Christo De Klerk et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2020

2020000305 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 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.
13/201,168 11/15/2011 Christo Andre De Klerk 8705P055 7324
140830 7590 08/04/2020
Thomas Coester Law Corporation dba TCIP
PO Box 5876
Santa Monica, CA 90409
EXAMINER
ATTEL, NINA KAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2020 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):
admin@tciplawfirm.com
tom@tciplawfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTO ANDRE DE KLERK and TERRY DEAN KEMP

Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–18.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Mercer Technologies Limited as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 2 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 17, and 18 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below, illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A puncture resistant sealable vapor barrier
sterilization bag formed of a non-porous material capable of
withstanding a medical grade steam sterilization process having
process temperatures up to 138 degrees Celsius whilst
providing an effective microbiological barrier having a first
heat sealable opening formed by adjacent walls of the bag being
substantially unjoined along one edge of the bag and being
suitable for receiving items to be sterilized and a second heat
sealable opening in the form of a tube adapted to couple to a
sterilization conduit.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3, 5–9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Trexler (US 3,016,284, issued Jan. 9, 1962) and Huynen
(US 6,749,808 B1, issued June 15, 2004), and Johnston (US 4,654,240,
issued Mar. 31, 1987). Non-Final Act. 3.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Lin (US 2003/0072701 A1, published
Apr. 17, 2003). Non-Final Act. 8.
Claims 10–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Kemp (WO 2007/055595 A1,
published May 18, 2007). Non-Final Act. 10.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

3
Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Morrissey (US 2004/0081601 A1, published
Apr. 29, 2004). Non-Final Act. 10.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Moriyama (EP 1683469 A2, published July
26, 2006) or Kemp. Non-Final Act. 11.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Lin. Non-Final Act. 15.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 5–9, and 14 over Trexler, Huynen, and Johnston
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7–9, and 14
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 5, 7–9, and 14 together. Appeal Br. 8–
11. We select claim 1 to decide the appeal as to this rejection, and claims 3,
5, 7–9, and 14 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Trexler discloses a puncture resistant sealable
vapor barrier sterilization bag formed of a non-porous material capable of
withstanding a steam sterilization process while providing an effective
microbiological barrier, and that the bag has a heat sealable opening (neck
14) in the form of a tube adapted to couple to a sterilization conduit. Non-
Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds that Huynen teaches a sterilization bag (container
20, flexible bag 23) comprising a sealable opening (connector port 22,
internal bore 26) to introduce sterilizing steam into the bag and for receiving
items to be sterilized. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Huynen, col. 7, ll. 31–56);
Ans. 5–6. The Examiner further finds that Huynen teaches that the
sterilization bag can, alternatively, include two distinct sealable openings,
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

4
namely, a first heat sealable opening formed by adjacent walls of the bag
being substantially unjoined along one side of the bag through which the bag
is filled with items to be sterilized and then heat sealed, and a second
sealable opening adapted to introduce sterilizing steam into the bag. Non-
Final Act. 4 (citing Huynen col. 3, ll. 50–53, col. 8, ll. 8–17); Ans. 6. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Trexler’s sterilization bag to include an additional,
distinct heat sealable opening corresponding to the first heat sealable
opening taught by Huynen. Non-Final Act. at 4–5. The Examiner clarifies
that Trexler is relied on to teach the claimed second heat sealable opening
(Ans. 4), and Huynen to teach the claimed first heat sealable opening (id. at
6).
The Examiner also finds that Trexler fails to teach a non-porous
material capable of withstanding a medical grade steam sterilization process
having process temperatures up to 138 degrees Celsius, as claimed. Non-
Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Johnston as teaching a sterilization bag
formed of a material that has this capability. Id. at 5; Ans. 14–15. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to further modify
Trexler by forming the bag of a non-porous material, as taught by Johnston,
to produce a sterilization bag having improved mechanical properties and
heat resistant properties capable of withstanding temperatures that are
adequate for effective sterilization. Non-Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant contends that “Trexler teaches a bag for sterilizing items
that remain stored in the bag in a sterile condition until use.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant also contends that “Trexler teaches a single opening through
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

