Sensormatic Electronics, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 1, 20222021000321 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022) Copy Citation 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. 15/333,984 10/25/2016 Ian C. Westmacott 0270.0082US1/ SVI00038US 8787 103122 7590 03/01/2022 HoustonHogle LLP Joseph Houston, HoustonHogle LLP 1666 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 12 Lexington, MA 02420 EXAMINER MIKESKA, NEIL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): docketing@houstonllp.com gerald.bluhm@jci.com grant.houston@houstonllp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IAN C. WESTMACOTT and JOSEPH PICCOLO III Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 Technology Center 2400 Before MINN CHUNG, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9 and 11-31, all the claims pending in the present application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sensormatic Electronics, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The instant application relates to fire alarm systems. Spec. ¶¶ 1-3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative: 1. A fire alarm system, comprising: fire alarm devices deployed within a premises that capture audio and/or image information in which audio and/or video detection systems are located within the housings of the fire alarm devices; and a fire alarm panel that includes a touchscreen display and that generates alarm signals and provides notifications of the existence of objects of interest from the audio and/or image information captured by the fire alarm devices; wherein the fire alarm panel generates a floorplan graphic of the premises on the touchscreen display, wherein the floorplan graphic includes location information of the fire alarm devices and location information for the objects of interest based on the audio and/or image information captured by the fire alarm devices. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kimmel US 2007/0008099 A1 Jan. 11, 2007 Buehler US 2007/0282665 A1 Dec. 6, 2007 Tran US 2008/0001735 A1 Jan. 3, 2008 Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 3 REJECTIONS The claims stand rejected as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1-9, 11-31 103 Tran, Buehler, Kimmel OPINION Appellant seeks reversal of the Examiner’s rejection of all pending claims-claims 1-9 and 11-31-as unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over the combination of Tran, Buehler, and Kimmel. Appeal Br. 5-14. Appellant argues these claims together, under a single heading. Id. Where, as here, multiple claims are rejected under a single ground, our Regulations require that in order to argue claims separately, the Appeal Brief must present the separate arguments under separate subheadings identifying claim number(s): For each ground of rejection applying to two or more claims, the claims may be argued separately (claims are considered by appellant as separately patentable), as a group (all claims subject to the ground of rejection stand or fall together), or as a subgroup (a subset of the claims subject to the ground of rejection stand or fall together). When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone. Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately. Under each heading identifying the ground of rejection being contested, any claim(s) argued separately or as a Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 4 subgroup shall be argued under a separate subheading that identifies the claim(s) by number. 37 C. F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Without subheadings, it may be unclear which arguments apply to which claims. Such is the case in this appeal. Although certain arguments unambiguously apply to claim 1, and certain arguments unambiguously apply to specific dependent claims, the Appeal Brief otherwise fails to identify which arguments Appellant seeks to apply to which claims. This is problematic because, in addition to independent claim 1, the application includes numerous additional independent claims (i.e., claims 13, 14, 15, and 16) that do not include the same recitations as those argued by Appellant for claim 1. Specifically, Appellant makes arguments expressly directed to independent claim 1, and we consider such arguments in view of claim 1, as well as the claims depending therefrom, i.e., claims 2-9 and 11. As to claims 13-31, Appellant has not identified claim language for which arguments for claim 1 would apply. As such, Appellant has not demonstrated that such arguments apply to claims 13-31. Appellant also makes arguments specific to claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 31 (Appeal Br. 13) and claims 5, 7, 9, and 13 (Appeal Br. 13-14), which we consider below. 1. Claims 1-11 a. Standard for Patentability and Motivation to Combine Appellant argues the Examiner applies an incorrect standard in finding obviousness. Appeal Br. 8, 9, 12-13.2 According to Appellant, the 2 We find this argument applies to claim 1. Appellant includes a quote that appears in the Final Rejection’s discussion of claim 1 and references Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 5 Examiner considered only whether the claims would be obvious today, not whether the claims “would have been” obvious as of the effective filing date of the claims on appeal. Id. Appellant submits the Examiner, therefore, applies improper hindsight in reaching an obviousness conclusion. Id. at 13. Appellant further argues that as a result of this alleged failure, “the motivation for [the] combination of the references seems specious.” Id. at 12. We disagree that the Examiner applies an incorrect standard. The Final Rejection from which this appeal is taken applies the standard set forth by statute, stating: The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Final Act. 2 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103) (emphasis added). Therefore, the Final Rejection unequivocally bases the obviousness rejection on whether the claimed invention would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claims at issue. Appellant’s argument to the contrary stems from the portions of the Rejection directed to claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 8, with Final Act. 2 (“It would be obvious to substitute a touchscreen for a non- touchscreen to improve user interaction”); Appeal Br. 12-13. Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 6 Examiner’s use of a different verb tense (i.e., “would be obvious” instead of “would have been obvious”) in the Examiner’s findings. Appeal Br. 8, 13. Appellant does not present, nor do we find, any evidence that use of an alternative verb tense signaled an intent by the Examiner to deviate from the standard set forth at page 2 of the Final Action as the basis of the obviousness rejection (i.e., “would have been obvious”). We find it more likely that the use of alternative verb tense is inadvertent, as it is assumed the Examiner is aware of the proper standard for finding obviousness, as evidenced at page 2 of the Final Action. b. “Touchscreen Display” Appellant asserts that none of Tran, Buehler, and Kimmel suggests “a fire alarm panel that includes a touchscreen display.” Appeal Br. 11.3 Appellant further asserts that the Examiner relies on an additional, “unapplied,” reference-i.e., Davenport4-for this feature, but does not articulate any impropriety with its use. Id. at 8, 11 (Appellant stating “the relationship between [Davenport] and the rejection is not clear” and asking “[r]hetorically, is the Office action additionally including the teaching of Davenport in its rejection, or not?”). Id. Rather, Appellant’s objection appears to be that the Examiner is unclear as to whether Davenport is part of the combination of references upon which the rejection is based. 3 We find this argument applies to claim 1, based on Appellant’s assertion that “[c]laim 1 would not have been obvious from the combined references for a number of reasons” (Appeal Br. 10), followed by the statement “[s]econdly, none of the applied references suggests ‘a fire alarm panel that includes a touchscreen display’” (id. at 11), as well as Appellant’s citation to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 (id. (citing Final Act. 2)). 4 Davenport et al., US 2004/0103431 A1, published May 27, 2004. Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 7 We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner is unclear as to the relationship between Davenport and the rejection. The rejection expressly relies on the prior art references Tran, Buehler, and Kimmel. Final Act. 2 (“Claims 1-9 and 11-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran . . . in view of Buehler . . . and Kimmel . . . .”). In addition to these references, the Examiner relies on general knowledge to supply missing disclosure. Specifically, the Examiner relies on general knowledge for the feature of a touch screen display, finding “Tran discloses . . . a fire alarm panel . . . a fire alarm panel that includes a touchscreen display (Well known and conventional: See, e.g., Davenport.).” Id. As our reviewing court has held, general knowledge may be used to supply a missing limitation in an obviousness determination. Koninklijke Philips N.V., v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020). To the extent Davenport is cited, the Examiner does not rely on it as a reference teaching the claimed feature of a touch screen (as noted above, general knowledge supplies this feature), but rather as evidence of what constituted general knowledge. Id.; Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Art can legitimately serve to document the knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the prior art identified as producing obviousness.”). The Examiner’s use of Davenport as evidence of general knowledge, without designating Davenport as part of the combination of references upon which the obviousness rejection is based, is proper. As found in Philips, a printed reference (such as Davenport) may provide evidence of general knowledge, even if it is not designated “part of the combination” of references upon which an obviousness rejection is based. Id. at 1334, 1338. Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 8 c. “a fire alarm system with fire alarm devices . . . that capture audio and/or image information in which audio and/or video detection systems are located within the housings of the fire alarm devices Appellant also asserts that “it would not have been obvious to provide a fire alarm system with fire alarm devices . . . that capture audio and/or image information in which audio and/or video detection systems are located within the housings of the fire alarm devices.” Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 8-9.5 According to Appellant, Buehler provides a laundry list of types of sensors, but does not provide a motivation to combine two sensors (i.e., audio/video and fire detection) within a single housing. Id. at 8-11. The Examiner disagrees with Appellant’s interpretation of Buehler’s disclosure. Ans. 10 (citing Buehler ¶ 32). Rather, the Examiner finds Buehler’s sensor 125 can include both a camera and a smoke detector. Id. Buehler discloses, in pertinent part, The video surveillance system 105 includes multiple input sensors 125 that capture data depicting the interaction of people and things in a monitored environment. The sensors 125 can include both cameras (e.g., optical sensors, infrared detectors, still cameras, analog video cameras, digital video cameras, or any device that can generate image data of sufficient quality to support the methods described below) and non-video based sensors (e.g., RFID base stations, POS scanners and inventory control systems). The sensors can also include smoke, fire and carbon monoxide detectors, door and window access detectors, glass break detectors, motion detectors, audio detectors, infrared detectors, computer network monitors, voice identification 5 We find this argument applies to claim 1 because Appellant cites to portions of the Final Rejection directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-9 (citing Final Act. 3 in arguing Buehler is relied on, but does not teach, the limitation). Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 9 devices, video cameras, still cameras, microphones and/or fingerprint, facial, retinal, or other biometric identification devices. In some instances, the sensors can include conventional panic buttons, global positioning satellite (GPS) locators, other geographic locators, medical indicators, and vehicle information systems. The sensors can also be integrated with other existing information systems, such as inventory control systems, accounting systems, or the like. Buehler ¶ 32 (emphasis added). Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner’s interpretation of Buehler is grammatically correct. Specifically, Appellant acknowledges that the language in Buehler (i.e., that sensor 125 “can include”) may denote either that: 1) Buehler’s sensor denotes one of a camera or smoke detector, or 2) Buehler’s sensor may house both a camera and smoke detector. Reply Br. 4. Despite the grammatic correctness of the latter interpretation, Appellant asserts there is no evidence suggesting it is how a skilled artisan would have interpreted Buehler. Id. However, Appellant presents no evidence from Buehler to show how a skilled artisan would have interpreted this reference. Id.; see Appeal Br. 10-11. Rather, Appellant relies on its own assertions as to the invention, arguing Buehler would not have included both a camera and fire alarm detection sensor in the same housing because Buehler did not appreciate the basic problem of using fire alarm devices to detect occupant location within a building. Id. at 11. We disagree with Appellant’s unsupported, and uncited, assertion that Buehler failed to appreciate such problem. Buehler expressly discloses that it is directed to computer-aided surveillance systems using video surveillance. Buehler ¶¶ 3-5. Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Buehler appreciated the value of using video surveillance data to supplement data collected using Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 10 non-video sensors. Id. at 5. Specifically, Buehler appreciated that data collected with non-video sensors (e.g., point of sales data) provides no insight into actual human behavior (e.g., customer behavior within stores), and appreciated the usefulness of supplementing non-video data with video surveillance data (e.g., using both alerts concerning an event occurrence at a location and sensor data such as video, RFID data, EAS data, and POS data). Id. ¶¶ 5, 13. For the foregoing reasons, the evidence and argument presented by Appellant are insufficient to show Examiner error. d. “Floorplan Graphic” Appellant also contends that the references do not show a fire alarm panel that generates a floorplan graphic including location information for the objects of interest based on the audio and/or image information captured by the fire alarm devices. Appeal Br. 11-12.6 Appellant argues that Kimmel does not show this feature, and that the Examiner’s combination to arrive at this limitation is based on a “series of unfortunate events” based on a combination of three or four references “depending on how the rejection is interpreted.” Id. at 12. Appellant does not make any arguments that specifically address the Examiner’s rejection, namely that it would have been obvious to combine Kimmel’s teachings with that of Tran in order to provide the predictable 6 We find that this argument applies to claim 1 because Appellant expressly so states. Appeal Br. 11-12 (“claim 1 also requires that the fire alarm panel generates a floorplan graphic..[including] . . . location information for the objects of interest based on the audio and/or image information captured by the fire alarm devices”) (brackets in original). Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 11 benefit of increasing the amount of real-time information displayed on a screen. Final Act. 4. Because the Examiner relies on Kimmel’s teachings in combination with that of Tran, Appellant’s argument that Kimmel does not disclose this feature is unpersuasive. As to Appellant’s assertion that the combination of prior art does not teach the feature at issue, Appellant’s remark that the combination is part of a “series of unfortunate events” is insufficient because it is a general remark that does not articulate why the Examiner’s findings are in error. For the foregoing reasons, the evidence and argument presented by Appellant is insufficient to show Examiner error. 2. Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 31 Appellant asserts “with respect to the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 31, the pending Office action applies the wrong standard for patentability.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant does not provide any additional explanation. However, we presume Appellant is referring to the argument that the Examiner considered whether the claims “would be” obvious, rather than whether they “would have been” obvious. See, e.g., id. at 8 (arguing that the Final Rejection “does not seem to be applying the correct standard for patentability” because it states “[i]t would be obvious” rather than “what would have been obvious”). For reasons discussed above, supra Sec. 1.a, we are not persuaded that the Examiner applied an incorrect standard for obviousness. Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 12 3. Claim 5 Claim 5 recites the system of claim 1, “wherein the fire alarm devices include heat sensor devices that monitor for heat as an indication of fire.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Appellant submits that “the rejection of claim 5 especially seems flawed.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant does not present any evidence or argument that supports this assertion. Id. Appellant’s argument is that “[a]fter review of Tran, it is respectfully believed that the Office action is factually incorrect,” without further elaboration. Id. This statement is conclusory and devoid of any analysis. Appellant’s argument is insufficient for this reason alone. In addition, in focusing on Tran, Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s finding that the claimed heat sensors were general knowledge. Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Mammoto7 as evidence that such was general knowledge. Id. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown Examiner error. 4. Claim 7 Claim 7 recites the system of claim 1, “wherein the fire alarm devices include an analytics system that determines the existence of the objects of interest from the captured audio and/or image information.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). 7 Mammoto et al., US 2013/0008787 A1, published Jan. 10, 2013. Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 13 Appellant submits: Moreover, the rejection of claim 7 seems further flawed. Claim 7 requires fire alarm device with analytic systems. In contrast, paragraph [114] of Tran concerns surveillance cameras. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s argument amounts to a conclusory assertion, entitled to little weight. It is insufficient merely to describe a prior art disclosure and assert it is different from what is claimed, without articulating why the art it distinguishable from the claim. Moreover, Appellant’s characterization of Tran, i.e., “Tran concerns surveillance cameras,” does not address the substance of Tran’s disclosure. Id. (citing Tran ¶ 114). Paragraph 114 of Tran describes the arrangement of cameras in a sphere coordinate system, wherein the size of objects detected by the camera is approximated by scaling the size of known objects. Tran ¶ 114. As such, Tran describes detection analytics (e.g., scaling size) with regard to objects. Id. Appellant does not address this disclosure, much less argue why its teachings are distinguishable from what is claimed. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown Examiner error. 5. Claim 9 Claim 9 recites the system of claim 1, “wherein the objects of interest include persons and pets.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Appellant submits: Moreover, the rejection of claim 9 seems further flawed. The pending Office action argues that Tran discloses wherein the objects of interest include persons and pets. Yet, pets are not mentioned in Tran. Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 14 That pets are not mentioned in Tran is inapposite. The Examiner finds that persons and pets as objects of interest in video surveillance was general knowledge. Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Smith8 as evidence that such was general knowledge. Id. Appellant’s argument about Tran does not address the Examiner’s finding that the claimed feature was general knowledge. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown Examiner error. 6. Claim 13 Claim 13 is independent. Appeal Br. 16-17 (Claims App.). Appellant asserts that “Tran neither shows nor suggests the claimed invention of claim 13.” Id. at 13. According to Appellant, the Final Action “does not seem to argue that the[] claimed features [of claim 13] are taught or would have been obvious based on Tran.” Id. at 14. This argument is without merit. The Final Rejection expressly states that claim 13 is rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over Tran, Buehler, and Kimmel. Final Act. 2. Moreover, the Final Rejection identifies where Tran is found to disclose each and every recitation of claim 13. Id. at 6-7. Accordingly, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie showing that claim 13 is unpatentable. In the event that Appellant’s argument is that the Final Rejection uses the word “discloses,” instead of “teaches” or “renders obvious,” Appellant cites no authority, nor are we aware of any authority, mandating that a rejection under § 103 use such language. Indeed, a reference that anticipates a claim under § 102 also render the claim unpatentable under § 103. See In 8 Smith et al., US 2016/0105644 A1, published Apr. 14, 2016. Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 15 re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974); and In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982). In the event that Appellant’s argument is that Tran does not disclose a particular claim element, and the Examiner has not found that Tran otherwise “teaches” or “suggests” such claim element, Appellant has not identified any specific claim element(s) that Tran fails to disclose (except for as discussed below). Appellant also submits that “Tran merely teaches traditional fire detectors and video cameras. There is no suggestion to have a housing containing one or more notification systems along with one or more auxiliary detection systems.” Appeal Br. 13-14. Appellant’s remark that Tran merely teaches “traditional” fire detectors and video cameras is not directed to a specific claim limitation or finding by the Examiner, and does not specify any error in the Examiner’s findings or obviousness determination. Appellant’s assertion that there is no suggestion to have a housing containing one or more notification systems along with one or more auxiliary detection systems amounts to a conclusory remark devoid of any evidence or explanation. Id. The Examiner expressly finds that this claim element is disclosed in Tran, and identifies by paragraph number where Tran discloses this limitation. Final Act. 6. Appellant’s conclusory remark is insufficient to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie showing of obviousness. Moreover, Appellant’s suggestion that claim 13 requires a notification system and auxiliary detection system contained within a housing is not commensurate with the scope of claim 13, because claim 13 recites that the Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 16 auxiliary system is located “on or within”-not “contained within”-the housing. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown Examiner error. 7. Claims 13-31 As to claims 13-31, except for as discussed above in Sections 2 and 6 for claims 13 and 31, Appellant has neither provided separate arguments nor identified claim limitations to which arguments in the Appeal Brief apply. Accordingly, except for as discussed above, Appellant has not demonstrated how the arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief apply to claims 13- 31. We note Appellant provides an assertion regarding independent claims 13, 14, and 16, but it does not raise arguments for us to consider. Without identifying specific claim limitations or specific arguments, the Appeal Brief asserts claims 13, 14, and 16 are distinguishable from the prior art references: Claim 1 would not have been obvious from the combined references for a number of reasons. Similar features can also be found in claims 13, 14, and 16 and thus are similarly distinguishable. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant does not identify which “features” of claim 1 can be found in claims 13, 14, and 16. Id. However, prior to, and following, the above assertion, Appellant discusses three features of claim 1: 1) “audio and/or video detection systems are located within the housings of the fire alarm devices” (Appeal Br. 8-11); 2) “the fire alarm panel generates a floorplan graphic of the premises on a touchscreen display, wherein the floorplan includes location information for the objects of interest based on Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 17 the audio and/or image information captured by the fire alarm devices” (Appeal Br. 9-12); and 3) “a fire alarm panel that includes a touchscreen display” (Appeal Br. 11). Even if we were to assume Appellant’s assertion that claims 13, 14, and 16 are distinguishable is with reference to these three features, Appellant does not identify any language in claims 13, 14, and 16 that recites these features. Appellant, therefore, leaves to the Board the task of speculating as to which claim language serves the basis of Appellant’s assertion. For example, nothing in claim 16 recites that audio and/or vision detection systems are located in the housing of the fire alarm device. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). Indeed, claim 16 does not recite a “housing,” much less require audio and/or video detection systems to be located within the same housing. Moreover, although claims 13 and 14 mention “housing,” they do not require audio and/or video detection systems to be located within the housing. Claims 13 and 14 recite that the audio and/or image detection system is located on or within the housing. Id. at 16-17. In addition, none of claims 13, 14, and 16 mention a floorplan graphic. Appeal Br. 16-18 (Claims App.). Nor do claims 13 and 14 mention a touchscreen display. Id. For the above stated reasons, Appellant has not shown that claims 13, 14, and 16 recite the argued features of claim 1. Therefore, Appellant’s assertion that features similar to those found in claim 1 “can also be found in claims 13, 14, and 16 and thus are similarly distinguishable,” presents no arguments for us to consider as to claims 13, 14, and 16. Even if Appellant’s arguments for claim 1 were applicable to claims 13, 14, and 16, Appeal 2021-000321 Application 15/333,984 18 as we discussed above, supra Sec. 1, Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are unpersuasive. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1-9 and 11-31. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-9, 11-31 103 Tran, Buehler, Kimmel 1-9, 11-31 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation