UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2020

15023294 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2020)

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.
15/023,294 03/18/2016 Sean A. Whitehurst 72656US02 (U420278US2) 7213
135291 7590 08/19/2020
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN A. WHITEHURST
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, 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 1–8, 10–17, 19, and 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “rotating assemblies for
turbomachinery and, more specifically, to a fan blade assembly.” Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fan blade assembly, comprising:
an electrically conductive airfoil including a sheath
receiving surface, the sheath receiving surface coated with an
electrically nonconductive material;
an electrically conductive sheath; and
an adhesive disposed on at least a portion of the
electrically nonconductive material to bond the electrically
conductive sheath to the electrically conductive airfoil at the
sheath receiving surface, wherein the adhesive does not directly
contact the sheath receiving surface, wherein the electrically
nonconductive material is applied to the sheath receiving
surface prior to the bonding of the sheath to the airfoil and
wherein the electrically conductive airfoil comprises a first
metal and the electrically conductive sheath comprises a second
metal, wherein the first metal is different than the second metal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bosselmann US 2006/0012377 A1 Jan. 19, 2006
Deal US 2011/0211967 A1 Sept. 1, 2011
Guglielmin US 2012/0082559 A1 Apr. 5, 2012
Parkos US 2012/0152893 A1 June 21, 2012
Murdock US 2013/0156588 A1 June 20, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 8, 10–15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Parkos.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Parkos and Guglielmin.
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

3
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Parkos and Bosselmann.
Claims 1–6, 8, 10–15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Deal.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Deal and Guglielmin.
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Deal and Bosselmann.
Claims 1–6, 8, 10–15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Murdock and Deal.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Murdock, Deal,2 and Guglielmin.
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Murdock, Deal,3 and Bosselmann.
OPINION
Claim Construction
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite “an adhesive disposed on at least a
portion of the electrically nonconductive material to bond the electrically
conductive sheath to the electrically conductive airfoil at the sheath
receiving surface, wherein the adhesive does not directly contact the sheath
receiving surface.” Appeal Br. 15, 17 (Claims App.). Consistent with

2 We understand “Murdock as applied to claim 1 above” in the Examiner’s
statement of the rejection to mean Murdock in view of Deal. Final Act. 18
(boldface omitted).
3 We understand “Murdock as applied to claim 1,12 above” in the
Examiner’s statement of the rejection to mean Murdock in view of Deal.
Final Act. 19 (boldface omitted).
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

4
Appellant’s underlying disclosure and the surrounding claim language, we
construe the “sheath receiving surface” to be the surface of the electrically
conductive airfoil beneath the electrically nonconductive material coated
thereon (i.e., the surface of the electrically conductive airfoil beneath any
coatings), and we construe the limitation “at the sheath receiving surface” to
be merely a positional reference denoting the portion of the electrically
conductive airfoil that is bonded, indirectly via the electrically conductive
material coated onto the sheath receiving surface, to the sheath. If we were
to construe “sheath receiving surface” as the surface of the “electrically
nonconductive material,” this would conflict with the limitation that “the
adhesive[, which is disposed on at least a portion of the electrically
nonconductive material,] does not directly contact the sheath receiving
surface.” If we were to construe “an adhesive . . . to bond the electrically
conductive sheath to the electrically conductive airfoil at the sheath
receiving surface” as requiring the adhesive to form a bond directly with
“the sheath receiving surface,” then this would conflict with the limitation
“the adhesive does not directly contact the sheath receiving surface.” It
would be impossible for the adhesive to form a bond directly with “the
sheath receiving surface” without directly contacting “the sheath receiving
surface.”
Obviousness—Parkos
Appellant addresses claim 1 and claim 12 separately in contesting the
rejection based on Parkos, but presents the same arguments for claim 12 as
for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6, 10. Thus, we address claims 1 and 12
together in reviewing this rejection. Appellant does not present any separate
arguments for the dependent claims aside from relying on their dependence
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

5
from either claim 1 or claim 12. Id. at 8–10, 12–13. Accordingly,
dependent claims 2–6, 8, 10, and 11 stand or fall with claim 1, from which
they depend, and dependent claims 13–15, 17, 19, and 20 stand or fall with
claim 12, from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the appeal as to a
single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued together).
Parkos discloses a fan blade comprising sheath 36 made of titanium
alloy or other strong, protective material and airfoil 32 made of aluminum
alloy or similar lightweight material. Parkos ¶ 19. Sheath receiving surface
58 of Parkos’s airfoil 32 has a thin layer of epoxy primer 56B applied
thereto. Id., Fig. 4A; ¶¶ 26, 31, 32. Parkos’s sheath 36 is secured to airfoil
32 by adhesive 59, with scrim sheet 60 embedded in adhesive 59 to provide
“dielectric separation between airfoil 32 and sheath 36, preventing galvanic
corrosion between the two different metal surfaces of airfoil 32 and sheath
36.” Id. ¶¶ 33–34; Fig. 4A. The Examiner reads the “electrically
nonconductive material” of claims 1 and 12 on Parkos’s scrim sheet 60. See
Ans. 3 (stating that “in Parkos the adhesive is disposed on at least a portion
of the electrically nonconductive material, as it is embedded in the adhesive
(59,60)”).
The Examiner, correctly, construes “wherein the electrically
nonconductive material is applied to the sheath receiving surface prior to the
bonding of the sheath to the airfoil” in claims 1 and 12 to be a product-by-
process limitation that does not patentably distinguish claims 1 and 12 from
Parkos’s fan blade. Final Act. 2–3, 6–7. The Examiner reaches this
determination for two reasons. First, the Examiner finds that Parkos’s fan
blade is the same as the claimed fan blade, regardless of whether the
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

6
electrically nonconductive material is applied to the sheath receiving surface
prior to the bonding of the sheath to the airfoil. Id. at 3, 6. Second, the
Examiner reasons that there are only a limited number of ways in which
Parkos’s fan blade could be assembled. Id. at 3, 6–7. Specifically,
according to the Examiner, scrim sheet 60 embedded in adhesive 59 could
first be applied to airfoil 32, and then sheath 36 could be bonded to airfoil 32
with scrim sheet 60 already adhered to airfoil 32; or scrim sheet 60
embedded in adhesive 59 could first be applied to sheath 36, and then airfoil
32 could be bonded to sheath 36 with scrim sheet 60 adhered to sheath 36.
See id.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of
production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or
obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even
though the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe,
777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Once the PTO has made out a prima
facie case that the applicant’s claimed product and the product of the prior
art reasonably appear to be the same, the burden shifts to the applicant to
prove otherwise. Id. The burden of proof on the PTO in making out a case
of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims is less than when a
product is claimed in the more conventional fashion. In re Fessman, 489
F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974).
Appellant’s fan blade, assembled as set forth in claims 1 and 12,
comprises an electrically conductive sheath bonded to an electrically
conductive airfoil, with adhesive and a nonconductive material between the
sheath and the airfoil, and with the adhesive not in direct contact with the
sheath receiving surface of the airfoil. Notably, claims 1 and 12 do not
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

7
exclude the presence of additional coatings or material between the
electrically nonconductive material and the sheath receiving surface.
As is evident from Figures 4A and 4B of Parkos, Parkos’s fan blade
comprises electrically conductive sheath 36 bonded to electrically
conductive airfoil 32, with adhesive 59 and electrically nonconductive scrim
sheet 60 between sheath 36 and airfoil 32. Further, with Parkos’s fan blade,
adhesive 59 is not in direct contact with sheath receiving surface 58 of airfoil
32 because a thin layer of epoxy primer 56B separates adhesive 59 from
sheath receiving surface 58. This structure results whether scrim sheet 60 is
applied first to airfoil 32, first to sheath 36, or essentially simultaneously to
both, in assembling Parkos’s fan blade. Moreover, the Examiner’s reasoning
that the selection of any one of this finite number of ways to assemble
Parkos’s fan blade would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art is well founded. As stated by the Supreme Court:
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this
leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that
instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might
show that it was obvious under § 103.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Appellant argues that Parkos does not disclose or teach a fan blade
“wherein the adhesive does not directly contact the sheath receiving
surface,” as recited in claims 1 and 12. Appeal Br. 6, 10. Appellant submits
that “adhesive 59 of Parkos bonds directly to the sheath receiving surface
and[,] thus, does indeed directly contact the sheath receiving surface.” Id.
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