5
which items can be introduced and sterilant can be introduced thereafter.”
Id. at 11.
Appellant contends that “Huynen teaches a bag for transferring items
from a non-sterile environment to a sterile environment . . . [and the]
container of Huynen is only ‘sterilizable’ (as opposed to being a sterilization
bag per se) by virtue of its ‘breathable material’, which does not inhibit
entry of a sterilant into the container.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant also
contends that Huynen does not disclose a heat sealable opening for
introduction of sterilant, but teaches that the porous bag allows the sterilant
to enter. Id.
Trexler’s teachings are not, however, limited to introducing materials
to be sterilized into the container only via neck 14. Trexler also teaches that
“the material may be superimposed upon one of the sheets 12, 13 in centered
position, followed by the application of the other of the two sheets 12, 13 to
the first sheet and by the heat sealing operation to define the seams.”
Trexler, col. 2, ll. 9–13. Accordingly, Trexler teaches that material can be
introduced into the container through different heat sealable openings, at
different locations.
The Examiner relies on Trexler, not Huynen, for teaching the claimed
second heat sealable opening. Ans. 4. Even though Trexler teaches an
alternative opening for receiving materials, the Examiner relies on Huynen
as teaching an alternative heat sealable opening through which to introduce
materials into the container instead of via Trexler’s neck 14. Id. at 6.
Huynen discloses that “[t]he bag 23 may be open at one end to allow
inclusion of sterlized [sic] or sterilisable objects or a second inner bag 25
and is preferably closable, e.g. by heat sealing.” See Huynen col. 3, ll. 50–
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

6
52 (boldface omitted). Huynen teaches applying steam to sterilize contents
of the bag. See id. col. 4, ll. 8–10.
Modifying Trexler’s container to include a heat-sealable open end, as
taught by Huynen, would allow materials or items to be introduced into the
container at the open-end instead of at neck 14. Adding a heat-sealable open
end to Trexler’s container would, for example, allow the introduction of
objects that could not be introduced via neck 14. One of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to modify Trexler’s container to add a heat-
sealable open end, as taught by Huynen, for this purpose. Appellant does
not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning that the modification
would have yielded predictable results. Non-Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends that “[t]here is no reference cited that teaches two
heat sealable opening [sic] for any purpose. Trexler has a single dual-
purpose opening that already accomplishes the purpose of the single opening
in Huynen.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant also contends that “[t]he
combination does not suggest creation of two different heat sealable
openings, at most it suggest[s] that the single heat sealable opening of
Trexler could be repositioned.” Id.
These contentions are premised on the position that no single applied
reference explicitly teaches a sterilization bag comprising two heat-sealable
openings. However, Trexler teaches that material or items can be introduced
into the container via different heat-sealable openings, namely, through the
neck portion or by being placed between opposed sheets that are heat sealed
along edges of the sheets. When including the latter heat-sealable opening,
the container would be “substantially unjoined along one edge of the bag
and . . . suitable for receiving items to be sterilized,” as claimed. It appears
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

7
that this alternative embodiment of Trexler’s container would include both a
first heat sealable opening and a second heat sealable opening (i.e., neck
portion), as claimed.
Even if we were to accept Appellant’s assertion that no single
reference explicitly teaches a sterilization bag comprising two heat-sealable
openings, we point out that the rejection is based on a combination of
references. When a rejection is based upon a combination of references,
attacking the references individually is typically unpersuasive because it
fails to address what the collective information demonstrates a skilled artisan
knew at the time of the invention, moreover, how that collective knowledge
would have influenced the steps taken by such an artisan. See In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Huynen, like Trexler, teaches
that objects can be introduced into the container at a heat-sealable open end
rather than where steam is introduced into the container. The Examiner’s
rejection relies on this teaching in combination with Trexler’s teaching that
steam can be introduced into a sterilization bag through a neck-like
structure. An Examiner is not required to “seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because there
is latitude to “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). There is no requirement that the references
explicitly teach a combination, and motivation to modify a reference may be
implicit in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 418–19.
Appellant also contends that “Johnston teaches a bag to which
sterilant is applied to the outside of the bag to sterilize fluids sealed in the
bag. Sterilant is not applied to items within the bag.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

8
The Examiner does not, however, rely on Johnston as teaching the
application of sterilant to items within the bag. Trexler discloses a container
formed of a film material that is preferably “capable of being heat-sealed
and which will withstand temperatures in the order of 250 deg. F.”3 See
Trexler, col. 1, ll. 54–57. Trexler also discloses that “steam is introduced
through the neck 14 thereof and serves to sterilize the interior surfaces of the
container or envelope and to penetrate and sterilize the contents 22.” See id.,
col. 2, ll. 24–27 (boldface omitted). Trexler describes sterilizing envelope
10 and its contents “at temperatures in the order of 120 deg. C.” See id., col.
3, ll. 3–7. The Examiner relies on Johnson as teaching a sterilization bag
capable of withstanding a medical grade steam sterilization process having
higher process temperatures up to 138 degrees Celsius, as claimed. Non-
Final Act. 5; Ans. 14–15. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to modify Trexler’s container to use Johnson’s container material
to allow the modified container to be used in sterilizing processes that have
higher temperatures than Trexler’s container could withstand, and,
particularly, the claimed medical grade steam sterilizing process
temperatures. The Examiner clarifies that the application of Johnston “does
not modify . . . the manner in which Trexler introduces sterilant into the
bag.” Ans. 15.
We have also considered Appellant’s arguments against this rejection
set forth in the Reply Brief and do not find them persuasive of Examiner
error. See Reply Br. 3–6.

3 250°F corresponds to about 121°C.
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

9
For the forgoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
claims 3, 5, 7–9, and 14, as unpatentable over Trexler, Huynen, and
Johnston.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites that “the bag is formed of a sheet that is folded and
sealed along part of its adjacent edges.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Huynen teaches forming a sterilization bag with a sheet
that is folded and sealed. Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Huynen, col. 5, ll. 56–58).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to form Trexler’s
bag of a folded sheet, as taught by Huynen, as an alternative configuration
for forming a sterilization bag. Id. The Examiner also determines that this
modification would achieve predictable results. Id. at 6–7.
Appellant contends that, unlike Huynen, which uses rectangular sheets
of material, Trexler’s container has a tube extension and folding the sheet of
Trexler would yield a nonfunctional bag, as the tube would lack a
corresponding other side. Appeal Br. 11–12. Thus, Appellant contends,
Trexler teaches using two identical (non-rectangular) panels overlaid to form
its bag. Id. at 12.
The Examiner responds that the test for obviousness is not whether
the features of Huynen could be bodily incorporated in the structure of
Trexler; “[r]ather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 20–21; see
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner determines
that Huynen teaches forming the sterilization bag from a folded sheet of
material that is selectively cut and sealed to have desired openings and a
desired shape, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

10
obvious to apply these teachings to modify Trexler’s bag. Ans. 21 (citing
Huynen, col. 5, l. 49–col. 6, l. 21, Figs. 4A–4E, 8–13).
Appellant has not provided any persuasive argument or evidence to
show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have lacked the requisite
skill to make the proposed modification of Trexler in view of Huynen’s
teachings. In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Trexler, Huynen,
and Johnston.

Claims 4 and 16 over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Lin
Claim 4 recites that “the bag is formed of one or more flexible sheets
of plastics and a third sealable opening is formed communicating with an
internal channel that extends sufficiently into the bag to facilitate circulation
within the bag via the second and third openings when the first opening is
sealed.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Lin teaches
a sterilization container comprising a second sealable opening that allows
evacuation of steam or gas from the interior of the container and a third
sealable opening that allows the introduction of a sterilizing means into the
interior. Non-Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Trexler’s
sterilization bag by providing it with a third heat sealable neck (i.e., third
heat sealable opening) and an internal channel formed by a partition means
that communicates with the third heat sealable opening and extends
sufficiently into the bag, as taught by Lin, to provide the bag with separate
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

