Universal City Studios LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2021

2020003735 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/786,359 10/17/2017 Gregory Shellman Hall 311608-5 (UNIV:0130D) 1454
12421 7590 09/01/2021
Universal City Studios LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
MAZUMDER, SAPTARSHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2021 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):
DOCKET@FYIPLAW.COM
Samantha.Deblaw@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY SHELLMAN HALL and
DAVID GERARD MAJDALI
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11, 13, and 15–22. See Final
Act. 1. Claim 14 is indicated to be allowable. Id. at 36. Claims 1, 9, and 16

1 We refer to the Specification, filed October 17, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed July 10, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
December 10, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed February
21, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed April 17, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Universal City Studios LLC. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
2
are independent. Appeal Br. 20–24 (Claims App.). Claims 10 and 12 are
canceled. Id. at 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s Specification summarizes the disclosure as, in part, “[a]
system for providing an augmented reality, a virtual reality, and/or a mixed
reality experience to a user” in which a user views a real-world environment
through both a wearable visualization device and a fixed visualization device
displaying respective layers of virtual features. Spec. 35 (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below with claim element labels added, is illustrative:
1. A system for providing an augmented reality, a virtual
reality, and/or a mixed reality experience to a user, wherein the
system is configured to enable the user to view a real-world
environment through a first display and a second display, the
system comprising:
a wearable visualization device comprising the first
display, wherein the first display is configured to display a first
layer of virtual features;
a fixed visualization device comprising the second
display, wherein the second display is configured to display a
second layer of virtual features; and
a processor configured to generate the first layer of virtual
features and the second layer of virtual features, and wherein the
processor is configured to operatively communicate with the
wearable visualization device and the fixed visualization device
to coordinate presentation of the first layer of virtual features and
the second layer of virtual features.
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Nishigasako US 2011/0025584 A1 Feb. 3, 2011
Ackley US 2013/0130813 A1 May 23, 2013
Blum US 2016/0048203 A1 Feb. 18, 2016
Bhageria US 2017/0358252 A1 Dec. 14, 2017
Gaeta US 10,078,917 B1 Sept. 18, 2018
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 16–19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Gaeta and Ackley. Final
Act. 3–10, 25–33.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings Gaeta, Ackley, and Nishigasako. Id. at 10–11.
The Examiner rejects claims 6–9, 11, 13, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings Gaeta, Ackley, and Blum. Id.
at 11–24, 34–36.
The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings Gaeta, Ackley, Blum, and Bhageria. Id. at 24–11.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
4
OPINION
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Except to the extent inconsistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as
our own the findings set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from which
this appeal is taken and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.

