Xerox Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 14, 2021

2020006701 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 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.
15/641,694 07/05/2017 Aaron M. Stuckey 20151370/XERP193US 4276
86185 7590 07/14/2021
Simpson & Simpson, PLLC
5555 Main Street
Williamsville, NY 14221-5406
EXAMINER
PERREAULT, ANDREW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2021 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):
patentEFS@idealawyers.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARON M. STUCKEY, JEFFREY M. FOWLER,
AMIT TRIVEDI, and KARL E. KURZ
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694
Technology Center 3700

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, 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 1–6, 9–12, 17, and 21–23.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Xerox Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 7, 8, 13–16, and 18–20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 74–76 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a flexible memory device that evidences
tampering or modification, e.g., intentional and/or selective lead destruction,
while maintaining a portion of data stored in the memory device” and “to a
product seal, tag and/or tracking means including [such] a flexible memory
device.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 21 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A flexible memory device comprising:
a flexible substrate;
a plurality of contact pads disposed on the flexible
substrate, at least one contact pad of the plurality of contact
pads forms at least one first tamper evident contact pad,
wherein the plurality of contact pads are printed on the flexible
substrate;
a plurality of lines disposed on the flexible substrate,
each line of the plurality of lines connected to a contact pad of
the plurality of contact pads, at least one line of the plurality of
lines forms at least one first tamper evident line and is
connected to the at least one tamper evident contact pad; and,
a first partially weakened portion of the flexible substrate
arranged across the at least one tamper evident line.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Becker US 5,508,684 Apr. 16, 1996
Hickle US 2008/0061153 A1 Mar. 13, 2008
Messmer US 2010/0181371 A1 July 22, 2010
Kervinen US 2014/0263659 A1 Sept. 18, 2014

Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 9–12, 17, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view
of Kervinen.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over AAPA in view of Kervinen and Becker.
Claims 1–5, 9–12, 17, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen, Messmer, and
Hickle.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over AAPA in view of Kervinen, Messmer, and Hickle, and further in view
of Becker.
OPINION
Obviousness—AAPA in view of Kervinen; AAPA in view of Kervinen,
Messmer, and Hickle
Claims 1–3, 5, and 9–12
The Examiner finds that AAPA, as illustrated in Figures 1, 5, and 9
(primarily Figure 1) of the present application, discloses a flexible memory
device substantially as recited in claim 1, with the exception of a partially
weakened portion across the at least one tamper evident line. Ans. 5; see
also Spec. ¶ 2 (describing printed memory devices “known in the art”); ¶ 14
(describing the prior art memory device illustrated in Figure 1). The
Examiner finds that Kervinen teaches providing a memory device with a
partially weakened portion across a tamper evident line that is capable of
severing the device into multiple parts, as illustrated in Figure 4b of
Kervinen. Ans. 5. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious, in
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

4
view of Kervinen, to modify the AAPA memory device by placing a
weakened portion across a tamper evident line, such as the vertical line 56
adjacent contact pad 59 in the top row, as well as the vertical line 56
adjacent contact pad 59 in the bottom row in AAPA Figure 1 “in order to
provide tamper evidence in order to alert the user or customer that the
contents may have been interfered with or changed for the worse[,] which in
turn prevents undesired use and/or purchase.” Ans. 5; see Kervinen ¶ 95
(teaching use of a radio frequency transponder including a chip, an antenna,
and a tamper-evident element in or on a care label for a product), ¶ 96
(teaching providing an indication, which may comprise a perforation, for
cutting the label at a location that will also cut the tamper-evident element
(i.e., tamper loop), thereby breaking its electrical conductivity), ¶ 97
(explaining that, with such an arrangement, if a thief tries to cut or tear the
label, the label will be severed so that only the tamper loop is broken, and
the transponder (memory device) remains functional, indicating that the
label has been tampered with).
Appellant argues that Kervinen “does not disclose anything even
remotely close to the flexible memory device of the instant invention” and,
in particular, “does not disclose . . . contact pads disposed on a printed
flexible substrate.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant submits that the present
invention does not comprise “such bulky elements as disclosed in Kervinen,
but rather a printed flexible memory device having contact pads.” Appeal
Br. 16. According to Appellant, “Kervinen does not disclose a contact pad,”
“a plurality of lines,” or “a plurality of lines connected to [a] respective
plurality of contact pads.” Appeal Br. 17.
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

