United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

14751274 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
14/751,274 06/26/2015 Frederick M. Schwarz 77076US02;67097-2979PUS1 3965
54549 7590 09/30/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
FORD, RENE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ and WILLIAM K. ACKERMANN
____________

Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–23. 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(a). Appellant identifies United Technologies Corporation as
the Applicant and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to gas turbine engines. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A turbine section for a gas turbine engine comprising:
a fan drive turbine including a fan drive duct, the fan drive
turbine being configured to drive a fan section through a geared
architecture at a speed that is less than an input speed to the
geared architecture;
at least one upstream turbine configured to drive at least one
compressor, the at least one upstream turbine including a
turbine duct defining a conical flow path having a conical inlet
defined by a first diameter and a conical outlet defined by a
second diameter greater than the first diameter, the conical
outlet being in fluid communication with the fan drive duct
downstream of the conical outlet; and
at least one row of shrouded rotor blades defining at least a
portion of the conical flow path.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Klees US 3,792,584 Feb. 19, 1974
Pearson US 3,876,330 Apr. 8, 1975
Waters Non-Patent Literature Jan. 1977
Seda US 2003/0163983 A1 Sept. 4, 2003
Warwick Non-Patent Literature Nov. 30, 2007
Schilling US 2008/0022653 A1 Jan 31, 2008
Somanath US 2008/0056904 A1 Mar. 6, 2008
Norris US 2011/0056208 A1 Mar. 10, 2011
Sharma US 2012/0174593 A1 July 12, 2012
Vetters US 2014/0363276 A1 Dec. 11, 2014
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
3
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 13, 16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
2. Claims 13, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
3. Claims 1–4, 9–11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sharma and Pearson.
4. Claims 5, 8, 12–17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sharma, Pearson, Vetters, Norris, Seda, and Waters.
5. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sharma, Pearson, Vetters, Norris, Somanath, Seda, and
Waters.
6. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sharma, Pearson, Vetters, Norris, Seda, Waters, and Schilling.
7. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sharma, Pearson, Klees, and Warwick.
8. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sharma, Pearson, Klees, Warwick, Vetters, Norris, Seda, and Waters.
OPINION
Claim 13
Section 112 Written Description and Enablement
Claim 13 depends directly from claim 12 which, in turn, depends from
independent claim 9 and adds the limitation: “wherein the geared
architecture defines a gear reduction ratio greater than or equal to 2.3.”
Claims App. The Examiner essentially takes the position that Appellant’s
disclosure fails to demonstrate possession of an invention that encompasses
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
4
the upper end of Appellant’s open-ended claim language. Final Act. 2–5.
The Examiner similarly takes the position that achieving the upper end of
such open-ended gear reduction ratio range is not enabled.
Appellant argues that claim 13 implicitly discloses an upper limit that
is inherent. Appeal Br. 11, 16. Appellant assigns to the Examiner the
burden of establishing whether there is an inherent upper limit to the claimed
range. Id. at 11.
In response, the Examiner states that Appellant’s alleged inherent
limit amounts to unsubstantiated attorney argument. Ans. 26, 28. In reply,
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s “inherent” limit position is improper.
Reply Br. 10.
Open-ended claims are not inherently improper. Andersen Corp. v.
Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Their
appropriateness depends on the particular facts of the invention, the
disclosure, and the prior art. Id. They may be supported if there is an
inherent, albeit not precisely known, upper limit and the specification
enables one of skill in the art to approach that limit. Scripps Clinic &
Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In the rejection, the Examiner chronicles the historical development of
gear reduction ratios in gas turbine turbofan engines. Final Act. 3–4. The
Examiner cites several references, none of which are challenged by
Appellant, to show that advancement in gear reduction ratios has historically
taken long periods of time and hundreds of millions of dollars in research
and development. Id.
We can accept, for argument sake, that there may be an inherent upper
limit for turbofan gear reduction ratios that is represented by some number
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
5
less than infinity. We confess that we do not know whether this number is 5
or 10 or 20. However, whatever finite number we select that is greater than,
say, 5, there is nothing in Appellant’s disclosure that has been brought to our
attention that demonstrates that Appellant has possession of such an
invention or that Appellant provides an enabling disclosure for how to at
least approach such inherent, albeit not precisely known, upper limit.
Scripps Clinic, 927 F.2d at 1572. To be enabling, a patent’s specification
must “teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the
claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” ALZA Corp. v. Andrx
Pharm., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the “full scope” of
the invention necessarily entails how to approach the inherent, albeit not
precisely known, open-ended upper limit on gear reduction ratio. Given the
relatively slow and costly rate of advancement in this area of technology, we
are inclined to agree with the Examiner that the amount of experimentation
necessary to make future technological advancement in gear reduction ratio
should be considered “undue” in view of Appellant’s lack of detailed
teaching disclosure in the Specification.
Finally, Appellant’s attempt to place the burden of proof on the
Examiner to affirmatively demonstrate lack of written description support is
contrary to applicable law. It is well settled that when a written description
cannot be found in Appellant’s disclosure, the only thing the PTO can
reasonably be expected to do is to point out its non-existence. Hyatt v.
Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If Appellant maintains that its
disclosure provides written description support, the onus is on Appellant to
establish such. Id. The Examiner’s approach to the rejection comports with
applicable law. Id.
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
6
In view of the foregoing discussion, we sustain the Examiner’s
Section 112 written description rejection as well as the Examiner’s
Section 112 enablement rejection of claim 13.
Claims 16 and 22
Section 112 Written Description and Enablement
Claim 16 depends from claim 14 and indirectly from independent
claim 9 and adds the limitation:
wherein the fan is configured to deliver a portion of air into the
compressor section, and a portion of air into a bypass duct, and
wherein a bypass ratio, which is defined as a volume of air
passing to the bypass duct compared to a volume of air passing
into the compressor section, being greater than or equal to 12.
Claims App. Claim 22 similarly has a limitation directed to a bypass ratio
that is greater than or equal to 12. Id. The Examiner determines that
Appellant’s disclosure fails to provide written description support and an
enabling disclosure for bypass ratios in accordance with the open-ended
upper limit of the claimed range. As with the gear reduction ratio limitation
in claim 13, the Examiner chronicles the historical development of by-pass
ratios in turbofan engines. Final Act. 6–7 (citing literature). The literature
cited by the Examiner strongly suggests that technological progress in
increasing turbofan by-pass ratios is both slow and expensive. Id.
Appellant’s arguments, and the Examiner’s responses thereto, are
reminiscent of their respective positions taken with regard to the open-ended
upper limit of the gear reduction ratio discussed above with respect to
claim 13. We reach a similar result here for essentially the same reasons.
We sustain the Section 112 written description and the Section 112
enablement rejections of claims 16 and 22.
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
7
Claim 19
Written Description
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and adds the following limitations:
providing a fan drive blade in a first stage of the fan drive
turbine, the fan drive blade including a tip, the fan drive turbine
defining a fan drive radius RFDT between a fan drive axis of the
fan drive turbine and the tip of the fan drive blade; and
configuring the at least one row of shrouded rotor blades to
be located in a last stage of the at least one upstream turbine,
each of the shrouded rotor blades including a base, the at least
one upstream turbine defining a turbine radius RT between a
turbine axis of the at least one upstream turbine and the base of
one of the shrouded rotor blades; and
selecting each of the fan drive radius RFDT and the turbine
radius RT based on the gear reduction ratio.
Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner determines that Appellant
fails to properly disclose a relationship between the gear reduction ratio and
the two claimed radii for the selecting process step. Final Act. 7. According
to the Examiner, Appellant is claiming a process step without explaining
how one would perform the step. Id.
Appellant argues that paragraphs 63, 67, and 69 and Figure 9 of
Appellant’s disclosure provide written description support for the
“selecting” step. Appeal Br. 16.
In response, the Examiner summarizes the teaching of the recited
passages in Appellant’s disclosure and then states:
One would not know how the Appellant selects an upstream
turbine radius based on a specified the gear reduction ratio as
claimed by reviewing the disclosure. Appellant is essentially
claiming a mathematical formula where a number, the gear
reduction ratio, is input and two variables, the fan drive radius
and the turbine radius, are output without disclosing the
mathematical formula itself. To reproduce the claimed process
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
8
of claim 19, one must make up their own formula to select an
upstream turbine radius from a given gear reduction ratio in
order to perform the ‘selecting’ step.
Ans. 27.
In reply, Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to cite to any case
law that supports the position that Appellant must provide a mathematical
formula. Reply Br. 11.
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner does not cite case law for the
general proposition that an applicant must always provide a mathematical
formula for relationships between all claim variables does not persuade us
that Appellant has possession of the claimed subject matter. Appellant does
not deny that two different drive radius output parameters are derived from
(or “based on”) a single input parameter (gear reduction ratio). Appellant
provides no explanation as to how this is achieved or how a person of
ordinary skill in the art would be able to accomplish such. Hyatt v.
Dudas, 492 F.3d at 1370 (explaining that when a written description cannot
be found in Appellant’s disclosure, the only thing the PTO can reasonably be
expected to do is to point to its non-existence).
We sustain the Examiner’s Section 112 written description rejection
of claim 19.
Unpatentability of Claims 1–4, 9–11, and 18
over Sharma and Pearson
Appellant argues claims 1–4, 9–11, and 18 as a group. Appeal
Br. 3–5. Claim 1 is representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Sharma discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for shrouded rotor blades, for which the Examiner relies
on Pearson. Final Act. 16–17. The Examiner concludes that it would have
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
9
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to use shrouded blades in Sharma. Id. at 17. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to limit
leakage at the blade tips and increase the efficiency of the turbine. Id.