Examiner’s Findings and Appellant’s Contentions of Error
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 16–19, and 22
The Examiner finds Gaeta’s disclosure of an augmented reality
simulation including layered content provided on multiple devices including
augmented-reality glasses 152 and display system 164 teaches or suggests
the majority of limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–5 (citing Gaeta 6:29–34,
7:23–31,35–39, 9:16–22; Fig. 1B). Although the Examiner finds that “Gaeta
teaches displaying a pre-stored computer generated second layer of virtual
image (animated movie) on the fixed visualization,” i.e. on screen 152 of
display system 162, the Examiner acknowledges “Gaeta doesn’t expressly
teach that the processor generates the second layer of virtual features” as
required by claim 1. Id. at 5. Addressing this shortfall, the Examiner finds
[A]n ordinary skilled person in the art would have been
motivated to modify Gaeta to have generated the second layer of
virtual features by the processor (processor 166 in Fig. 1B in
Gaeta) for the purpose of avoiding dependence of external source
of animated movie of [the] first layer of virtual image.
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
5
Id. The Examiner further finds “Gaeta as modified doesn’t expressly teach,
wherein the system is configured to enable the user to view a real-world
environment through a first display and a second display.” Id. (emphasis
omitted). To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner applies Ackley’s
disclosure of a heads-up display (HUD) system that provides an occupant of
a theme park ride with an augmented reality experience by combining or
blending virtual and real images. Id. (citing Ackley ¶¶ 27, 45; Figs. 2, 4).
The Examiner finds the cited disclosure teaches or suggests wherein the
system is configured to enable the user to view a real-world environment
through a first display and a second display as recited by claim 1. Id. The
Examiner explains a skilled artisan
[would] have modified Gaeta . . . to include the feature of a user
viewing a real world environment through a first display and the
second display by including a second display by which both real
and virtual image can be displayed as taught by Ackley and
thereby when the user sees the second display through the first
display (mobile device) as taught by Gaeta the user sees the real
world image by the first and second display.
Id. at 6. According to the Examiner “[t]he motivation for this modification
is that user can be shown virtual image relating to the real world image to
provide details of [a] real world image.” Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is improper, including
the following allegations of Examiner error:
1. “Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not provided objective
evidence for the combination of Gaeta and Ackley and, instead, has
used impermissible hindsight to combine the references.” Appeal
Br. 11.
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
6
2. Neither Gaeta nor Ackley teach viewing a real-world environment
through both a first and second displays of differing layers of virtual
features. Id.
3. “One of ordinary skill in the art would merely be led to substitute one
transparent element, such as the mobile device 178 of Gaeta, with
another transparent element, such as the head-up display 434 of
Ackley” so that the combination teaches a single display operable to
display a single layer of virtual images, not two transparent displays
of first and second layers. Id. at 12.
4. “[N]owhere in Gaeta, in Ackley, or in the statements by the Examiner,
is there objective evidence for the cited combination [of Gaeta and
Ackley].” Id.
5. Modifying Gaeta’s screen 152 to be transparent would defeat its
intended purpose as a movie screen by allowing viewing of a blank
wall behind the screen. Id.at 13.
We address these allegations as follows.
1. Hindsight Reconstruction
Addressing Appellant’s contention the Examiner’s combination is
based on hindsight (Appeal Br. 11), we note as follows:
Any judgment on obviousness is . . . necessarily a reconstruction
based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary
skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure,
such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); see also Radix Corp.
v. Samuels, 13 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (D.D.C. 1989) (“[A]ny obviousness
inquiry necessarily involves some hindsight.”); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
7
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds . . . must
[include] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”), cited with approval in KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v.
Canadian Pacific Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“It has
long been the law that the motivation to combine need not be found in prior
art references, but equally can be found ‘in the knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art.’” (quoting In re Jones, 958 F.2d
347, 351 (Fed. Cir. 1992))).
Responding to Appellant’s argument that combining the teachings of
Gaeta and Ackley is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, the
Examiner explains the combination is (i) both a simple substitution of one
known element for another (“substituting Gaeta's screen with transparent
display of Ackley” to obtain predictable results (Ans. 7–8, emphasis
omitted) and (ii) supported by “Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
invention”, i.e., “[so] that [a] user can be shown virtual image relating to the
real world image to provide details of real world image” (id. at 8–9).
2. Viewing a Real-World Environment Through First and Second
Displays
Appellant’s contention that neither Gaeta nor Ackley teach viewing a
real-world environment through both a first and second displays of differing
layers of virtual features (Appeal Br. 11) is unpersuasive because it fails to
address the Examiner’s findings, is an improper attack on the references
individually, and relies on mere attorney argument concerning what one
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
8
skilled in the art would have understood to be taught be the combined
teachings of Gaeta and Ackley. In particular, the Examiner finds Ackley’s
heads-up (HUD) display “is a transparent display to see a virtual image
overlaid with real image through the display” which teaches viewing a real
world environment through a display. Ans. 4. Furthermore,
[The] Examiner proposed to modify Gaeta to include the feature
of a user viewing a real world environment through a second
display by including a second display by which second virtual
layer is overlaid over the real world image as taught by Ackley
and thereby when the user sees the second display through the
first display (mobile device) as taught by Gaeta, the user sees the
real world image by the first and second display.
Id. at 5.
Gaeta’s mobile device is described as either “a set of virtual reality or
augmented-reality glasses or goggles” (Gaeta 6:44–45; 11:24–25) the
augmented-reality glasses being transparent such that images of trees 302
displayed on screen 152 are “visible to a viewer who is looking through the
mobile device 178” (Gaeta 11:38–39). See also Gaeta 10:48–52; 57–58.3
Gaeta further discloses “Augmented reality includes a live view of a real-
world environment that is augmented by computer generated sensory
input(s), such as GPS graphics, video, sound, data statistics, and so forth.”
Gaeta 1:35–38. Thus, Gaeta discloses at least a wearable visualization
device (e.g., virtual reality goggles depicted in Figs. 14 and 17A–C; see also

3 “[A]ugmented-reality (AR) headset 204 may include a head-mounted
display that allows viewing of both images of the physical world and virtual
objects that are projected by the augmented-reality headset into the user’s
field of view. . . . Embodiments that display a real-time real-world image for
the viewer qualify as ‘transparent or semitransparent.’”
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
9
Gaeta 6:44–45, 10:48–54) comprising a first display configured to enable a
user to view a real-world environment through the first display. Although
Gaeta’s second display screen 152 is not disclosed as transparent, Gaeta’s
augmented-reality glasses and Ackley’s HUD are transparent displays, the
combination teaching or at least suggesting a fixed visualization device
comprising a second transparent screen configured to enable a user to view
a real-world environment through the second display.
As the Examiner finds, a reason for modifying Gaeta’s second display
screen 152 to make it transparent as taught by both Gaeta and Ackley is so
that a user can view a real-world environment through the display. Final
Act. 6; Ans. 5, 9, 13. This reasoning for making the combination is not only
(i) self-evident (i.e., the term “augmented-reality” is understood, even by its
name alone, to include the capability to perceive and thereby augment reality
by, for example, providing the capability to view a real-world environment)
and (ii) further fully explained by the Examiner (see id.). Furthermore,
contrary to Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 11) the reason for modifying
Gaeta’s second display screen to make it transparent is (iii) apparent from
the references themselves,4 that is, to allow for viewing of the physical
world (Gaeta 10:48–52; 57–58) and provide “an augmented sensory
perspective including a selective combination of the real events occurring in
the venue and the virtual events” (Ackley, Abstract).

4 Although we find multiple factual underpinnings to support the
combination, including in the cited references, we note that “[i]t has long
been the law that the motivation to combine need not be found in prior art
references, but equally can be found ‘in the knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific
Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (Quoting In re Jones, 958
F.2d 347, 351 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
10
We further note the preamble of claim 1 recites a system configured to
enable a user to view a real-world environment through a first and second
displays. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) Notably, there is no requirement for
a particular image to be viewable by transmission through the displays in a
serial manner or, for that matter, that the same image of the real-world
environment be viewable through both displays. That is, other than reciting
a capability of viewing of a real-world environment through either display,
no particular configuration or arrangement of the displays in relation to each
other is recited.
3. The combination would result in a single display displaying a single
layer of virtual images
Appellant argues the combination of Gaeta and Ackley would not
result in the claimed two displays and two layers of virtual images but “a
single display operable to display a single layer of virtual images over an
environment viewable by the user through the display.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because, inter alia, it fails to
address the Examiner findings. In particular, the Examiner finds “Gaeta
teaches two different layers of virtual images, one layer of virtual image at
the first display (Fig. 1B element 152 at mobile device 178), the second
layer of virtual image at screen (element 152 under display system 164 ).”
Ans. 7. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the combination of Gaeta and
Ackley does not result in a single display but in two displays corresponding
to and taught by Gaeta’s augmented-reality glasses 152 and display system
164. Similarly, Gaeta teaches each display providing a layer of virtual
images, the Examiner finding Gaeta’s animated movie teaches or suggests a
second layer of virtual features. See Final Act. 5, Ans. 4.
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
11
4. Evidence for the Combination of Gaeta and Ackley
Appellant’s argument that “[N]owhere in Gaeta, in Ackley, or in the
statements by the Examiner, is there objective evidence for the cited
combination [of Gaeta and Ackley]” (Appeal Br. 12) is unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed above. See also Final Act. 6; Ans. 5, 9, 13.
5. Making Gaeta’s Screen Transparent Defeats its Intended Purpose
Appellant argues modifying Gaeta’s screen 152 by making it
transparent would result in a user viewing a blank wall behind the screen
thereby inhibiting effective display of content. Appeal Br. 13. The
Examiner responds, as follows:
[The E]xaminer proposed to modify Gaeta to include the feature
of a user viewing a real world environment through a second
display by including a second display by which second virtual
layer is overlaid over the real world image as taught by Ackley
and thereby when the user sees the second display through the
first display (mobile device) as taught by Gaeta, the user sees the
real world image through the first and second display.
Ans. 17.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it conflates altering a
constituent device’s operation (i.e., Gaeta’s screen 152) with the prohibition
that a proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Gaeta
describes a system that renders first and second views, the first of a three-
dimensional virtual scene, the second scene of one or more objects from the
location of the virtual scene, which “may include a view of the display
device as would been seen though a pair of augmented-reality glasses that
display the one or more content objects.” Gaeta 2:1–9. Appellant fails to
persuasively explain how or why modifying Gaeta’s screen 152 so that it
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
12
allows through-viewing of a real-world environment renders Gaeta’s system
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or changes its principle of operation.
Furthermore, Appellant’s argument fails to address the Examiner’s
finding that the modification would provide additional capabilities to
Gaeta’s display. See In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(“Although statements limiting the function or capability of a prior art
device require fair consideration, simplicity of the prior art is rarely a
characteristic that weighs against obviousness of a more complicated device
with added function.”) Rather than locating Gaeta’s screen 152 on or in
front of a blank wall, making the screen transparent provides additional
capabilities so that images displayed on the screen can overlay a real world
image as taught by Gaeta and Ackley. At best, Appellant’s argument is
based on a wholesale incorporation or combination of structures, rather than
what the combined teachings of Gaeta and Ackley fairly teaches or suggests.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The skilled artisan is not
compelled to follow blindly the teachings of one reference over those of
another “without the exercise of independent judgment.” Lear Siegler, Inc.
v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Furthermore, the
skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
13
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
420–21 (2007).
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s contentions are
unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error in connection with the rejection of
claim 1. Claim 16 is argued on the basis of claim 1 as are dependent claims
2, 4, 5, 17–19, and 22. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, 2, 4,
5, 16–19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Gaeta and Ackley.

Claims 6–9, 11, 13, 20, and 21
Claims 6–9, 11, 13, 20, and 21 recite a system similar to that of claim
1 further configured to operate within a cabin of a passenger ride vehicle.
For example independent claim 9 cites as follows:
9. A system for providing an augmented reality, a virtual reality,
and/or a mixed reality experience to a user, wherein the system
is configured to enable the user to view a real-world environment
through a first transparent display and a second transparent
display, the system comprising:
a passenger ride vehicle configured to traverse a path
during a ride in an amusement park;
a wearable visualization device configured to be worn by
the user within the passenger ride vehicle during the ride,
wherein the wearable visualization device comprises the first
transparent display, and the first transparent display is configured
to overlay a first layer of virtual features onto the real-world
environment viewable by the user;
a fixed visualization device coupled to the passenger ride
vehicle and comprising the second transparent display, wherein
the second transparent display is configured to overlay a second
layer of virtual features onto the real-world environment
viewable by the user; and
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
14
a processor configured to generate the first layer of virtual
features and to generate the second layer of virtual features to
coordinate presentation of the first layer of virtual features and
presentation of the second layer of virtual features with each
other and with ride effects of the ride.
Appeal Br. 21–22 (Claims App.) The Examiner rejects claim 9, finding the
combined teachings of Gaeta and Ackley render most of the recited
limitations obvious for the reasons given in connection with claim 1, as
discussed above. See Final Act. 16–18. The Examiner further finds
Ackley’s disclosure of a transporter “correspond[ing] to a theme park ride
transporter, such as a roller coaster car or carriage” teaches the recited
passenger ride vehicle. Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Ackley ¶ 32). The
Examiner applies Blum’s Figure 3 depicting a user wearing a “visualization
device during a ride in a passenger ride vehicle” for teaching the
corresponding limitation of claim 9. Id. at 19. According to the Examiner,
one skilled in that art would have modified the teaching of Gaeta and Ackley
“to have wearable visualization device to be worn by a user within a
passenger ride vehicle during the ride as taught by Blum” so as to “provide
[a] rider a thrill[ing] experience.” Id.

Appellant contends the rejection is improper for reasons presented in
connection with claim 1. Appeal Br. 15, 17. Having found those
contentions unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above, we likewise find
those same arguments unpersuasive in connection with the rejection of
independent claim 9.
Appellant further contends the rejection is improper, this time arguing
the Examiner fails to articulate a reason why one skilled in the art would
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
15
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gaeta and Ackley with
Blum. Id. at 15–17.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address the
Examiner’s finding that the reason for combining the system of Gaeta and
Ackley to include a wearable visualization device configured to be worn by
a user within a passenger ride vehicle during a ride is to provide the user
with an enhanced thrill ride5 experience. Final Act. 19. Furthermore, we are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention the combination of Gaeta, Ackley,
and Blum fails to teach or suggest “one display is wearable and one display
is coupled to the passenger ride vehicle.” Appeal Br. 17. Gaeta teaches a
wearable device for the reasons discussed in connection with claim 1. See
Final Act. 16, 19 (Gaeta’s virtual reality goggles and Blum’s Figure 3
depicting passengers 22, 24, 26, 28 wearing electronic goggles 34).
Furthermore, as the Examiner also finds, Ackley’s HUD teaches or suggests
the disputed display coupled to a passenger ride vehicle. Final Act. 19, see
also, e.g., Ackley ¶ 27 (HUD system 234 is installed on transporter 204).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of reversible Examiner error in
connection with and sustain the rejection of claims 6–9, 11, 13, 20, and 21
over the combined teachings Gaeta, Ackley, and Blum.
Claims 3 and 15
Rather than arguing separately, claims 3 and 15 are argued on the
basis of their respective base claims. Appeal Br. 17–18. Having found
those arguments unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error for the reasons

5 “[A] very exciting ride (such as a roller coaster) at an amusement park.”
“Thrill ride.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thrill%20ride. Accessed 25
Aug. 2021.
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
16
discussed above, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3 and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 16–19, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103over the combined teachings Gaeta and Ackley.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combined teachings Gaeta, Ackley, and Nishigasako.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–9, 11, 13, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings Gaeta, Ackley, and
Blum.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combined teachings Gaeta, Ackley, Blum, and Bhageria.
Appeal 2020-003735
Application 15/786,359
17
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 16–
19, 22
103 Gaeta, Ackley 1, 2, 4, 5, 16–
19, 22

3 103 Gaeta, Ackley,
Nishigasako
3
6–9, 11, 13,
20, 21
103 Gaeta, Ackley,
Blum
6–9, 11, 13,
20, 21

15 103 Gaeta, Ackley,
Blum, Bhageria
15
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11, 13,
15–22

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