5
Appellant’s arguments regarding the purported deficiencies of
Kervinen are unavailing because they attack Kervinen individually, rather
than in combination with AAPA. “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) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981)). The Examiner relies on AAPA, not Kervinen, for the features
Appellant asserts are missing from Kervinen. See Ans. 5, 9.
Further, Appellant submits that “[n]othing in Kervinen, or AAPA,
suggests the use of a perforation with respect to printed memory devices
having ‘contact pads,’ because contact pads simply could not be utilized in
the device of Kervinen.” Appeal Br. 17. This argument is not persuasive
because it is not responsive to the rejection, which proposes to modify
AAPA by providing a partially weakened portion (or perforations). The
Examiner does not propose modifying Kervinen by providing contact pads.
Moreover, to the extent that it may even be relevant, Appellant does not
provide any evidence to support the assertion that contact pads could not be
used in Kervinen’s device. Appellant’s assertion amounts to unsupported
attorney argument, and therefore we give it little weight. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellant argues that “there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation
to combine Kervinen with AAPA,” as proposed in the rejection and,
“[t]herefore, the only teaching suggestion, or motivation to modify the 20-bit
flexible memory device of AAPA to include the cut line of Kervinen must
have been derived from the present application.” Appeal Br. 17. In other
words,
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

6
Appellant asserts that there can be no reason, other than
impermissible hindsight, to combine . . . Kervinen and AAPA
together to create a printed flexible memory device having a
plurality of tamper evident contact pads, a plurality of tamper
evident lines connected to the tamper evident contact pads, and a
weakened portion arranged across the tamper evident lines.
Appeal Br. 18.
To the extent that Appellant’s arguments demand that a specific
teaching, suggestion, or motivation for making the proposed combination be
found in the prior art, they are inapposite. The Supreme Court has stated
that a rigid insistence on teaching, suggestion, or motivation is incompatible
with its precedent concerning obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). According to the Supreme Court, “[t]he
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner
has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
As discussed above, the Examiner articulates a reason for combining
the teachings of Kervinen with AAPA—“in order to provide tamper
evidence in order to alert the user or customer that the contents may have
been interfered with or changed for the worse[,] which in turn prevents
undesired use and/or purchase.” Ans. 5, 12. Further, the Examiner derives
this reasoning from teachings in Kervinen, not from Appellant’s application.
See Ans. 12 (citing Kervinen ¶ 96). Appellant does not identify any flaw in
the Examiner’s reasoning or point to any knowledge relied on by the
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

7
Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that was
not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention, and thereby fails to support the hindsight assertion. See In
re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on
obviousness is in a sense 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.”).
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 3, 5, and 9–12, for
which Appellant does not present any separate arguments (see Appeal Br. 72
(requesting that the Board reverse the rejections of claims 1, 4, 17, and 21–
23)), as unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen.
Appellant does not present any separate arguments contesting the
alternative rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2, 3, 5, and 9–12, as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen, Messmer, and Hickle. See
Appeal Br. 8–72. Thus, for the same reasons, we also sustain this rejection
of claims 1–3, 5, and 9–12 as well.
Claim 4
In contesting the rejections of claim 4, Appellant argues that nothing
in any of the cited references “teaches, suggests, or motivates a person
having ordinary skill in the art to provide contact pads that store data after
the at least one tamper evident line is severed.” Appeal Br. 24. In
particular, Appellant asserts that “AAPA does not disclose severing tamper
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

8
evident lines” and “Kervinen does not disclose a plurality of contact pads.”
Appeal Br. 24. Thus, Appellant submits that “the suggestion of a plurality
of contact pads and a plurality of lines storing a bit of data after the tamper
evident line has been severed cannot have come from” either AAPA or
Kervinen. Appeal Br. 24.
Once again, Appellant is attacking the references individually. The
Examiner relies on Kervinen, not AAPA, for severing a tamper evident line
(Ans. 5); and the Examiner relies on AAPA, and not Kervinen, for the
contact pads and the plurality of lines that store data (Ans. 5–6 (noting that
AAPA “contains pads with bits of data on discrete cells of memory where it
is well known that such devices operate in binary where 0 and 1 provide
well known values of severing and non-severing in order for the device to
function as intended such as alerting the user to tampering”)).
Appellant does not specifically contest the Examiner’s findings or
analysis in support of the Examiner’s position that AAPA possesses the data
storage capability called for in claim 4. Notably, the AAPA printed memory
device includes the same contact pads, layers (including the ferrite layer
having memory stored in a discrete cell requiring an appropriate voltage
pattern applied across the contact pads connected to the bottom and top
layers associated with the particular portion of the ferrite layer), and lines
connected to the contact pads being separated from the common line by the
ferrite layer, as in Appellant’s invention. See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 14, 15. In other
words, the data storage means in the AAPA device appears to be essentially
the same as that in the device of Appellant’s invention, thereby supporting
the Examiner’s findings in this regard.
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

9
Moreover, although the Examiner finds that AAPA possesses the data
storage capability of claim 4, the Examiner also cites Hickle as evidencing
that “similar technology with respect to tamper evidence and pads” stores
“different values between severing and non-severing.” Ans. 8 (citing
Hickle ¶ 41; Figs. 1–8). The Examiner reasons that, assuming arguendo that
AAPA does not already possess this recited data storage capability, it would
have been obvious to modify the device of AAPA combined with Kervinen
“in view of Hickle (by providing [this data storage capability] to the pads) in
order to ensure that the user is alerted of tampering and protecting the user.”
Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that “Becker does not disclose a weakened portion”
and is “in a totally different field of art than the instant invention.” Appeal
Br. 25. This argument is unavailing because it is not responsive to the
rejections of claim 4, which do not rely on the teachings of Becker.
Appellant contends that “Hickle does not disclose the use of a contact
pad, but rather the programming of a product identification label” and “it
appears that Hickle discloses the use of RFID tags and doesn’t disclose . . .
the use of tamper evident contact pads connected via tamper evident lines
via an electrically conductive layer.” Appeal Br. 26. This contention attacks
Hickle individually and, thus, does not apprise us of error.
Appellant also submits that “Hickle discloses the use of product
identification tags for the purposes of identifying and certifying the origin or
manufacture of medical supplies, components, and other devices, and not the
use of a tag for the purpose of determining whether a seal has been tampered
with.” Appeal Br. 26–27. Thus, Appellant contends that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have combined Hickle’s RFID tag with AAPA and
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

10
Kervinen to arrive at the claimed invention, absent knowledge of the
disclosure of the present application, and the Examiner’s rejection is
predicated on “impermissible hindsight.” Appeal Br. 27.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Hickle, like AAPA and
Kervinen, is directed to a data storage device and, further, teaches that the
device includes a breakable conductive loop and stores a data bit having a
value of 1, which changes to a value of 0 if the loop is broken. Hickle ¶ 41.
Hickle teaches placing the breakable conductive loop around a glued edge of
a kit package, for example; when the kit is opened, the conductive loop will
be broken, and the change of the data bit value from 1 to 0 will indicate that
the package has been opened (i.e., tampered with). Thus, regardless of the
type of products for which Hickle specifically teaches using the data storage
device, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider Hickle’s
teachings, regarding how breaking the breakable conductive loop (analogous
to Kervinen’s tamper protection element or tamper loop) results in an
indication in the memory storage portion of the device that the device has
been tampered with, to be applicable to the flexible memory device of the
AAPA/Kervinen combination.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in either
of the rejections of claim 4. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4
as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen, and the alternative
rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen,
Messmer, and Hickle.
Claim 17
Appellant argues that “AAPA does not disclose any partially
weakened portions of the flexible substrate” and that “Kervinen only
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

11
discloses one partially weakened portion of the flexible substrate.” Appeal
Br. 32. Thus, Appellant submits that the “Examiner has not provided any
evidence that the cited references disclose or teach a first partially weakened
portion arranged across a first tamper evident line and a second partially
weakened portion arranged across a second tamper evident line.” Appeal
Br. 32.
The Examiner responds by pointing out that the recitation of “a
second partially weakened portion of the flexible substrate arranged across
the at least one second tamper evident line” in claim 17 (Appeal Br. 76
(Claims App.)) “merely provides duplication of the parts” addressed by the
Examiner in the rejections. Ans. 17. The Examiner points out that AAPA
includes multiple pads (contact pads capable of storing data before and after
severing), including tamper evident contact pads 59 at the upper left and
lower right in Figure 1, multiple lines (vertical lines 56 connected to contact
pads 54, as well as the vertical lines connected to contact pads 59). Ans. 17.
The Examiner explains that the rejection proposes “placing multiple
weakened portions across multiple lines” (i.e., by placing the weakened
portion across the tamper evident line of AAPA such as the vertical lines
adjacent contact pad 59 of the top row, as well as vertical lines adjacent
contact pad 59 in the bottom row in Figure 1). Ans. 18. Further, the
Examiner points out that a second portion (i.e., perforation) of the
perforation line provided in the modification in view of Kervinen may be
considered to be “a second weakened portion” as recited in claim 17.
Ans. 18. Moreover, the Examiner adds, “if additional weakened portions are
desired, it is well within the skill [of] one of ordinary skill in the art to
duplicate said parts such as for example to enhance the already provided
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

12
function.” Ans. 18. Additionally, the Examiner reasons that modifying
AAPA to provide additional weakened portions (e.g., additional perforation
lines) would have been obvious “because it has been held that the
duplication of parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an
obvious extension of the prior teachings.” Ans. 18 (citing In re Harza, 274
F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960)).
Appellant does not refute the Examiner’s findings and reasoning or
explain why it would be deficient with respect to the limitation of claim 17.
Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of
claim 17. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen, and the alternative rejection
of claim 17 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen,
Messmer, and Hickle.
Claim 21
Independent claim 21 recites that the flexible substrate is “operatively
arranged to seal a product.” Appeal Br. 76 (Claims App.). The Examiner
finds that AAPA, as modified in view of Kervinen, “is capable of
performing the above use such as if the user places the device on a container
lid to seal the device in order to protect both the contents therein as well as
the user from tampering.” Ans. 7. In other words, the Examiner appears to
construe the recitation “operatively arranged to seal a product” as requiring
the flexible substrate to have structure capable of sealing a product, and not
as requiring the substrate to be in actual sealing relationship with a product.
Given that the preamble of claim 21 recites “[a] flexible memory device,”
and not a product sealed by a flexible memory device, the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

13
implicit construction appears reasonable when read in the context of claim
21 as a whole.
Moreover, the Examiner sets forth an alternative rejection relying on
Messmer’s teaching of using a security label to seal a product, wherein the
security label may include “electronic article surveillance technologies such
as radio frequency, acoustic, electromagnetic, etc.” Ans. 7 (citing Messmer
¶ 67; Figs. 1–18). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious, in
view of Messmer, to use a security label in accordance with the combined
teachings of AAPA and Kervinen to seal a product “in order to alert the user
if a product has been tampered with while also sealing contents in order to
protect contents while also protecting the user.” Ans. 7.
In contesting the rejections of claim 21, Appellant begins by
reiterating the individual attacks on Kervinen discussed above in connection
with the rejections of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 41–42. As discussed above,
these arguments regarding purported deficiencies in Kervinen are unavailing
because the Examiner relies on AAPA, and not Kervinen, for these features.
Appellant next reiterates the assertion that contact pads could not be
used in Kervinen’s device. Appeal Br. 42. As discussed above, this
assertion amounts to unsupported attorney argument and, thus, is entitled to
little weight.
Appellant also reiterates the argument that there is no teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to combine Kervinen and AAPA and, thus, the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is predicated on impermissible
hindsight. Appeal Br. 42–43. For the reasons discussed above, this line of
argument fails to apprise us of error in the rejections of claim 1 and,
likewise, fails to apprise us of error in the rejections of claim 21.
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

14
With respect to the alternative rejection, Appellant additionally argues
that Messmer does not disclose “the use of a flexible memory device, the
use of contact pads, or that the label has a partially weakened portion.”
Appeal Br. 44 (noting that Messmer’s label “is arranged to be cut as with a
knife or scissors”). Appellant asserts that, “[i]n Messmer, it is only the
severing, stretching, or bending of strips (24) that provide evidence of
tampering, and there is no data-storing mechanism.” Appeal Br. 45
(boldface omitted). Thus, Appellant contends that one having ordinary skill
in the art would not modify AAPA or Kervinen with Messmer to arrive at
the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 44–45.
Appellant’s arguments are unavailing because they attack Messmer
individually, rather than as combined with AAPA, Kervinen, and Hickle.
Further, Appellant’s assertion that Messmer teaches severing, stretching, or
bending of strips as the only means for providing evidence of tampering
overlooks Messmer’s teaching in paragraph 67 of incorporating electronic
article surveillance technologies (cited by the Examiner in the rejection
(Ans. 7)). This teaching in Messmer would have provided sufficient
incentive to a skilled artisan to use the electronic surveillance technologies
taught by AAPA, Kervinen, and Hickle to seal a product in a manner that
will indicate tampering if a product has been opened by cutting or tearing the
label. See Messmer ¶¶ 65, 67.
For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the
rejections of claim 21. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 as
being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen and the alternative
rejection of claim 21 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen,
Messmer, and Hickle.
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

15
Claim 22
In contesting the rejections of claim 22, Appellant essentially
reiterates the arguments presented against the rejections of claim 21. See
Appeal Br. 51–58. For the reasons discussed above, these arguments fail to
apprise us of error in the rejections of claim 21 and, likewise, fail to apprise
us of error in the rejections of claim 22. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 22 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen,
and the alternative rejection of claim 22 as being unpatentable over AAPA
in view of Kervinen, Messmer, and Hickle.
Claim 23
In contesting the rejection of claim 23, Appellant begins by reiterating
essentially the same arguments asserted against the rejections of claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 64–69. For the reasons discussed above, these arguments
fail to apprise us of error in the rejections of claim 1 and, likewise, fail to
apprise us of error in the rejections of claim 23.
Appellant additionally repeats the arguments attacking Hickle, and its
combination with AAPA and Kervinen, asserted against the rejection of
claim 4. See Appeal Br. 70–71. For the reasons discussed above, these
arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 4 as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen, Messmer, and Hickle, and,
likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 21 as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen, Messmer, and Hickle.
For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the
rejections of claim 23. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 23 as
being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen, and the alternative
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

16
rejection of claim 23 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen,
Messmer, and Hickle.
Obviousness— AAPA in view of Kervinen and Becker; AAPA in view of
Kervinen, Messmer, and Hickle, and further in view of Becker
Appellant does not present any arguments specifically contesting the
rejections of claim 6. See Appeal Br. 8–72. Thus, for the reasons set forth
above in sustaining the rejections of claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of
claim 6 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kervinen and Becker,
and the alternative rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over AAPA in
view of Kervinen, Messmer, and Hickle, and further in view of Becker.
CONCLUSION
All of the rejections of claims 1–6, 9–12, 17, and 21–23 are
AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2020-006701
Application 15/641,694

17
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 9–12,
17, 21–23
103 AAPA, Kervinen 1–5, 9–12,
17, 21–23

6 103 AAPA, Kervinen,
Becker
6
1–5, 9–12,
17, 21–23
103 AAPA, Kervinen,
Messmer, Hickle
1–5, 9–12,
17, 21–23

6 103 AAPA, Kervinen,
Messmer, Hickle,
Becker
6
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 9–12,
17, 21–23

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