Appellant first argues that Pearson lacks: (1) both an upstream
turbine and a fan drive turbine; and (2) a geared architecture. Appeal Br. 4.
This argument is unpersuasive as the Examiner relies on Sharma for such
features. Ans. 30–31. 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); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant next argues that the Examiner fails to establish that one
would have used shrouded blades in Sharma. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant
argues that shrouds add weight and that such a weight increase goes against
conventional wisdom held by engine designers. Id.
In response, the Examiner acknowledges that using shrouded turbine
blades adds weight and that added weight is generally undesirable. Ans. 32.
However, the Examiner points out that, as in almost every product design
scenario, potential disadvantages of any course of action are weighed against
potential advantages that may be obtained. Id. at 33. The Examiner
observes that Pearson, despite incurring a weight penalty, nevertheless uses
shrouded blades to gain the advantage of reduced leakage and increased
turbine efficiency. Id. “Pearson weighed the advantage against the
disadvantage and designed an engine with the shrouded turbine blades.” Id.
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
10
In reply, Appellant essentially argues that Pearson fails to explicitly
discuss the design tradeoffs mentioned by the Examiner in the Answer.
Reply Br. 3.
Sharma discloses a turbofan engine used for aircraft propulsion.
Sharma ¶ 26. Sharma’s engine features fan section 107, low pressure
compressor 111, high pressure compressor 113, combustor 115, high
pressure turbine 117, low pressure turbine 119, and exhaust nozzle 121. Id.
¶¶ 26–30. Low pressure turbine 119 drives fan section 107 through gear
train 109. Id. ¶ 28. The diameter of low pressure turbine 119 is larger than
the diameter of high pressure turbine 117. The change in diameter is gradual
so as to create a conical transition from upstream high pressure turbine 117
to downstream low pressure turbine 119.
Pearson discloses the use of shrouded turbine blades in a gas turbine
engine. Pearson col. 3, l. 1 – col. 4, l. 57. Pearson issued in April 1975 and
is based on a foreign priority application filed in the United Kingdom
in 1972. Pearson thus demonstrates that it was known to use shrouded
turbine blades in gas turbine engines used for aircraft propulsion more
than 40 years before the filing date of the application on appeal.
The Examiner uses a correct analysis on the relative advantages and
disadvantages of particular design features, such as using shrouded turbine
blades. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (explaining that a given course of action often has simultaneous
advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate
motivation to combine). “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the
expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to
modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
11
Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one
another.” Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
Appellant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sharma and Pearson is
not persuasive. Appeal Br. 5. The obviousness inquiry requires a
determination that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and
that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
doing so. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342,
1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, it is well established that any need or
problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007). It almost goes without saying that, if a person of ordinary skill in the
art would never have a reason to use shrouded turbine blades due to
increased weight, Appellant would not have had any reason to use, much
less claim, shrouded turbine blades. Id.
In the instant case, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have used shrouded rotor blades, as taught by Pearson, in
Sharma’s engine to limit leakage at the blade tips and increase the efficiency
of the turbine. Final Act. 17. This finding is supported by sound technical
reasoning and is adequate to support the rejection. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring an obviousness conclusion to be
based on explicit articulated reasoning with rational underpinning) cited with
approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Appellant provides neither evidence nor
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
12
persuasive technical reasoning that modifying Sharma to use shrouded
turbine blades requires more than ordinary skill or produces unexpected
results.
The Examiner’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence and the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-
founded. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection
of claims 1–4, 9–11, and 18.
Unpatentability of Claim 5, 8, 12–17, and 21
over Sharma, Pearson, Vetters, Norris, Seda, and Waters
Claims 5, 8, 12, and 14
Claims 5 and 8 depend from claim 1 and claims 12 and 14 depend
from independent claim 9. Claims App. Appellant argues them as a group.
Appeal Br. 6–8. Claim 5 is representative (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)), and
adds the following limitations:
a last row of shrouded rotor blades positioned in a last stage
of the at least one upstream turbine, each of the last row of
shrouded rotor blades defining a trailing edge;
at least one fan drive blade positioned in a first stage of the
fan drive turbine, the at least one fan drive blade defining a
leading edge and a tip, the fan drive turbine defining a fan drive
radius RFDT between a turbine axis of the fan drive turbine and
the tip of the fan drive blade; and
a transition duct fluidly coupling the turbine duct and the
fan drive duct, the transition duct extending axially a transition
duct length LTD defined between the trailing edge of the last
row of shrouded rotor blades and the leading edge of the at least
one fan drive blade;
wherein a dimensional relationship of the LTD/RFDT is
between 0.05 and 0.8.
Claims App.
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
13
The Examiner acknowledges that Sharma and Pearson do not
explicitly teach a dimensional relationship of the transition duct length to fan
drive radius between 0.05 and 0.8. Final Act. 22. Nevertheless, the
Examiner determines that the transition duct length is a result effective
variable. Id. at 23. Implicit in the Examiner’s rejection is the notion that
optimizing such a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill and is,
therefore, obvious. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed.
Cir. 2012), quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here
the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation”).
In traversing the rejection, Appellant first relies on the arguments that
we considered and found unpersuasive with respect to claim 1, which
arguments are no more persuasive here. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner fails to establish that “the
claimed ratios” are recognized in the art as result effective variables. Appeal
Br. 6 (citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)). According to
Appellant, “the rejection does not point to any of the cited references
teaching a relationship between transition duct length and turbine exit
diameter or between transition duct length and fan tip diameter, or keeping a
ratio of the two within any particular range.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. It is well settled that
recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by a variable is
sufficient to find the variable result-effective. Applied Materials, 692 F.3d
at 1297. Here, the Examiner provides persuasive evidence that transition
duct length, core cowl length, low pressure shaft length, and turbine exit
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
14
diameter are all known to effect engine weight and performance. Final
Act. 23–24. Appellant’s claimed ratios merely represent the relationship
between multiple result effective variables. The mere fact that multiple
result effective variables are combined does not necessarily render their
combination beyond the capability of a person having ordinary skill in the
art. Applied Materials, 692 F.3d at 1298. Although optimizing a result-
effective variable may be patentable if the claimed ranges are critical and
produce a new and unexpected result that is different in kind and not merely
in degree from the results in the prior art, Appellant here provides no such
evidence. Id. at 1297. “[A] claim to a product does not become nonobvious
simply because the patent specification provides a more comprehensive
explication of the known relationships between the variables and the
affected properties.” Id.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner’s
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded. We
sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claims 5, 8, 12 and 14.
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends directly from claim 15 and indirectly from
independent claim 9 and adds the following limitations:
the compressor section includes a first compressor and the
at least one compressor, the fan drive turbine configured to
drive the first compressor;
an outer surface of the turbine duct includes a first sealing
feature and each of the at least one row of shrouded rotor blades
includes a second sealing feature, the first sealing feature and
the second sealing feature cooperating together to define a
labyrinth seal; and
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
15
the at least one row of shrouded rotor blades includes two
rows of shrouded rotor blades.
Claims App. (emphasis added). Appellant argues that Pearson teaches only
one, but not two, rows of shrouded turbine blades. Appeal Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner states that Sharma is relied on as teaching
two rows of rotor blades and that Pearson is merely relied on as teaching that
the blades can be shrouded. Ans. 36.
In reply, Appellant reiterates that Pearson fails to disclose that it was
known to shroud a second row of turbine blades. Reply Br. 5.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Pearson teaches shrouded
turbine blades. Sharma teaches multiple rows of turbine blades. Appellant
identifies no technological hurdles that needed to be overcome to shroud a
second row of turbine blades. Appellant provides neither evidence nor
persuasive technical reasoning that shrouding a second row of turbine blades
requires more than ordinary skill or produces unexpected results.
We sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 21.
Claims 13 and 15–17
These claims all depend indirectly from independent claim 9. Claims
App. Appellant does not argue for their separate patentability apart from
arguments presented with respect to claims 1 and 9 which we have
previously considered. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13
and 15–17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (failure to separately argue
claims constitutes a waiver of arguments for separate patentability).
Appeal 2020-000562
Application 14/751,274
16
Unpatentability of Claims 6, 7, 19, 20, 22, and 23
over Combinations Based on Sharma and Pearson
These claims are not separately argued. Appeal Br. 9–10. Their
rejections are sustained for reasons previously expressed with respect to
claims that were argued. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Rev’d
13, 16, 19,
22
112 Written Description 13, 16, 19,
22

13, 16, 22 112 Enablement 13, 16, 22
1-4, 9-11,
18
103 Sharma, Pearson 1-4, 9-11,
18

5, 8, 12-
17, 21
103 Sharma, Pearson, Vetters, Norris,
Seda, Waters
5, 8, 12-
17, 21

6, 7 103 Sharma, Pearson, Vetters, Norris,
Somanath, Seda, Waters
6, 7
22 103 Sharma, Pearson, Vetters, Norris,
Seda, Waters, Schilling
22
19, 20 103 Sharma, Pearson, Klees, Warwick 19, 20
23 103 Sharma, Pearson, Klees, Warwick,
Vetters, Norris, Seda, Waters
23
Overall
Outcome
1–23

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED