, ¶ 6. Similar to Appellant’s disclosure, which describes building
models having elements such as walls, floors, doors, windows, etc., see
Spec. ¶ 16, Dishno’s 3D environment uses similar building elements to
simulate a user’s movement through the 3D environment such as spaces
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

8
defined by a number of rooms, walls, doors, and windows. See Dishno
¶¶ 7–12. In that regard, we are not persuaded that Appellant’s disclosure
supports the narrower interpretation of a “3D model associated with the
building” as a representation of an actual building. See Appeal Br. 8–9; see
also Reply Br. 2–5.
Discussion
With respect to the disclosure of “2D documentation sets” in Dishno,
we agree with the Examiner that the disclosed 2D content, which is used to
generate a 3D environment, meets the recited limitation. See Ans. 28–29.
As found by the Examiner, Dishno discloses interpreting the 2D content to
generate 3D environment elements in the form of buildings, each
representing a different website, and rooms, each representing a webpage.
Id. at 28; Dishno ¶¶ 7, 9–11, 238, 239. That is, Dishno’s relational
representation of Websites, webpages, and text or image contents, that form
a series of overlays on a building model, meets the recited 2D
documentation sets that are associated with a building, when interpreted
broadly but reasonably, as discussed above.
Similarly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the recited
“3D model associated with a building” because the disclosure of a 3D
structure in Dishno includes building elements that correspond to the 2D
content. Ans. 29; Dishno ¶¶ 110, 131. In the “Rendering 3D Objects”
section of the disclosure, Dishno teaches rendering “3D structures in the
form of buildings, rooms, walls, and objects based on minimal amounts of
information, in the form of definition files to create the interactive 3D
animated screen views.” Dishno ¶ 131. As further found by the Examiner,
the user inputs provide and define user movements through the rendered 3D
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

9
building model as the view angle and location changes are sensed. Ans. 29;
Dishno ¶ 167.
Regarding the recited “user-selectable control” having a first and a
second selection control that cause animation sequences that end with “one
of the plurality of 2D documentation sets” and “a view of the 3D model
having an overlay of one of the 2D documentation sets,” respectively, we
also agree with the Examiner’s findings. As discussed above, paragraphs
110, 131, and 167 of Dishno disclose an interface for receiving the user
inputs that result in user interactions with the 3D environment and the 2D
web content. See Ans. 30–31 (citing Dishno ¶¶ 110, 131, 167). Dishno also
discloses “ways to browse Internet websites as 3D environments, create
custom enhanced 3D websites, connect 3D websites, animate transitions
among 3D websites, and/or otherwise interact with web content within a 3D
environment.” Dishno ¶ 51. This transition from the 2D web content to a
3D structure helps the user to interact with the browser by navigating the 3D
environment and being able to access the 2D content associated with the
specific point in the web browser search in the 3D environment. See e.g.,
Dishno ¶¶ 115, 122, 131, 176.
Turning next to the recited “user-selectable control” feature, we also
agree with the Examiner’s findings. For Example, the Examiner properly
relies on paragraph 86 of Dishno, which is also acknowledged by Appellant,
as disclosing edit tools used for editing and controlling the 2D web content
associated with different elements of the 3D environment. See Ans. 31; see
also Appeal Br. 9. As further found by the Examiner, the user interactions
may additionally include editing tools that allow the user to create other 3D
structures (see Dishno ¶ 264), switch between views of webpages (see
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

10
Dishno ¶¶ 62, 239, 241), while the interaction may end in displaying a 2D
content/webpage (see Dishno ¶ 69 “A 3D construct may also include one
and/or 2D items (e.g., a view of a classic webpage displayed on a wall in a
room).”). See Ans. 31–33.
With respect to the teachings of Fedosov, we are also unpersuaded by
Appellant’s arguments related to the 2D documentation sets, 3D building
model, or an animation sequence limitations. See Appeal Br. 11–12. As
explained by the Examiner, Fedosov was relied on as disclosing “an
associated balloon that is generated by the processor when the icon is user-
selected” whereas Dishno was cited for its disclosure of “2D document sets
associated with a building” and “a 3D model associated with the building.”
Ans. 33–34 (citing Fedosov ¶¶ 75, 91, Figs. 1a, 1b). The Examiner further
finds that Fedosov “utilizes the knowledge of floor plan or height of a
building to separate the building into partitions and overlay[s] the [point of
intrest] POI information to corresponding partitions in an image of the
building” and interacts with the information (or 2D documentation) relevant
to the interaction balloon. Ans. 34 (citing Fedosov ¶ 10, 107).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of
Fedosov. We also note that Appellant’s contentions focus on the references
separately and ignore the fact that the proposed rejection is based on the
combination of user-selectable controls included in a balloon for controlling
the presentation of 2D documentation or information of Fedosov with the
user-selectable controls of Dishno, where the selection of controls causes an
animation sequence for further displaying a 3D model with 2D webpage
content associated with the model. See Ans. 34–37. Each reference must be
read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

11
prior art as a whole. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(“[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” (citing
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Based on the proposed
combination, the resulting structure would allow the system of Dishno to
include the user-selectable controls in an associated balloon when an icon,
text, or image is selected. See Ans. 36; see also Fedosov ¶¶ 7, 41, 42. In
fact, it is not necessary that the features of one cited reference be directly
insertable into the other reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
CLAIM 2
Claim 2 requires that the system recited in claim 1 further “generate
one or more user controls to allow a user to edit one of the plurality of 2D
documentation sets while modifying an associated user-selectable control for
the edited 2D documentation set in the 3D model in response to the user edit
to the 2D documentation set.” Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). Appellant
presents similar arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1 and
additionally asserts the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 86 of Dishno,
disclosing a “room grid,” is in error. According to Appellant, “this ‘room
grid’ is not a building model, because doors, windows and other objects can
be independently added, moved or edited” and “this simplistic, abstract idea
would not work for a 3D building model, where a change to a door results in
a change to the surrounding walls, a change to a window results in changes
to the exterior walls, and that numerous other interactions exist.” Appeal Br.
16.
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

12
We are unpersuaded because Dishno’s disclosure of user-edited walls
and other building features relates to how 2D documentation sets are
displayed on walls and the document modification changes the 2D
documentation in the 3D model. See Final Act. 17–18; Dishno ¶ 11 (“Some
embodiments may automatically provide 2D content within the 3D
environment. For instance, 2D text or image content may be displayed on a
wall of a 3D building, on a face of a 3D sign or similar object, etc.”), 69 (“A
3D construct may also include one and/or 2D items (e.g., a view of a classic
webpage displayed on a wall in a room)”). Additionally, Dishno discloses
“[a] ‘design grid’ may refer to a room grid that provides the ability to edit,
add, and remove objects, walls, doors, windows, and/or other features,”
which may include different edit tools. Dishno ¶ 86. Therefore, the
disclosure of a “design grid” in paragraph 86 includes the edits to the 2D
content, which is reflected in the 3D model changes based on how the 2D
content or webpage is selected by a user.
CLAIM 3
Claim 3 requires the system recited in claim 1 further “comprising a
3D model system with embedded controls operating on the processor that is
configured to generate one or more user controls to allow a user to edit the
3D model while maintaining the plurality of associated user-selectable
controls in the 3D model and adding a new associated user-selectable control
in an associated 2D documentation set as a function of the user edit.”
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). Appellant contends the Examiner’s reliance
on disclosure of “the playback control options such as pause, stop, record a
3D browsing session” in Dishno is unsupported because none of such
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

13
actions “add any new user-selectable control in a 3D building model and
does not associate that control with 2D documentation.” Appeal Br. 16.
We are unpersuaded because the Examiner provided detailed
explanation with citations to paragraphs 135 and 262 of Dishno which
provide for processes that allow the user to edit the 3D model and add new
associated controls in a 2D documentation, as required by claim 3. See Final
Act. 18. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (see Appeal Br. 26; Hr’g
Transcript 12), editing the webpages changes the content displayed on a
wall, which is part of the 3D model. More specifically, Dishno teaches or
suggests adding new controls by disclosing that “the process may apply (at
670) style details and objects provided by the structure definitions and then
end. In some cases, the screen view may be completed by adding any hot
spots and image map hyperlinks which may make screen objects selectable.”
Dishno ¶ 135. Additionally, we observe that the disclosure of “playback
controls” in paragraph 262 of Dishno provides for embedded controls that
allow the user to identify the desired location in a 3D model for editing and
adding new controls. See Dishno ¶ 262.
CLAIM 6
Claim 6 requires that the movement control recited in claim 5 further
includes “a first circle icon associated with a rest state” and “a second circle
icon encircling the first circle icon associated with a plurality of first
movement states and a continuous transition between states.” Appeal Br. 27
(Claims App.). Appellant contends the Examiner’s reliance on Warner as
disclosing the limitation of claim 6 is in error because the menus of Warner
are different from the recited “movement control” and “even if combined
with Dishno and Fedosov, they would not result in the claimed movement
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

14
controls, and the Office does not even attempt to explain why such
movement controls would even be created based only on Warner in the
absence of impermissible hindsight.” Appeal Br. 20–21. According to
Appellant, “the controls of Warner would be incompatible with the
movement controls of Dishno and Fedosov, which require user navigation
and which do not permit for selections between a rest state and movement
states with continuous transitions between states.” Id. at 21.
We are unpersuaded because the Examiner cited to specific portions
of Warner and provided detailed explanation as to how the disclosed radial
menu displayed on the touchscreen meets the recited movement control
including the first and second circle icon. Final Act. 25–26 (citing Warner
¶¶ 46, 77–79, 120, Figs. 6, 9). We agree with the Examiner that the
combination of references teaches the specific arrangement of icons,
especially when the modification to the Dishno-Fedosov combination “may
enable subsequent rapid sweep gestures.” Final Act. 26 (citing Warner ¶ 8).
In other words, this is a combination of familiar elements according to
known methods with predicable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”). Here, the Examiner relies on the limited teaching of
the circular arrangement of icons in Warner to improve the display of user
controls. Additionally, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering
obviousness, “the 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.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

15
CLAIM 9
Claim 9 requires that the system of claim 1 further includes “a model
license system operating on the processor and configured to transmit the
plurality of 2D documentation sets and the 3D model in a format compatible
with a viewer system to a predetermined licensed processor.” Appeal Br. 27
(Claims App.). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reliance on
Appleman as disclosing the limitation of claim 9 is in error because “there is
no further disclosure on what is meant by the ‘permission documents,’ and it
is clear that they refer to permission documents to be executed, such as part
of a task, and not to a state of a processor, such as whether a processor is
licensed.” Appeal Br. 21. According to Appellant, “Appleman does not
disclose determining whether a processor is licensed, Proposed FF11, and
the permission documents on the task list of Appleman have to be
interpreted by a processor, which prevents those from being the claimed
licensed processor, because it would be impossible for an unlicensed
processor to interpret the task list of permission documents that are to be
executed.” Id. at 23.
We are unpersuaded because the Examiner found that Appleman
provides a detailed explanation of how the disclosed configurator application
allows additional services to become available to the customer, which, in
turn, enables the customer to make edits to the documents and the building
configuration. Final Act. 28–29 (citing Appleman ¶¶ 56, 106, 125, Fig. 12).
That is, Appleman makes the documents and building model available to “a
predetermined licensed processor” after the user of that processor signs a
contract and becomes licensed to access the building files and the tasks to be
performed. We also agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

16
references teaches the recited compatible format to be viewable by a
licensed processor and provides the customer “access to information related
to progress in the design and construction.” Final Act. 29 (citing Appleman
¶¶ 106, 125).
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1–3, 6, and 9 because Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3 over the
combination of Dishno and Fedosov, claim 6 over the combination of
Dishno, Fedosov, and Warner, and claim 9 over the combination of Dishno,
Fedosov, and Appleman. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of
the remaining claims because Appellant argues their patentability based on
the same reasons discussed above, which we find unpersuasive.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8, 10–
14, 17
103 Dishno, Fedosov 1–5, 8, 10–
14, 17

6, 7, 15, 16 103 Dishno, Fedosov,
Warner
6, 7, 15, 16
9, 18, 20,
21
103 Dishno, Fedosov,
Appleman
9, 18, 20,
21

Overall
Outcome
1–18, 20, 21

Appeal 2020-005885
Application 14/788,552

17
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED