LUCAS-MILHAUPT, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020005161 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
15/119,334 08/16/2016 Dean W. Kick LUCMIL/118/PC/US 7850
2543 7590 09/02/2021
ALIX, YALE & RISTAS, LLP
150 TRUMBULL STREET
SIXTH FLOOR
HARTFORD, CT 06103
EXAMINER
KRUPICKA, ADAM C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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):
ip@pctlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte DEAN W. KICK
____________
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No.
15/119,334 filed Aug. 16, 2016, citing to the published version of the
application (US 2017/0151635 A1); the Final Office Action dated July 17,
2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Feb. 14, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Supplemental Appeal Brief filed Mar. 13, 2020 (“Supp. Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer dated Apr, 30, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed
June 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 14–20 of Application
15/119,334, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
The subject matter of the invention relates to the field of brazing, said
to be a joining process whereby a non-ferrous filler metal or alloy is heated
to melting temperature and distributed between two or more close-fitting
parts. Spec. ¶ 2. The parts must be first cleaned, then fluxed. Id. ¶ 5. Flux,
a chemical compound applied to a joint surface before brazing, serves to
shield the base metal surfaces from the air, preventing oxide formation on
them. Id.
Pre-formed rings, or “preforms,” are made of a filler alloy formed into
a shape and applied to a joint for brazing, and may include a flux material
coated or cored into the preform. Id. ¶ 7. The flux cored into the preform
may escape through an opening, seam, or channel along the length of the
preform when heat is applied for the brazing operation. Id. According to
Applicant, by allowing the flux to escape the core of the preform, the entire
area of the joint may be pretreated with flux before the filler alloy melts. Id.
Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Supplemental Appeal Brief, represent the claimed subject matter:
1. A shaped, small diameter bra-zing [sic] preform
comprising:

2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Lucas-Milhaupt, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claims 8–13 are withdrawn. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

3
a continuous, uniform, cavity in a center of the preform
extending along, a length of the preform;
a first edge and a second edge extending along the length
of the preform wherein at least a portion of the first edge and
the second edge do not contact each other forming an opening
extending along the length of the preform, wherein the opening
is uniform along the length of the preform, and wherein the
opening provides a directional exit from the cavity to an
external environment;
a flux within the cavity, the flux having a composition
different than a composition of the preform, wherein the flux
escapes the cavity via the opening during brazing;
a first generally planar side along a cross-sectional
portion or the preform on a perimeter of the cross section a
second generally planar side along the perimeter of the cross
section in contact with the first generally planar side; and
a third generally planar side along the perimeter of the
cross section in contact with the second generally planar side,
wherein the opening separates the first generally planar side
from the second generally planar side thus forming a generally
triangular cross-section.
14. A shaped, small diameter brazing preform comprising:
a preform with three distinct and generally planar sides
along a cross-sectional portion of the preform;
a generally triangular cross-section defined by the planar
sides when the cross section is taken from any point along the
length of the preform;
a continuous, uniform, cavity in a center of the cross
section and extending along a 1ength of the preform;
an opening to the cavity along at least a portion of the
cross section creating gap, wherein the opening extends
uniformly along the length of the preform; and
a flux positively retained within the cavity by a pressure
from the three sides;
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

4
wherein the opening exposes the flux to an exterior of the
cavity.
Supp. Appeal Br. 5, 7 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting claims 1–7
and 14–20:
Name Reference Date
Mills US 1,650,905 Nov. 29, 1927
Candy US 1,865,169 June 28, 1932
Krembs US 1,891,546 Dec. 20, 1932
Laubmeyer et al.
(“Laubmeyer”)
US 3,388,850 June 18, 1968
Jossick US 5,781,846 July 14, 1998
Dockus et al.
(“Dockus”)
US 2003/0189082 A1 Oct. 9, 2003
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. Claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply
with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2–3.
B. Claims 1, 2, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated
by Krembs. Final Act. 3–4.
C. Claims 1–3, 5–7, 14–16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Jossick in view of Krembs, Mills, Candy, and Laubmeyer.
Final Act. 4–8.
D. Claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Jossick in view of Krembs, Mills, Candy, and Laubmeyer, and further in
view of Dockus. Final Act. 8–9.
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

5
DISCUSSION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in 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.”). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Rejection of claims 3 and 15 as lacking written description
support
Claims 3 and 15 are dependent claims that require “wherein a cross-
sectional width of the preform and a cross-sectional height of the preform
are sized at a ratio of at least 2:1.” Supp. Appeal Br. 5, 7 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that the ’334 Application, as filed, does not
contain support for the ratio of at least 2:1, thus the Examiner finds the
claims do not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a). Final Act. 2–3.
Appellant argues that the original drawings of the ’334 Application
show possession of the claimed subject matter. Appeal Br. 11–12. In the
Appeal Brief, Appellant provides an annotated version of FIG. 7, adding “x”
to show the height and “2x” to show the width of the brazing preform. Id. at
12; see also Reply Br. 2. However, “x” and “2x” are not included in the
original drawings. See ’334 App., FIG. 7.
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

6
“[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise
proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes
if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-
Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir.
2000); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954) (“Ordinarily drawings
which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the
principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not
define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims
with patentability.”); see also Nystrom v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1148‒49
(Fed. Cir. 2005). We find nothing in the Specification—nor does Appellant
identify anything in the Specification—that provides precise proportions or
particular dimensions. The cases cited by Appellant in support of its
position do not state otherwise. See Appeal Br. 11.
We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
as lacking written description support.
B. Rejection of claims 1, 2, 14, and 16 as anticipated by Krembs
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 14, and 16 as a group. Appeal Br. 13–
15. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 2, 14, and 16 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Krembs discloses the limitations of claim 1
after the inner sheath is formed around the core, but prior to the addition of
the outer sheath. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that “wherein the flux
escapes the cavity via the opening during brazing” is a functional
requirement of the brazing preform, and Krembs has structure capable of
performing the claimed function. Id. at 3–4.
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

7
Appellant argues that a brazing preform having an opening extending
along the length of the preform to provide a directional exit from a cavity to
an external environment (or, in claim 14, expose the flux to an exterior of
the cavity) “is not intended and not appreciated by the Examiner’s identified
‘intermediate’ product from Krembs.” Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 3.
Appellant also argues that Krembs’s intermediate product is not enabled and
useful on its own. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that the
purpose of Krembs is to produce a “hermetically sealed” brazing rod.
Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. A reference can be
regarded as prior art that describes a composition or structure as being an
intermediate product. In re Mullin, 481 F.2d 1333, 1335 (CCPA 1973)
(citing In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390, 1394 (CCPA 1972)). Appellant relies
on In re Felton, 484 F.2d 495, 500 (CCPA 1973) for stating “[a]n accidental
or unwitting duplication of an invention cannot constitute an anticipation” to
support its position. Appeal Br. 14. However, Felton is distinguishable
from the present case.
In Felton, the claims at issue required, inter alia
said open end part of the tube providing a dropper so sized in
relation to the viscosity of the liquid to be dispensed that when
the empty tube is squeezed shut intermediate its ends by
compression between a thumb and a finger and the open end
dipped into a body of the liquid to be dispensed and then the
pressure released so as to create a sub-atmospheric pressure
within the tube sufficient to draw into the tube slightly in excess
of a single drop of the liquid to be dispensed, and, when the
tube has then been withdrawn from the body of liquid and held
vertically over a test area and the tube again is squeezed
between thumb and finger one single drop of the liquid can be
dispensed from the tube.
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

8
Felton, 484 F.2d at 497. The court held that the prior art intermediate
product required “no critical dimension that would lead to a structure
inherently having [the claimed] characteristics. Therefore, it would be mere
happenstance if any structure made according to [the prior art] met the
limitations of the claims.” Id. at 499–500.
In contrast to Felton, the structure in claim 1 need only be capable of
providing a directional exit from a cavity to an external environment.
Krembs describes folding a tape or ribbon of suitable metallic foil or other
easily fusible material around a portion of the core material to form a
sheathing. Krembs 1, ll. 52–56. Krembs states that the edges of the sheaths
(inner and outer) “are folded nearly together . . . although the space in the
inner sheath . . . may be comparatively wide.” Id. ll. 80–87 (emphasis
added). Krembs describes the core as being “nearly hermetically seal[ed].”
Id. ll. 17–18 (emphasis added). Krembs does not describe the inner sheath—
or even the combination of the inner and outer sheaths—as hermetically
sealing the core; at most, the combined inner and outer sheaths are folded
nearly together, and nearly hermetically seal the core.
In addition, Figs. 2 and 7 of Krembs show a space between the edges
of the inner sheath that is sufficiently wide to be capable of providing a
directional exit of the flux to an external environment. Figs. 2 and 7 of
Krembs are reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

9

Fig. 2 is a cross section of a round brazing rod, and Fig. 7 is a cross
section of a triangular brazing rod. Krembs 1, ll. 1–2, 41–42, and 46. A
tape or ribbon of suitable metallic foil or other easily fusible casing material
is folded around the core material (1) and forms inner sheathing (4). Id. ll.
52–56. Outer sheathing (5) is then folded closely around and superimposed
on inner sheath (4). Id. ll. 56–58. The edges of the sheaths are folded nearly
together, although the space in the inner sheathing (4) may be comparatively
wide. Id. ll. 80–81 and 84–87.
The Examiner provides an illustration, reproduced below,
demonstrating how the claim elements apply to Krembs. Final Act. 4.

Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

10
The illustration shows a triangular core with an outer wrapping that
wraps around the three sides of the triangular core, but does not completely
cover one side of the triangular core, leaving what the Examiner identifies as
an “opening.” Id.
Thus, unlike the prior art in Felton, Krembs’s intermediate product
structure would inherently have the claimed characteristics. “It matters not
one whit that [the structure] was intended to be and appreciated as being an
intermediate structure rather than an end use item.” Mullin, 481 F.2d at
1336. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
been able to make and use the core wrapped in the inner sheath without
undue experimentation.
For the reasons above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Krembs. Applying the same reasoning, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 14, and 16 as anticipated by Krembs.
C. Rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, 14–16, and 18–20 as obvious over
Jossick in view of Krembs, Mills, Candy, and Laubmeyer
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–7, 14–16, and 18–20 as obvious
over the combination of Jossick, Krembs, Mills, Candy, and Laubmeyer.
Final Act. 4–8. Appellant argues the claims as a group, except for specific
differences in wording between independent claims 1 and 14. Appeal Br.
15–22. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, and address the
language of claim 14 where necessary. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims
2, 3, and5–7 stand or fall with claim 1, and claims 15, 16, and 18–20 stand
or fall with claim 14.
Relying on Jossick as the primary reference, the Examiner finds that it
discloses a flux cored brazing composition where a brazing metal strip is
formed around a flux material. Final Act. 5 (citing Jossick FIG.s 1, 2A, 2B,
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

11
and col. 3, l. 60–col. 4, l. 20). The Examiner relies on Krembs as teaching
the flux cored brazing material having a triangular shape. Id. The Examiner
determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to form the flux cored brazing material in a triangular shape where the
triangular shape has been demonstrated in the art to be advantageous for
particular brazing operations. Id. (citing Krembs Fig. 7 and 2, ll. 29–32).
The Examiner finds that Mills and Candy teach the use of a channel to
expose flux material along the length of the body to deliver flux at the time
of a bonding operation. Id. (citing Mills Figs. 2 and 4, Candy Figs. 2–4).
The Examiner finds Laubmeyer discloses the use of a flux cored wire solder
where recesses are provided to regulate the flow of a fluxing agent during
use. Id. The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to expose the flux of Jossick’s brazing rod as shown in
Mills, Candy, and Laubmeyer in order to deliver flux material effectively to
the joint to be brazed. Id.
Appellant proffers multiple arguments in an effort to overcome the
obviousness rejection.
First, Appellant argues that the combined prior art references do not
teach an opening uniform along the length of the preform “providing a
directional exit from the cavity to an external environment” (claim 1) or
“exposing the core to an exterior of the cavity” (claim 14). Appeal Br. 19–
20. Appellant contends that, of the cited prior art, only Laubmeyer discloses
a cavity that is exposed to an external environment, but Laubmeyer’s cavity
is exposed via conical recesses, not via an opening running along the length
of the preform, as required by claim 1. Id. at 19, 20.
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

12
Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously relies on Krembs to
teach an opening that runs along the length of the inner sheath. Id. at 20.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. “Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Each reference cited by the Examiner
must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination
with the prior art as a whole. See id.
More importantly, Appellant fails to address in the Appeal Brief the
disclosures of Mills and Candy, the references the Examiner relies on as
disclosing an opening uniform along the length of the preform. Compare
Final Act. 5, with Appeal Br. 19–20. Appellant’s attempt to rectify this in
the Reply Brief (see Reply Brief 4–5) is a new argument, which could have
been but was not presented in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010)
(informative) ) (“the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments
that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the
Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion
Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument
raised for the first time in the Reply Brief is considered waived). Appellant
does not show good cause why the new argument was not raised in the
Appeal Brief and, therefore, the argument is waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that
an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal);
Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834 (BPAI 2010) (informative)
(explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

13
principal Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a
showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been
presented in the Principal Brief); Borden, 93 USPQ2d at 1477 (“Properly
interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument
that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good
cause.”).
Second, Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to modify Jossick because Jossick teaches away
from the addition of an opening in the sheath that would provide a
directional exit from the cavity to an external environment (claim 1) or
expose the core to an exterior of the cavity (claim 14). Appeal Br. 20–21.
Appellant contends that the cylinder in Jossick “completely encircles and
encloses the flux 14” and “Jossick specifically calls for the ends 18, 20 of
the strip 12 to overlap and completely encompass the flux 14 within the
core.” Id. at 21 (citing Jossick col. 3, l. 60–col. 4, l. 27). As a result, the
flux in Jossick is sealed and secured within the sheath. Id. According to
Appellant, exposure of the flux within the core by an opening would risk the
flux escaping the core. Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that
Jossick attains its objective by “rolling a strip [of aluminum filler metal] to
form an elongated sheath having a length of at least 500 feet long and
without an opening to the flux filled center.” Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added)
(citing Jossick col. 3, ll. 20–25, col. 3, ln. 60–col. 4, ln. 20, and FIG. 1, 2A,
2B).
This argument is not persuasive.
The word “completely” is not found in Jossick (see generally,
Jossick), nor do any of Appellant’s citations to Jossick state that the
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

14
elongated sheath is “without an opening to the flux filled center.” Rather,
Jossick states “[p]referably, the cylinder 16 is formed by an overlapping of
lips 18 & 20 of strip 12.” Jossick col. 4, ll. 19–20 (emphasis added). “A
reference that ‘merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
investigation into’ the claimed invention does not teach away.” Meiresonne
v. Google, Inc., 849 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Galderma
Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “Whether
or not a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a question of
fact.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re
Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). On the record before us,
Appellant does not show that Jossick teaches away from the Examiner’s
proposed modification. “We will not read into a reference a teaching away
from a process where no such language exists.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH
& Co. v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Third, Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to modify Jossick because the advantage of effectively
delivering flux material to a joint to be brazed is not needed by Jossick.
Appeal Br. 21; Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that Jossick already teaches
an effective delivery of flux material to the joint to be brazed. Appeal Br.
21. We do not consider Appellant’s untimely argument in the Reply Brief
that “the addition of openings to expose the cavity would indeed render the
brazing preform of Jossick unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” See 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
As the Examiner points out (see Answer 14), the proposed
modifications would not interfere with the intended advantages stated by
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

15
Jossick, specifically the brazing material would remain as a non-corrosive,
non-hydroscopic flux disclosed within a brazing sheath, the flux would be
absent of organic binders, and the brazing material would be able to be
mounted to surfaces to be brazed without excessive runoff. See Jossick col.
2, ll. 48–67.
Appellant’s final argument is that Laubmeyer and Krembs are so
different that one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to modify
Jossick with teachings from both references. Appeal Br. 22. Appellant
argues that Laubmeyer discloses exposing the core to an external
environment, but Krembs discloses hermetically sealing and enclosing the
core. Id.
As discussed supra, the Examiner does not rely on Krembs to teach
the opening, and Krembs does not disclose hermetically sealing the core,
especially the intermediate structure. Rather, the Examiner relies on Krembs
to teach the triangular cross-sectional shape claimed. See Ans. 15. The
Examiner relies on the combination of Laubmeyer, Mills, and Candy to
modify Jossick for the flux opening. Id. The Examiner’s explanation of the
reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had to combine the
prior art teachings is sufficient when an allowance is made for “the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A]
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 401.
Appellant identifies nothing that suggests the results of the combination of
teachings from the references are unpredictable. Moreover, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

16
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that
person’s skill. Id. “A court must ask whether the improvement is more than
the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.” Id. In this case, the Appellant has not shown that it is.
“Evidence of a motivation to combine prior art references ‘may flow from
the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.’”
Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(citation omitted).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious of Jossick in view of
Krembs, Mills, Candy, and Laubmeyer. For the same reasons as for claim 1,
we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 14–16, and 18–20 over these
references.
D. Rejection of claims 4 and 17 as obvious over Jossick in view of
Krembs, Mills, Candy, and Laubmeyer, and further in view of
Dockus
The Examiner relies on the findings regarding Jossick, Krembs, Mills,
Candy, and Laubmeyer discussed supra, further finding that Dockus teaches
the additional limitations of claims 4 and 17. Final Act. 8–9.
Appellant argues the Dockus does not cure the deficiencies in the
combination of Jossick, Krembs, Mills, Candy, and Laubmeyer. Appeal Br.
22.
Because Appellant does not show deficiencies in the combination of
Jossick, Krembs, Mills, Candy, and Laubmeyer, we sustain the rejection of
claims 4 and 17.
Appeal 2020-005161
Application 15/119,334

17
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
3, 15 112(a) Written Description 3, 15
1, 2, 14, 16 102(a) Krembs 1, 2, 14, 16
1–3, 5–7,
14–16, 18–
20
103(a)
Jossick, Krembs,
Mills, Candy,
Laubmeyer
1–3, 5–7,
14–16, 18–
20

4, 17 103(a)
Jossick, Krembs,
Mills, Candy,
Laubmeyer, Dockus
4, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 14–20
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).
AFFIRMED