8
This argument is not persuasive because, as explained above, a thin layer of
epoxy primer 56B separates adhesive 59 from sheath receiving surface 58 of
Parkos’s airfoil 32.
Appellant also argues that Parkos’s primer 56B contains chromium (a
metal) and, thus, is not a nonconductive material. Reply Br. 2. This
argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above, the Examiner relies
on Parkos’s scrim sheet 60, not primer 56B, as the nonconductive material.
Additionally, Appellant submits that
the limitation of “wherein the electrically nonconductive
material is applied to the sheath receiving surface prior to the
bonding of the sheath to the airfoil” should be given patentable
weight as claim 1 recites that “the adhesive does not directly
contact the sheath receiving surface” thus, the limitation of “the
electrically nonconductive material [being] applied to the
sheath receiving surface prior to the bonding of the sheath to
the airfoil” must occur first in order so that the aforementioned
structural limitation of “the adhesive does not directly contact
the sheath receiving surface” can occur.
Appeal Br. 6, 10.
This argument is not persuasive. Regardless of the order of assembly
or application of the various components or layers of the fan blade, it is the
presence of an intervening layer or material between the sheath receiving
surface and the adhesive that prevents the adhesive from directly contacting
the sheath receiving surface. As discussed above, Parkos’s primer 56B
serves this function so as to satisfy this limitation of claims 1 and 12.
For the above reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of
error in the rejection of claims 1 and 12 as unpatentable over Parkos.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12, as well as
dependent claims 2–6, 8, 10, and 11, which fall with claim 1, and dependent
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

9
claims 13–15, 17, 19, and 20, which fall with claim 12, as unpatentable over
Parkos.
Obviousness—Parkos in view of Guglielmin or Bosselmann
Appellant relies solely on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 12
in contesting the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Parkos and
Guglielmin and the rejection of claims 7 and 16 as unpatentable over Parkos
and Bosselmann. See Appeal Br. 8–9, 13. For the reasons discussed above,
these arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 1 and 12
as unpatentable over Parkos and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the
rejections of claims 3, 7, and 16. Accordingly, we sustain these rejections.
Obviousness—Deal
Appellant addresses claim 1 and claim 12 separately in contesting the
rejection based on Deal, but presents the same arguments for claim 12 as for
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7, 11. Thus, we address claims 1 and 12 together in
reviewing this rejection. Appellant does not present any separate arguments
for the dependent claims aside from relying on their dependence from either
claim 1 or claim 12. Id. at 8–10, 12–13. Accordingly, dependent claims 2–
6, 8, 10, and 11 stand or fall with claim 1, from which they depend, and
dependent claims 13–15, 17, 19, and 20 stand or fall with claim 12, from
which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Deal discloses a fan blade comprising scrim sheet 62 adhered between
sheath 34 and airfoil 32 by two layers of adhesive 60. See Deal, Fig. 3B;
¶¶ 58–59. “Scrim sheet 62 provides dielectric separation between airfoil 32
and sheath 34,” and, thus, comprises an electrically nonconductive material.
Id. ¶ 65. Deal’s fan blade comprises adhesive 60 on sheath receiving surface
58 of airfoil 32 and adhesive 60 on the inside surface of sheath 34. Id.,
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