11
evacuation and sterilization openings, which together with the internal
channel, facilitate and enhance circulation within the container. Id. at 9.
Appellant contends that “Lin relates to a rigid container and not a
bag,” and thus, “belongs to yet another different field of art.” Appeal Br. 12.
This contention is unpersuasive. Lin discloses that its invention
relates to the field of “sterilization containers.” See Lin ¶ 2. As noted by the
Examiner, Lin teaches that the sterilization containers hold items to be
sterilized. Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner that Lin’s sterilization
containers are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed sterilization
bag. Id.
Appellant also contends that the rigid structure of Lin fails to provide
a meaningful teaching “in the manufacture of an entirely flexible system,” as
claimed, and “[a] rigid structure cannot reasonable [sic] motivate the
formation of an internal channel within a flexible bag,” as claimed. Appeal
Br. 12.
These contentions are unpersuasive because they are premised on
claim 4 reciting “an entirely flexible system.” However, claims 1 and 3
from which claim 4 depends do not recite that the sterilization bag is a
“flexible bag” or “an entirely flexible system.” Claim 4 recites that “the bag
is formed of one or more flexible sheets of plastics,” but does not recite “an
entirely flexible system.” Nor does claim 4 recite that the internal channel is
formed of, or by, the one or more flexible sheets of plastic. Accordingly,
even if Lin does not teach these features, claim 4 does not recite them either.
We also agree with the Examiner that Appellant attacks Lin
individually. Ans. 10. Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings as to Lin, or in the Examiner’s reasoning for combining
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

12
Lin’s teachings with Trexler and Huynen to result in the sterilization bag
recited in claim 4. Id. at 10–12. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 4 as unpatentable over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Lin.
Claim 16 depends from claim 4 and recites that “the internal channel
is formed by heat sealing a line between adjacent walls of the bag.” Appeal
Br. 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that the combination fails to
teach that the solid partition forming the internal channel comprises a heat
sealed line. Non-Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds that Trexler teaches solid
partitions configured as a heat sealing line 21 between adjacent walls of the
bag. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Trexler’s sterilization bag by
configuring the solid partition forming the internal channel as a heat sealed
line, as suggested by Trexler, as a substitution of one known solid partition
for another to achieve the predictable result of forming a barrier within the
bag and separating portions of the bag. Id. at 9–10.
Appellant contends that the applied references do not teach or suggest
forming an internal channel in a flexible bag by heat sealing a line between
adjacent walls of the bag. Appeal Br. 12.
We agree with Appellant that Trexler does not teach or suggest
forming an internal channel by heat sealing, as recited in claim 16. Trexler
discloses that after heat sealed line 21 is completed, neck 14 can be severed
from the container to reduce the size of the container. Trexler, col. 2, ll. 43–
46. Trexler does not describe that heat sealed line 21 is a “solid partition”
between opposing walls of the bag, or that heat sealed line 21 “effects a
barrier within the bag and that separates portions of the bag,” as found by the
Examiner. Non-Final Act. 9. Accordingly, the Examiner has not explained
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

13
adequately how the proposed modification would be a substitution of one
known solid partition for another. We do not sustain the rejection of claim
16 as unpatentable over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Lin.

Claims 10–13 over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Kemp
Claim 15 over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Morrissey
Claims 10–13 and 15 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims
App.). Appellant contends that Kemp and Morrissey fail to cure the
deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Id. at 13. However, Appellant does
not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, and thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 10–13 as unpatentable over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston,
and Kemp, and the rejection of claim 15 as unpatentable over Trexler,
Huynen, Johnston, and Morrissey, for the same reasons as for claim 1.

Claim 17 over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Moriyama or Kemp
For claim 17, the Examiner finds that the combination of Trexler,
Huynen, and Johnston teaches all limitations except for “the bag containing
a rigid cage to contain items to be sterilized.” Non-Final Act. 11–14. The
Examiner finds that Moriyama and Kemp teach sterilization bags containing
items to be sterilized, and also that it is known and desirable in the art to
additionally provide a rigid case configured to: act as a carrier tray for
containing the items to be sterilized; facilitate ease of loading; enhance
penetration of the sterilant to the items; ensure and retain a shape of the bag
and minimize the probability of the items coming into contact with the bag;
and/or facilitate a uniform shape for easy stacking for storage and
transportation and general handling. Id. at 14 (citing Moriyama ¶¶ 71–101,
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

14
Fig. 5–10; Kemp 7:15–10:18, 13:5–18). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Trexler to provide the sterilization bag
with a rigid cage to contain items to be sterilized to provide the benefits
taught by Moriyama and Kemp. Id. at 14–15.
Appellant contends that Moriyama relates to a bag having permeable
regions that allow steam sterilant to pass through the bag to enter the
sterilization tray inside. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant contends that Moriyama
expressly discloses that the impermeable portions of the bag would prevent
steam sterilant from getting in the tray, and, in the context of Moriyama, a
fully impermeable bag would be inoperable. Id.
The Examiner acknowledges that Moriyama teaches that “an entirely
steam impermeable film would prevent steam from entering into the
sterilizing package (51) and thus, would prevent steam from passing through
the ventilation holes [50] and into the sterilizing container [34].” Ans. 13.
The Examiner notes that Trexler discloses a sterilization bag comprising an
entirely steam impermeable film, but explains that Trexler “also discloses a
sealable opening configured to allow steam to pass through and into the
sterilization bag.” Id. Accordingly, the Examiner determines, “the sealable
opening of Trexler and the filter surface [film surface 51B] of Moriyama
serve the same purpose of allowing steam to be introduced into the
sterilization bag.” Id.
Appellant replies, “one skilled in the art would regard the bag
containing the items to be sterilized of Moriyama could be placed within the
bag of Trexler for sterilization, not that the respective bags are
interchangeable.” Reply Br. 7. Appellant also contends that “the existence
of the ingress port at one end of Trexler would not prevent the impermeable
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

15
side of Trexler from inhibiting the movement of sterilant through the tray
(an express concern of Moriyama).” Id. Appellant quotes from Moriyama,
which states, “[w]hen the film surface adheres to the ventilation holes (steam
entrance hole) of the tray 35 or the lid member 36, the film surface closes
the ventilation holes to prevent the entrance of the steam into the sterilizing
container, thereby affecting the sterilization effect.” Id. at 7–8 (citing
Moriyama ¶ 73). Appellant contends that packaging Moriyama’s tray in an
impermeable bag would be unsatisfactory for the intended purpose of the
invention. Id. at 8.
These contentions are unpersuasive. First, the Examiner does not
propose to interchange Trexler’s sterilization bag with Moriyama’s
sterilizing package 51, as Appellant seems to imply. Second, Appellant has
not provided persuasive argument or evidence to show that, when
Moriyama’s tray is placed in Trexler’s sterilization bag, the sterilization bag
would prevent steam introduced through the neck portion from passing
through the steam entrance holes of the tray or lid member. Appellant does
not identify any disclosure in Trexler that its container (sterilization bag)
prevents steam introduced through the neck portion from adequately
contacting material or objects contained inside the container. Thus,
Appellant does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that the
proposed combination would be unsatisfactory.
Furthermore, Appellant does not address substantively the Examiner’s
alternative combination that applies Kemp, and thus, does not apprise us of
error in either the Examiner’s associated findings or reasoning.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over
Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Moriyama or Kemp.
Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

16

Claim 18 over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Lin
Appellant contends that the rejection of independent claim 18 should
not be sustained for the same bases as for claim 4. Appeal Br. 14. As
discussed above, however, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 4. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 as
unpatentable over Trexler, Huynen, Johnston, and Lin for the same reasons
as for claim 4.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5–9, 14 103(a) Trexler, Huynen,
Johnston
1, 3, 5–9,
14

4, 16 103(a) Trexler, Huynen,
Johnston, Lin
4 16
10–13 103(a) Trexler, Huynen,
Johnston, Kemp
10–13
15 103(a) Trexler, Huynen,
Johnston,
Morrissey
15
17 103(a) Trexler, Huynen,
Johnston,
Moriyama or
Kemp
17
18 103(a) Trexler, Huynen,
Johnston, Lin
18
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4–15,
17, 18
16

Appeal 2020-000305
Application 13/201,168

17

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-IN-PART