Alcatel Lucent

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2021

2019004321 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 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.
14/654,690 06/22/2015 Jochen MAES 29250A-000154-US-NP 1245
30594 7590 03/25/2021
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
BAIG, ADNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2021 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
jhill@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOCHEN MAES, MICHAEL TIMMERS, DIRK
VANDERHAEGEN, CARL NUZMAN, and DANNY VAN BRUYSSEL

Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and NORMAN H.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17–33, which constitute all pending
claims. 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 the real party in interest as Alcatel
Lucent, the assignee of record, which is a subsidiary of Nokia Corporation
(Nokia Oy). Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to controlling communications over
a plurality of subscriber lines, the communications making use of
communication signals that are jointly processed through a precoder for
crosstalk precompensation, and conforming to a transmit PSD (Power
Spectral Density) mask. Abstract; Spec. 1:3–7, 4:8–26; Figs. 1, 3.
Claim 17 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows
(emphasis added):
17. A method for controlling communications over
a plurality of subscriber lines, the communications making use of
communication signals that are jointly processed through a linear
precoder for crosstalk precompensation, wherein the method
comprises:
detecting an update event whereupon the linear precoder needs
to be updated,
determining a signal scaling factor to be applied to a transmit
communication signal for conformance to a transmit Power Spectral
Density (PSD) mask after joint processing of the communication
signals through the updated linear precoder,
sending signal adjustment information to a receiver remotely
coupled to a subscriber line out of the plurality of subscriber lines, the
signal adjustment information indicative of a signal compensation
factor to be applied to a receive communication signal to compensate
for a channel equalization bias at the receiver caused at least by a
corresponding transmit signal scaling, and
time-coordinating the linear precoder update and the
corresponding transmit signal scaling with enforcement of the signal
compensation factor at the receiver.
Appeal Br. 32 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

3
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ginis et al. US 2012/0257691 A1 Oct. 11, 2012
Cendrillon et al. US 2011/0007788 A1 Jan. 13, 2011
Mella et al. US 2011/0038305 A1 Feb. 17, 2011

Claims 17–24 and 26–33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ginis and Cendrillon. Non-Final Act. 7–25.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ginis, Cendrillon, and Mella. Non-Final Act. 25–26.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made, but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2016). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
In the Non-Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Ginis
and Cendrillon teaches the limitations of illustrative independent claim 17.
Non-Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner finds Ginis teaches all claim 17
limitations except Ginis does not disclose “updating the linear precoder.”
Non-Final Act. 7–10 (citing Cendrillon. Figs. 4–7, 14, ¶¶ 23, 34–39, 40, 68–

2 The current rejection follows a rejection over Ginis under § 102. Non-
Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

4
70, 73, 106, 110, 111, 116, 117, 145). The Examiner relies on the teachings
of Cendrillon for this limitation, and explains why one of ordinary skill in
the art would combine the teachings of Ginis and Cendrillon. Id. at 10–11
(citing Cendrillon, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 19, 26). The Examiner finds the combination
of Ginis and Cendrillon teaches claims 18–24 and 26–33. Id. at 11—25.
The Examiner finds the combination of Ginis, Cendrillon, and Mella teaches
the limitations of dependent claim 25. Id. at 25–26.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of Ginis and Cendrillon teaches various claim 17 limitations
(also referred to as “disputed limitations”) and also argues the Examiner errs
in finding the combination teaches the limitations of claims 18–33. Appeal
Br. 15–31. In the Answer, the Examiner addresses Appellant’s arguments
in detail. Ans. 3–27. Appellant does not file a Reply Brief.
Set forth below are the disputed claim 17 limitations along with
Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.

“detecting an update event whereupon the linear
precoder needs to be updated”

Appellant argues Ginis fails to provide specific information about
detecting an update event whereupon the linear precoder needs to be
updated. Id. at 17 (citing Ginis ¶¶ 34–36). Appellant argues Cendrillon
teaches preventing or pausing a precoder 108/208 update (i.e., not updating
precoder) if the VCE 109/209 receives an error or special signal from the
receiver VTU-R at the CPE 104/204. Id. at 18 (citing Cendrillon ¶¶ 5, 18,
29, Figs. 1, 2).
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Cendrillon teaches a “linear
precoder update” in which a precoder is updated by updating a precoding
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

5
matrix for a crosstalk precoder for purposes of mitigating crosstalk on
subscriber lines of a DSL system by calculating precoding coefficients. Ans.
6 (citing Cendrillon ¶¶ 19, 26). The Examiner finds the Cendrillon crosstalk
precoder performs a “linear precoder update.” Id. In particular, the
Examiner refer to statements in paragraph 26, “[t]he VCE 109 may use the
error feedback signals from the VTURs-Rs at the CPEs 104 to identify the
crosstalk channels in the lines, calculate preceding coefficients, and update a
preceding matrix for the crosstalk precoder 108. The preceding matrix may
comprise the preceding coefficients.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Therefore,
the Examiner interprets updating a precoding matrix for the crosstalk
precoder 108 as performing a “linear precoder update.” Id.
The Examiner additionally finds Ginis describes an “update event
whereupon the linear precoder needs to be updated.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ginis
¶¶ 35, 36, 38). The Examiner notes this is consistent with the Specification
in which the “update event” is described as “a substantial change in transmit
power over a reconfigured subscriber line.” Id. at 7 (citing Spec. 5:13–15).
The Examiner concludes it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art for the linear precoders disclosed in Ginis to be updated according
to the precoder update as disclosed in Cendrillon because the motivation lies
in Cendrillon for updating a precoding matrix for a crosstalk precoder for
purposes of mitigating crosstalk over the subscriber lines. Id. at 6. The
Examiner explains that the teachings in Ginis and Cendrillon are directed to
mitigating crosstalk experienced over the subscriber lines by updating
signaling characteristics adaptively. Id.
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

6
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions are reasonable and are not persuasively
argued by Appellant.
“determining a signal scaling factor to be applied to a
transmit communication signal for conformance to a
transmit (PSD) mask after joint processing of the
communication signals through the updated linear
precoder”

Appellant argues the Ginis portions cited by the Examiner just
describe general information about a DSL system. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ginis
¶¶ 34–36). According to Appellant, signal scaling factors βi(k) may be used
so the product of the preceding matrix P and vector X (transmit scaling) will
conform to the PSD mask (max power allowed over a line). Id. (referring to
Appeal Br. 12–13). Appellant argues paragraphs 34–36 of Ginis do not
describe a “signal scaling factor for conformance to a transmit PSD mask”
and Cendrillon does not remedy the deficiencies of Ginis. Id. at 19.
Appellant further argues the Examiner relies on paragraphs 39 and
145 of Ginis but it is unclear what the Examiner means so the notice
required under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) to judge the propriety of the rejection has
not been provided. Id. at 20 (citing Non-Final Act. 8–9). According to
Appellant, just because paragraphs 39 and 145 of Ginis refer to increasing
power and a power constraint does not mean those phrases can be
interpreted broadly as a “signal scaling factor.” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Ginis teaches this limitation.
Ans. 10–11 (citing Ginis ¶¶ 9, 12, 16, 34–39, 70,145). For example, Ginis
teaches signaling characteristics can include transmitted power spectral
density to conform to a PSD mask. Id. (citing Ginis ¶¶ 36, 38).
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

7
Regarding Notice, the Examiner’s rejection is sufficient and does not
prevent the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds
for rejection. Our reviewing court, regarding the notice requirement as set
forth by 35 U.S.C. § 132, explains:
[T]he PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima
facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in
“notify[ing] the applicant ... [by] stating the reasons for [its]
rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such
information and references as may be useful in judging of the
propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35
U.S.C. § 132. That section “is violated when a rejection is so
uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and
seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” Chester v. Miller,
906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1990).
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions are reasonable and are not persuasively
argued by Appellant.