10
Fig. 3B; ¶¶ 58, 63. The Examiner reads the claimed “adhesive” on adhesive
60 on the inside surface of sheath 34. Final Act. 9 (stating that “adhesive in
this broad interpretation is 60 as applied to the sheath bonding surface”
(underlining omitted)), 12 (relying on the same findings and claim
construction for claim 12).
The Examiner’s analysis regarding the product-by-process limitation
“wherein the electrically nonconductive material is applied to the sheath
receiving surface prior to the bonding of the sheath to the airfoil” in claims 1
and 12 in the rejection based on Deal is substantially similar to that
discussed above in regard to the rejection based on Parkos. See Final Act.
9–10, 12.
Appellant points out that, in Deal’s fan blade, “adhesive 60 is
disposed on both the sheath and the sheath receiving surface,” and submits
that, thus, “Deal does not teach or disclose ‘an adhesive disposed on at least
a portion of the electrically nonconductive material to bond the electrically
conductive sheath to the electrically conductive airfoil at the sheath
receiving surface, wherein the adhesive does not directly contact the sheath
receiving surface.’” Appeal Br. 7, 11. This argument is not persuasive. As
the Examiner explains, adhesive 60 on the inside surface of sheath 34 is
disposed on scrim sheet 62 (the electrically nonconductive material), once
the fan blade is assembled, and does not directly contact sheath receiving
surface 58. See Ans. 5. We appreciate that the other layer of adhesive 60 on
sheath receiving surface 58 directly contacts sheath receiving surface 58, but
this is not the adhesive on which the Examiner reads the “adhesive” recited
in claims 1 and 12. Further, as the Examiner observes, Appellant “does not
claim that no adhesive is applied to the airfoil,” nor do claims 1 and 12 recite
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

11
“that the adhesive is applied to the [electrically nonconductive material]
prior to bonding of the sheath to the airfoil.” Id.
Appellant also reiterates the argument, discussed above, that the
limitation that the electrically nonconductive material is applied to the
sheath receiving surface prior to bonding the sheath to the airfoil should be
given patentable weight. Appeal Br. 7, 11. For essentially the same reasons
discussed above in regard to the rejection based on Parkos, this argument is
not persuasive. As is evident from Figure 3B of Deal, Deal’s fan blade
comprises electrically conductive sheath 34 bonded to electrically
conductive airfoil 32, with adhesive 60 on the inside surface of sheath 34,
nonconductive scrim sheet 62, and adhesive 60 on sheath receiving surface
58 all disposed between sheath 34 and airfoil 32. Further, with Deal’s fan
blade, adhesive 60 on the inside surface of sheath 34 (the adhesive on which
the Examiner reads the claimed “adhesive”) is not in direct contact with
sheath receiving surface 58 of airfoil 32 because scrim sheet 62 separates
this adhesive 60 from sheath receiving surface 58. This structure results
whether scrim sheet 62 is applied first to adhesive 60 on sheath receiving
surface 58 of airfoil 32, first to adhesive 60 on the inside surface of sheath
34, or essentially simultaneously to both, in assembling Deal’s fan blade.
Moreover, the Examiner’s reasoning that the selection of any one of this
finite number of ways to assemble Deal’s fan blade would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (Final Act. 10, 12) is well
founded.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claims 1 and 12 as unpatentable over Deal. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12, as well as dependent claims 2–6, 8,
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

12
10, and 11, which fall with claim 1, and dependent claims 13–15, 17, 19, and
20, which fall with claim 12, as unpatentable over Deal.
Obviousness—Deal in view of Guglielmin or Bosselmann
Appellant relies solely on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 12
in contesting the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Deal and
Guglielmin and the rejection of claims 7 and 16 as unpatentable over Deal
and Bosselmann. See Appeal Br. 8–9, 13. For the reasons discussed above,
these arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 1 and 12
as unpatentable over Deal and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the
rejections of claims 3, 7, and 16. Accordingly, we sustain these rejections.
Obviousness—Murdock in view of Deal
Appellant addresses claim 1 and claim 12 separately in contesting the
rejection based on Murdock and Deal, but presents the same arguments for
claim 12 as for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8, 12. Thus, we address claims 1
and 12 together in reviewing this rejection. Appellant does not present any
separate arguments for the dependent claims aside from relying on their
dependence from either claim 1 or claim 12. Id. at 8–10, 12–13.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2–6, 8, 10, and 11 stand or fall with claim 1,
from which they depend, and dependent claims 13–15, 17, 19, and 20 stand
or fall with claim 12, from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Murdock discloses a fan blade assembly
comprising an electrically conductive airfoil of a first metal including a
sheath receiving surface coated with an electrically nonconductive material
(polyurethane coating) and an electrically conductive sheath of a second
metal different from the first metal, wherein the electrically nonconductive
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

13
material is applied to the sheath receiving surface prior to the sheath being
bonded to the airfoil. Final Act. 14 (citing Murdock, Fig. 2; ¶¶ 37, 39–40).
The Examiner finds that Murdock discloses using adhesive in other portions
of the system for grounding purposes but does not expressly disclose an
adhesive disposed on at least a portion of the electrically nonconductive
material to bond the sheath to the airfoil. Id.
The Examiner finds that Deal teaches an adhesive disposed on at least
a portion of an electrically nonconductive material to bond the sheath to the
airfoil at the sheath receiving surface and determines it would have been
obvious “to use an adhesive to bond the sheath to the receiving surface [of
Murdock’s fan blade as taught by Deal] as this would allow for a strong
connection between elements to prevent separation during use” and that
“since the blade has a protective coating initially applied that the adhesive
does not directly contact the sheath receiving surface as the protective
coating would already have been in place.” Final Act. 15.
Appellant reiterates the argument, discussed above, that “Deal does
not teach or disclose ‘an adhesive disposed on at least a portion of the
electrically nonconductive material to bond the electrically conductive
sheath to the electrically conductive airfoil at the sheath receiving surface,
wherein the adhesive does not directly contact the sheath receiving surface’”
as recited in claims 1 and 12, and, thus, does not cure the acknowledged
deficiency in Murdock. Appeal Br. 8, 12. Appellant also repeats the
argument that the limitation that the electrically nonconductive material is
applied to the sheath receiving surface prior to bonding the sheath to the
airfoil should be given patentable weight. Id. For the reasons discussed
above, these arguments are not persuasive with respect to Deal. Moreover,
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

14
the argument attacks Deal individually, rather than the combination. As the
Examiner points out, the rejection based on Murdock and Deal does not rely
on Deal for either the electrically nonconductive material being applied to
the sheath receiving surface prior to bonding the sheath to the airfoil or for
the adhesive not directly contacting the sheath receiving surface. See Ans. 7.
Rather,
Deal is specifically relied upon to teach “an adhesive disposed
on at least a portion of the electrically nonconductive material
to bond the electrically conductive sheath to the electrically
conductive airfoil at the sheath receiving surface” specifically
(60) on sheath 34 will be applied to the non-conductive material
at time of bonding. Murdock teaches that there is an initial
coating applied to the airfoil (28 Par 0037) where Murdock
does not disclose how the sheath (37) is bonded to the airfoil
and Deal is relied upon to cure this deficiency by teaching an
adhesive disposed between the sheath and the non-conductive
coating (Murdock: Par 0037) and thus in this combination the
adhesive does not directly contact the sheath receiving surface
due to the initial protective coating of Murdock.
Ans. 7–8. Appellant does not persuasively refute the Examiner’s findings or
reasoning in this regard and, thus, does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claims 1 and 12 as unpatentable over Murdock and Deal.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12, as well as
dependent claims 2–6, 8, 10 and 11, which fall with claim 1, and dependent
claims 13–15, 17, 19, and 20, which fall with claim 12, as unpatentable over
Murdock and Deal.
Obviousness—Murdock and Deal in view of Guglielmin or Bosselmann
Appellant relies solely on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 12
in contesting the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Murdock, Deal,
and Guglielmin and the rejection of claims 7 and 16 as unpatentable over
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

15
Murdock, Deal, and Bosselmann. See Appeal Br. 8–9, 13. For the reasons
discussed above, these arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection
of claims 1 and 12 as unpatentable over Murdock and Deal and, likewise,
fail to apprise us of error in the rejections of claims 3, 7, and 16.
Accordingly, we sustain these rejections.
Appeal 2020-000256
Application 15/023,294

16
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8, 10–
15, 17, 19,
20
103 Parkos 1–6, 8, 10–
15, 17, 19,
20

3 103 Parkos, Guglielmin 3
7, 16 103 Parkos,
Bosselmann
7, 16
1–6, 8, 10–
15, 17, 19,
20
103 Deal 1–6, 8, 10–
15, 17, 19,
20

3 103 Deal, Guglielmin 3
7, 16 103 Deal, Bosselmann 7, 16
1–6, 8, 10–
15, 17, 19,
20
103 Murdock, Deal 1–6, 8, 10–
15, 17, 19,
20

3 103 Murdock, Deal,
Guglielmin
3
7, 16 103 Murdock, Deal,
Bosselmann
7, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10–17,
19, 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED