Medtronic, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2021

2020004756 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 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.
14/104,057 12/12/2013 Jianping Wu 1123-117US01/
C004952.USU2
5029
71996 7590 05/27/2021
SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A
1625 RADIO DRIVE , SUITE 100
WOODBURY, MN 55125
EXAMINER
AKAR, SERKAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2021 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
rs.patents.five@medtronic.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JIANPING WU, CHIH LAI, and DWIGHT E. NELSON
____________

Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.

JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s
decision, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated August 27, 2019,
rejecting claims 1–6, 13–16, and 22–29.2 The Examiner indicates that
claims 7–12 and 17–21 contain allowable subject matter. See Non-Final
Act. 22; Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies “Medtronic Inc. of Minneapolis,
Minnesota” as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appellant identifies U.S. Patent Application No. 14/104,078 as a
related application. Appeal Br. 3. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board
rendered a decision on appeal in the related application on July 22, 2020 (in
Appeal No. 2020-00929).
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
2
We affirm in part.

BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter “relates to motion analysis and, more
particularly, identification of patient behavior using motion analysis.” Spec.
¶ 2. Claims 1, 15, and 24 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below,
with bracketed letters added to identify each clause:
1. A method comprising:
[a] obtaining video information of patient motion captured
over a period of time, wherein the video information comprises
a plurality of frames;
[b] receiving, with respect to one frame of the plurality of
frames, a user selection of a sample area within the one frame of
the plurality of frames, the sample area being representative of
an anatomical region, wherein the user selection is defined by a
user;
[c] analyzing, by one or more processors, each of the other
plurality of frames for respective areas corresponding to the
sample area;
[d] calculating, by the one or more processors, one or more
movement parameters of the anatomical region during the period
of time from at least one difference between the sample area and
one or more respective areas of at least a subset of the plurality
of frames;
[e] comparing, by the one or more processors, the one or
more movement parameters of the period of time to respective
criteria for each of a plurality of predetermined patient behaviors;
[f] identifying, based on the comparison and by the one or
more processors, each one of the predetermined patient
behaviors that occurred during the period of time; and
[g] outputting an indication of the patient behaviors that
occurred during the period of time.

Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Chen US 5,960,111 Issued Sept. 28, 1999
Marrion US 2008/0100438 A1 Published May 1, 2008
Cassanova US 2010/0162303 A1 Published June 24, 2010
Varaklis3 US 2014/0153794 A1 Published June 5, 2014
Guangyu Zhu et al., Detecting Video Events Based on Action Recognition
in Complex Scenes Using Spatio-Temporal Descriptor, MM’09, October
19–24, 2009, Beijing, China (“Zhu”)

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–3, 13–15, and 22–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Varaklis, Zhu, and Cassanova.
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Varaklis, Zhu, Cassanova, and Marrion.
3. Claims 5, 6, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Varaklis, Zhu, Cassanova, and Chen.

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 – Claims 1–3, 13–15, and 22–29
A. Claims 1, 14, 25, 26, 29
For the claims in this group, Appellant argues the patentability of
independent claim 1 and does not separately argue claims 14, 25, 26, and 29,
which depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–17. Thus, we address claim 1,

3 The Examiner ostensibly relies on WO 2012/101093 A2 in this
rejection (which also lists John Varaklis and Craig Smith as inventors), but
the Examiner uses citations to US 2014/0153794 A1 throughout the briefing
in this proceeding.
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
4
with claims 14, 25, 26, and 29 standing or falling with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
For claim 1, the Examiner relied on Varaklis for certain limitations
but stated that “Varaklis does not teach user selection of a sample area
defined by a user; and difference between the sample area and respective
areas; and analyzing frames for respective areas corresponding to the
sample area.” Non-Final Act. 7. The Examiner found, however, that “Zhu
teaches the study on detecting human-related video events in complex
scenes and dynamic motion (abst)” and teaches “[u]ser selection of a sample
area defined by a user,” the “difference between the sample area and
respective areas,” and “analyzing frames for respective areas corresponding
to the sample area.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Zhu Fig. 5, pp. 169, 171, 173). The
Examiner also provided a reason to modify Varaklis with Zhu as proposed.
Id. at 8.
The Examiner stated, however, that “Varaklis in view of Zhu does not
point out the specifics of user selection of a sample area defined by a user
(e.g. user with an interface device [mouse or keyboard] pointing to a region
and selecting a region).” Id. at 9 (bracketed text added by the Examiner).
The Examiner found, however, that “in the field of selecting regions in video
frames, Cassanova teaches [a] method for selecting an object in a video data
stream.” Id. (citing Cassanova, code (57)). Highlighting Figure 2 of
Cassanova, the Examiner stated that “the anatomical region is defined and
selected by the user by means of selecting the point 110 and stretching it to
the point 205 to define and select the box 204.” Id. at 10. The Examiner
provided a reason to modify Varaklis in view of Zhu with Cassanova. Id. at
10–11.
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
5
Appellant provides five arguments addressing the rejection of claim 1.
First, Appellant argues that the “Examiner has failed to explain how visual
representations of medical data ‘displayed with the avatar on or near a
portion of the avatar’ [(Varaklis ¶ 42)] disclose or suggest ‘receiving . . . a
user selection of a sample area . . . wherein the user selection is defined by a
user,’ as recited by independent claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10.
We are not apprised of error based on this argument because, as noted
by the Examiner, Varaklis is not relied on for the aspects of the “receiving”
step in clause b highlighted by Appellants. See Ans. 21 (stating that “it is
very clear that the office action unmistakably shows the limitations of
‘receiving, with respect to one frame of the plurality of frames, a
selection of a sample area representative of an anatomical region, the
selection defined by a user’ are being taught by Varaklis, hence not the
limitations as argued by the appellant” (discussing Non-Final Act. 4–5)).
Indeed, before discussing the relied-upon aspects of Cassanova, the
Examiner expressly acknowledged that “Varaklis in view of Zhu does not
point out the specifics of user selection of a sample area defined by a user
(e.g. user with an interface device [mouse or keyboard] pointing to a region
and selecting a region)”—i.e., the aspects of the “receiving” step highlighted
by Appellant. Non-Final Act. 9; see In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”). Then, after discussing details of the relied-
upon aspects of Cassanova, the Examiner summarized that reference as
“specifically teach[ing] the selection of anatomical region made by a USER
by means of user identifying and selecting the region in a frame” as shown
in Figure 2. Non-Final Act. 11.
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
6
We are also not apprised of error by Appellant’s assertion that “the
Examiner failed to cite any passage of Varaklis that discloses or suggests”
any aspects of the “receiving” step in clause b. Appeal Br. 10. As an initial
matter, and as discussed above, the Examiner relies on Varaklis for certain
aspects of the “receiving” step, but relies on Zhu and Cassanova for other
aspects of that step. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
(emphasis added)). Moreover, as to the aspects of the “receiving” step for
which the Examiner relies on Varaklis, Appellant has not adequately
explained why the Examiner erred. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“The
arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant.”); see also Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“An appellant may attempt to
overcome an examiner’s obviousness rejection on appeal to the Board by
submitting arguments and/or evidence to show that the examiner made an
error . . . .” (emphasis added)).
Second, Appellant argues that
no reasonable combination of Varaklis and Zhu would have led
a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at “receiving,
with respect to one frame of the plurality of frames, a user
selection of a sample area within the one frame of the plurality
of frames, the sample area being representative of an anatomical
region, wherein the user selection is defined by a user,” as recited
by independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, “Zhu discloses that candidate
regions (e.g., the image region of interest) are selected using a computer
algorithm, rather than a human user.” Id. at 11. Appellant contends that
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
7
“[t]he plain meaning of ‘user selection’” in the “receiving” step is “a
selection performed by a human user.” Id. at 12.
As an initial matter, we agree with the construction of “user selection”
(in clause b) proposed by Appellant as requiring a selection performed by a
human. See Appeal Br. 12; see also Spec. ¶ 136 (identifying clinician 22 in
Figure 1 as an exemplary “user”). Even applying that construction,
however, this argument does not apprise us of error because Appellant
improperly limits the proposed combination to only Varaklis and Zhu,
ignoring Cassanova. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. As discussed in the
context of the prior argument, the Examiner specifically stated that the
combination of Varaklis and Zhu alone does not satisfy the aspects of the
“receiving” step highlighted by Appellant. Non-Final Act. 9. Then, the
Examiner summarized the relied-upon aspects of Cassanova as “the
selection of anatomical region made by a USER by means of user
identifying and selecting the region in a frame” as shown in Figure 2. Id. at
11; see also Ans. 8 (“Cassanova SPECIFICALLY and FACTUALLY
show[s] that USER (as an operator or person) performing the
selection . . . .”).
Third, Appellant argues that “the modification suggested by the
Examiner would change the principle of operation described by Zhu, which
includes detecting human-related video events in complex scenes including a
crowd of people.” Appeal Br. 13. According to Appellant,
even if “Cassanova specifically teaches the selection of
anatomical region made by a USER by means of user identifying
and selecting the region in a frame,” [(Non-Final Act. 11)] one
of ordinary skill in the art would have consciously avoided
modifying the Varaklis in view of Zhu method to require
identifying the sample area by the user because such a change
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
8
would be less efficient and change the principal operation of the
system of identifying a region using a computer algorithm.
Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 10 (arguing that a person of ordinary skill
in the art “would have avoided replacing the machine learning techniques of
Zhu with the manual selection techniques of Cassanova because the manual
selection techniques of Cassanova would not achieve the stated goals of Zhu
as well as the machine learning algorithms which automatically select
regions of interest”).
A proposed modification that changes the “basic principles under
which the [prior art] was designed to operate” may not support a conclusion
of obviousness. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). Under Ratti,
“a change in the basic principles” refers to change that is fundamental in
scope so as to relate to scientific or technical principles under which the
invention is designed to operate. Id. (“This suggested combination of
references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the
elements shown in [the modified prior art] as well as a change in the basic
principles under which the [modified prior art] . . . was designed to
operate.”). Although Appellant has identified a difference in the manner in
which “selection of a sample area” would take place in (1) Varaklis in view
of Zhu (selection using a computer algorithm, as discussed above) as
compared to (2) the modified device of Varaklis/Zhu/Cassanova (selection
by a human (see Non-Final Act. 7–11)), Appellant has not demonstrated
why modifying the manner in which “selection of a sample area” occurs
changes the basic principles of operation. Indeed, even if the “selection of a
sample area” were by algorithm or user selection, the modified device of
Varaklis/Zhu/Cassanova would still, as noted by the Examiner, “allow
obtaining information about objects such as anatomical regions selected
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
9
from a video data stream ([0012] of Cassanova) which in turn would help
subjects or patients [to] be evaluated based upon physical presentation,
and/or ability (or inability) to perform motions ([0007] of V[a]raklis).”
Non-Final Act. 11.
Notably, because the medical-based application in Varaklis is the
invention being modified, the different application of Zhu—“in complex
scenes including a crowd of people” (Appeal Br. 13)—does not show a
change in the principle of operation, but merely the context of the
application. Moreover, even assuming as correct Appellant’s unsupported
assertion that using a computer algorithm rather than a user selection of the
“sample area” would be “less efficient” in the medical-based application of
Varaklis (Appeal Br. 14), Appellant has not shown that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have valued this alleged efficiency more than the relied-
upon aspect of Cassanova—i.e., the ability of a user to personally identify
and select their own areas of interest. See, e.g., Ans. 30 (discussing how
“Cassanova teaches making selections within the frame of the video stream
of images specifically by a user”); see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating that “a given course of action
often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not
necessarily obviate motivation to combine”); see also Winner Int’l Royalty
Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the
motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not
nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the
teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be
weighed against one another.”).
In the context of the modified invention in Varaklis, which, as noted
by the Examiner, may also involve a “clinician” (see Non-Final Act. 5
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
10
(citing Varaklis ¶ 94 when addressing the “receiving” step)), we view the
proposed reasons to modify Varaklis and Zhu with the benefit of the user
selection process of Cassanova as supported by rational underpinnings. See
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Fourth, Appellant argues that the proposed modification does not
satisfy the “receiving” step in clause b, the “analyzing” step in clause c, and
the “calculating” step in clause d. See Appeal Br. 14–15. More specifically,
Appellant argues that the relied-upon user selection process in Cassanova
“causes information corresponding to [objects] 104, 112 to appear in PIP
display 111” shown in Figure 2, “but does not cause” the “analyzing” step or
the “calculating” step in claim 1. Id. at 16.
We are not apprised of error based on this argument. The Examiner
does not rely on Cassanova, but rather Varaklis in view of Zhu, regarding
the “analyzing” step and the “calculating” step in claim 1. See Non-Final
Act. 9 (stating that Varaklis in view of Zhu only “does not point out the
specifics of user selection of a sample area defined by a user (e.g. user with
an interface device [mouse or keyboard] pointing to a region and selecting a
region)”); Ans. 35 (stating that Cassanova “is merely relied on for the
teaching of user as a person performing the selection of objects”); see
also Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. For the reasons above, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Claims 14, 25, 26, and 29 fall with claim 1.
B. Claims 2 and 3
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the step of “receiving, with
respect to the one frame of the plurality of frames, a selection of a second
sample area within the one frame of the plurality of frames . . . .” Appeal
Br. 27–28 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). For this added step, the
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
11
Examiner relied on Varaklis as disclosing “a selection of a second sample
area representative of a parts of body region (‘a patient 120 is being
recognized, sensed, imaged, and tracked with particular reference to the arm
122, and/or specific components of the arm 122, such as forearm, fingers
etc.’).” Non-Final Act. 12 (emphasis added) (quoting Varaklis ¶ 45).
Appellant argues that “neither the example embodiment described in
paragraph [0045] of Varaklis, nor any other embodiment described by
Varaklis, discloses or suggests receiving two selections of two sample areas
within one frame of a plurality of frames.” Appeal Br. 18.
We agree with Appellant. Having reviewed all the aspects of Varaklis
relied on in the rejection of claim 2 (including paragraph 45), we do not
discern any that teach the requirement of claim 2 highlighted by Appellant.
See Non-Final Act. 11–13 (discussing the reliance on Varaklis in the context
of the rejection of claim 2). Further, we agree with Appellant that Zhu and
Cassanova do not overcome this deficiency as to the rejection of claim 2.
See Appeal Br. 19. In the Answer, the Examiner does not address this
argument adequately, despite quoting Appellant’s position in its entirety.
See Ans. 36–40 (quoting Appeal Br. 17–19). Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 2, or the rejection of claim 3, which depends from claim 2.
C. Claim 13
Appellant separately argues claim 13, which depends from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 19–21, 34. For claim 13, the Examiner relied on Varaklis for the
added steps of “scanning,” “selecting,” and “outputting.” Non-Final Act. 15.
First, Appellant relies on the arguments directed to claim 1, from
which claim 13 depends. See Appeal Br. 19. For the reasons above (see
Rejection 1 § A), we are not apprised of error based on those arguments.
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
12
Second, Appellant argues that, with respect to parent claim 1, “the
Examiner acknowledged that ‘Varaklis does not teach user selection of a
sample area defined by a user’” (Appeal Br. 20 (quoting Non-Final Act. 7)),
and that, “[f]or at least this reason, Varaklis fails to disclose ‘outputting, for
display to a user, [a] candidate frame for receiving [a] user selection of [a]
sample area,’ as recited by claim 13.” Appeal Br. 20; see also id. (arguing
that “Varaklis fails to disclose ‘outputting, for display to a user, [a]
candidate frame for receiving [a] user selection of [a] sample area,’ as
recited by claim 13”).
In response, the Examiner highlights various disclosures in Varaklis
of displaying images to a user. See Ans. 43–44 (citing Varaklis ¶¶ 34, 81,
123). In the Reply Brief, Appellant does not address these disclosures
highlighted by the Examiner in the Answer. See generally Reply Br.
We are not apprised of error based on this argument by Appellant.
We determine that the disclosures from Varaklis identified in the Office
Action and the Answer adequately support the finding that Varaklis
discloses the “outputting, for display to a user, the candidate frame”
requirement of the “outputting” step of claim 13. For example, the
Examiner highlights one disclosure from Varaklis that “a patient’s
healthcare provider, clinician or caregiver may receive the data and/or
presentation” (Varaklis ¶ 123) with the Examiner providing the example of
“video including those captured frame images.” Ans. 44 (emphasis
omitted). To the extent Appellant argues that this “outputting” in Varaklis is
not “for receiving the user selection of the sample area”—as recited in the
rest of the step at issue in claim 13—we understand the Examiner to
continue to rely on Zhu and Cassanova (not Varaklis) as to that aspect, as
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
13
explained in the rejection of claim 1, from which claim 13 depends. See
Non-Final Act. 7–11; Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Third, Appellant argues that “Zhu discloses a process of locating
regions of interest using computer algorithms such as a convolutional neural
network,” but that “Zhu does not disclose ‘outputting, for display to a user,
the candidate frame for receiving the user selection of the sample area,’ as
recited by claim 13.” Appeal Br. 20.
This argument does not apprise us of error. As noted by the Examiner
in the Answer, and as discussed in the prior argument, Zhu and Cassanova
together are relied on in the context of this rejection as to the highlighted
aspects of the “outputting” step of claim 13. See, e.g., Ans. 45–47
(discussing how Zhu and Cassanova address this aspect of the “outputting”
step in claim 13 and stating how, in Cassanova, “the anatomical region is
defined and selected by the user by means of selecting the point 110 and
stretching it to the point 205 to define and select the box 204” (emphasis
added)); Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. For these reasons, we sustain the
rejection of claim 13.
D. Claims 15, 23, 27, and 28
For independent claim 15 (and claims 23, 27, and 28, which depend
from claim 15), Appellant relies on the same arguments discussed above
with regard to claim 1 (see supra Rejection 1 § A). Appeal Br. 21.
Appellant does not separately argue any of the dependent claims. Id.
Because we are not apprised of error based on the arguments as to claim 1,
we sustain the rejection of claims 15, 23, 27, and 28.
E. Claim 22
For claim 22, Appellant relies on the same arguments provided for
independent claim 15 (from which claim 22 depends) and relies on the same
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
14
arguments provided for claim 13 (which recites similar requirements to
claim 22). Appeal Br. 22. Because we are not apprised of error based on the
arguments as to claim 15 or claim 13 (see supra Rejection 1 §§ D, C), we
sustain the rejection of claim 22.
F. Claim 24
For independent claim 24, Appellant relies on the same arguments
provided for independent claim 1, which recites similar requirements to
claim 24. Appeal Br. 22–23. Because we are not apprised of error based on
the arguments as to claim 1 (see supra Rejection 1 § A), we sustain the
rejection of claim 24.
Rejection 2 – Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 28–29 (Claims App.).
For this Rejection, Appellant argues that claim 4 is allowable based on its
dependence from claim 1 and because Marrion does not overcome the
alleged deficiencies of Varaklis, Zhu, and Cassanova, discussed above in the
context of Rejection 1. See id. at 23–24. Appellant does not provide
additional arguments for claim 4. For the reasons above, we are not apprised
of error in the rejection of claim 1. See supra Rejection 1 § A. As such, we
sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Rejection 3 – Claims 5, 6, and 16
A. Claim 5 and 6
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 29–30 (Claims
App.). For this Rejection, Appellant argues that claims 5 and 6 are
allowable based on their dependence from claim 1 and because Chen does
not overcome the alleged deficiencies of Varaklis, Zhu, and Cassanova,
discussed above in the context of Rejection 1. See id. at 24–25. Appellant
does not provide additional arguments for claims 5 and 6. For the reasons
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
15
above, we are not apprised of error in the rejection of claim 1. See supra
Rejection 1 § A. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6.
B. Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 15. See Appeal Br. 35–36 (Claims
App.). For this Rejection, Appellant argues that claim 16 is allowable based
on its dependence from claim 15 and because Chen does not overcome the
alleged deficiencies of Varaklis, Zhu, and Cassanova, discussed above in the
context of Rejection 1. See id. at 25–26. For the reasons above, we are not
apprised of error in the rejection of claim 15. See supra Rejection 1 § D.
Appellant also relies on the same arguments provided for claims 5 and
6 (which recite similar requirements to claim 16). Appeal Br. 26. Because
we are not apprised of error based on the arguments as to claim 15 or claims
5 and 6 (see supra Rejection 1 § D and Rejection 3 § A), we sustain the
rejection of claim 16.
CONCLUSION
We affirm in part the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 13–16, and
22–29.
More specifically, we affirm the decision to reject claims 1, 4–6,
13–16, and 22–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we reverse the decision to
reject claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 13–15,
22–29
103 Varaklis, Zhu,
Cassanova
1, 13–15,
22–29
2, 3
Appeal 2020-004756
Application 14/104,057
16
4 103 Varaklis, Zhu,
Cassanova, Marrion
4
5, 6, 16 103 Varaklis, Zhu,
Cassanova, Chen
5, 6, 16
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–6,
13–16,
22–29
2, 3

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 IN PART