“sending signal adjustment information to a receiver
remotely coupled to a subscriber line out of the
plurality of subscriber lines, the signal adjustment
information indicative of a signal compensation factor
to be applied to a receive communication signal to
compensate for a channel equalization bias at the
receiver caused at least by a corresponding transmit
signal scaling”

Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding the “centralized
approach . . . knowledge of channel and crosstalk coupling functions, . . .
desired signaling characteristics and parameters for each user, and ...
transmission characteristics and parameters” description in [0073] of Ginis
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

8
may be interpreted as a “signal compensation factor.” Id. at 20 (citing Non-
Final Act. 4–5). According to Appellant, the Examiner’s interpretation is
unreasonably broad because the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification for the “signal compensation factor to ... compensate
for channel equalization bias at the receiver caused at least by a
corresponding transmit signal scaling” features of claims 17 and 28 is a
parameter that adjusts for the “signal scaling factor to be applied to a
transmit communication signal ... after joint processing of the
communication signals through the updated linear precoder.” Id (citing
Appeal Br. 12–13).
Appellant argues the portions of Ginis relied upon by the Examiner,
such as the centralized approach in [0073] of Ginis, would not be considered
“a signal compensation factor” by a person of ordinary skill in the art
because paragraph 73 of Ginis does not describe a parameter at the receiver
side that adjusts for channel equalization bias at the receiver caused by
corresponding transmit signal scaling and Cendrillon does not remedy this
deficiency of Ginis. Id. at 21.
Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown the combination of
Ginis in view of Cendrillon inherently would include each feature of claims
17. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Ginis teaches these limitations.
Ans. 11– 16 (citing Ginis ¶¶ 35, 36, 68–70, 73, 119, 23, 73, 117, Figs. 1–3).
Additionally, the Examiner notes Appellant argues subject matter (“scale
down the vector X of transmit frequency samples”) is not recited in claim
17. Id. at 14 (citing Appeal Br. 20)
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

9
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions are reasonable and are not persuasively
argued by Appellant.
“time-coordinating the linear precoder update and the
corresponding transmit signal scaling with enforcement of the signal
compensation factor at the receiver”

Appellant argues Ginis and Cendrillon fail to teach “transmit signal
scaling” and “enforcement of the signal compensation factor at the receiver.”
Appeal Br. 18. Appellant argues Ginis does not teach “signal compensation
factor.” Id at 23.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Ginis teaches these limitations.
Ans. 8–9 (citing Ginis ¶¶ 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 73, 145).
In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
regarding illustrative claim 17 because the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions are reasonable and are not persuasively argued by Appellant.
Appellant argues independent claim 28 along with claim 17 and notes
that claim 28 includes a “communication controller” that performs functions
of the method claim 17, discussed supra. Appeal Br. 19. Appellant argues
claim 30 is patentable over Ginis and Cendrillon for reasons similar to claim
28. Id. at 22. Appellant argues there is no reason to combine Ginis and
Cendrillon for claim 30 because claim 30 does not recite the claim 28
limitation “communication controller is configured to detect an update event
whereupon the linear precoder needs to be updated.” Id. at 22.
In the Answer, the Examiner asserts that claim 30 is unpatentable over
Ginis and Cendrillon for the same reasons as explained for claim 28. Ans.
15. Regarding the “communication controller,” the Examiner finds Ginis
teaches a communication controller as communication adaptation module
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

10
715 and line and signal characteristics 717 which performs the claim
features. Id. at 15–16. (citing Ginis, Fig. 7, ¶ 68). The Examiner finds Ginis
teaches a single or independent communication controller. Id. at 16 (citing
Ginis, Fig. 7, MPEP § 2144.04 Section V.B Making Integral). The
Examiner asserts the same reasons explained to combine with respect to
independent claim 17 also applies for independent claim 30. Id.
Regarding claims 28 and 30, we are not persuaded for reasons
discussed regarding claim 17, supra, and Appellant’s arguments regarding
claims 28 and 30 are not persuasive.
The Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed limitations are broad
and reasonable. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364.
The interpretations are consistent with the Specification and Appellant does
not identify persuasively a portion of the Specification that is inconsistent
with the Examiner’s interpretation.
On the record before us, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments because the Examiner provides sufficient evidence to support the
finding that the combination of Ginis and Cendrillon teaches the disputed
limitations and the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
combine the teachings.
The Examiner provides prima facie support for the rejection of claim
17. “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on
any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the record
before us, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claim 17,
independent claims 28 and 30 that recite similar limitations, and dependent
claims 2–13, 16–20, and 22–24 as these claims are not argued separately.
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

11
Along with the unreasonably narrow claim interpretations, supra,
Appellant also argues an unreasonably narrow teaching of the cited
references to attempt to limit the teaching to the express disclosures, and
asserts an overly demanding standard of obviousness. However, we note:
[t]he 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 (CendrillonPA 1981).
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on:
[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Although the prior rejection was based on § 102 over Ginnis, the
current rejection is § 103 over Ginnis and Cendrillon. Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive for the current § 103 rejection. Additionally,
the findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer are not persuasively
argued by Appellant.
In view of the above, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 17,
independent claims 28 and 30, and dependent claims 19–22, 26, 27, 29 and
31 as these claims are not argued separately.
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

12

Dependent claims 18, 23, 24, 32, 33
Regarding claim 18, Appellant argues Ginis fails to teach “the signal
compensation factor further compensates for further channel equalization
bias at the receiver caused by corresponding crosstalk pre-compensation
signals superimposed over the one or more victim lines.” Appeal Br. 24–26.
According to Appellant, the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable
because Ginis does not mention the “desired signaling characteristics and
parameters” “compensate for channel equalization bias at the receiver
caused by crosstalk pre-compensation signals, as required in claim 18.” Id.
at 25 (citing Ginis ¶¶ 35, 36, 73). Appellant argues the Examiner does not
show a parameter in Ginis that corresponds to the “signal compensator
factor” of claim 18 and can compensate for two different sources of channel
equalization bias: the “channel equalization bias at the receiver cause at
least by a corresponding transmit scaling” (see claim 17) and the “further
channel equalization bias at the receiver caused by corresponding crosstalk
precompensation signals superimposed over the one or more victim lines,”
as recited in claim 18. Id. at 25. Appellant argues Cendrillon does not
remedy the deficiencies of Ginis. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Ginis teaches the limitations of
claim 18. Ans. 18–21 (citing Ginis Figs. 4–7, ¶¶ 23, 26, 34–38, 63, 69 73,
89, 116, 117, 145). Regarding interpretation, the Examiner asserts findings
regarding claims 17 and 28, supra, are applicable. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ginis
¶¶ 23, 34–38, 73, 117, 145).
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

13
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 18
because the Examiner’s findings and conclusions are reasonable and are not
persuasively argued by Appellant.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Appellant argues Ginis fails to provide
specific information about detecting an update event related to a linear
precoder. Appeal Br. 26–27 (citing Ginis ¶¶ 31, 34, 35). Appellant argues
Cendrillon does not remedy the deficiencies of Ginis. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Ginis teaches the limitations of
claim 23 and 24. Ans. 21–23. Regarding claim 23, the Examiner finds
Ginis discloses detecting the update event include detecting a new subscriber
line joining or leaving the plurality of subscriber lines. Id. at 22 (citing
Ginis, Fig. 6, ¶¶ 31, 34). Regarding claim 24, the Examiner finds Ginis
teaches “wherein the detecting the update event includes detecting
substantial change in transmit power over a reconfigured subscriber line.”
Id. at 23 (citing Ginis ¶¶ 34, 35).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 23
and 24 because the Examiner’s findings and conclusions are reasonable and
are not persuasively argued by Appellant.
Regarding claim 32, which depends from claim 17, Appellant argues
the portions of Ginis and Cendrillon relied upon by the Examiner do not
specifically teach and/or suggest “determining one or more coefficients of a
signal scaling matrix for conformance to the PSD mask, the signal scaling
matrix including the signal scaling factor” feature of claim 32, which is
similarly recited in claim 33. Appeal Br. 28 –30 (citing Ginis ¶¶ 19–24,
127; Cendrillon ¶¶ 5, 24, 25). According to Appellant, the portions of Ginis
and Cendrillon relied upon by the Examiner do not teach and/ or suggest the
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

14
specifics required for determining “coefficients of a signal scaling matrix for
conformance to the PSD mask.” Id. at 28. Appellant argues the portions of
Ginis and Cendrillon relied upon by the Examiner do not specifically teach
and/or suggest the ‘“determining one or more coefficients of a signal
equalization matrix for the signal adjustment information, the signal
equalization matrix including the signal compensation factor to compensate
for the channel equalization bias at the receiver caused by the corresponding
transmit signal scaling.’ feature of claim 32, which is similarly recited in
claim 33.” Id. at 29 (citing Ginis ¶¶ 34, 73, 117; Cendrillon 24–26).
According to Appellant, “The portions of Ginis relied upon by the Examiner,
such as the centralized approach discussed in [0073] of Ginis, would not be
considered ‘coefficients of a signal equalization matrix for the signal
adjustment information . . . including the signal compensation factor to
compensate for the channel equalization bias at the receiver caused by the
corresponding transmit signal scaling compensation factor’ by a person
of ordinary skill in the art because [0073] of Ginis does not describe a
parameter at the receiver side that adjusts for channel equalization bias at the
receiver caused by corresponding transmit signal scaling. Cendrillon does
not remedy this deficiency of Ginis.” Id. at 29.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds the combination of Ginis and
Cendrillon teaches “determining one or more coefficients of a signal scaling
matrix for conformance to the PSD mask, the signal scaling matrix including
the signal scaling factor”, which is similarly recited in claim 33. Ans. 24–26
(citing Ginis, Fig. 14, ¶¶ 19–24, 34–36, 111, 73 99, 103–104, 106, 110, 117,
127, 145; Cendrillon ¶¶ 5, 24–26). The Examiner notes that Appellant’s
arguments referring to signal scaling factors Bi(k) scale down the vector X
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

15
of transmit samples to conform to the PSD mask is not recited in claims 32
and 33. Id. at 25. The Examiner finds Ginis teaches “the signal equalization
matrix including the signal compensation factor to compensate for the
channel equalization bias at the receiver caused by the corresponding
transmit signal scaling.” Id. at 25–26 (citing Ginis, Fig. 14, ¶¶ 23, 34–36, 73,
11, 117).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 32
and 33 because the Examiner’s findings and conclusions are reasonable and
are not persuasively argued by Appellant.
Dependent claim 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 17 and is rejected over the combination
of Ginis, Cendrillon, and Mella. Non-Final Act. 25–26.
Appellant argues Mella does not remedy the deficiencies of Ginis in
view of Cendrillon with regard to the rejection of claim 17 and, therefore,
claim 25 is patentable over the cited art at least by virtue of its dependency
from claim 17. Appeal Br. 30. In the Answer, the Examiner reiterates claim
17 is not patentable over Ginis and Cendrillon. Ans. 26.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 25
because, as discussed supra, there is no deficiency regarding the rejection of
claim 17. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding claim 25 are
reasonable and are not persuasively argued by Appellant.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 17, independent claims 28 and 30, and dependent claims 19–22, 26,
Appeal 2019-004321
Application 14/654,690

16
27, 29, and 31 as these claims are not argued separately. We also sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 18, 23, 24, 25, 32, and 33.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
17–24,
26–33
103(a) Ginis, Cendrillon 17–24, 26–
33

25 103(a) Ginis, Cendrillon,
Mella
25
Overall
Outcome
17–33 17–33

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).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED