Cochlear Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2021

2020006372 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 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.
15/213,786 07/19/2016 Werner MESKENS 5441-101 8192
111614 7590 08/04/2021
Pilloff Passino & Cosenza LLP
2000 Duke Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
MOHAMMED, ASSAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2021 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):
mail@pilloffpassino.com
mcosenza@pilloffpassino.com
rpilloff@pilloffpassino.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WERNER MESKENS
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786
Technology Center 2600

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, 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 1–30. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral arguments were heard on July 20, 2021. A transcript
of that hearing will be added to the record in due time.
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Cochlear Limited as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief filed February 24, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2.
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a hearing prosthesis
“described primarily in terms of a bone conduction device, such as an active
transcutaneous bone conduction device.” Spec. ¶ 34.2 In particular, the
claimed subject matter relates to “an external headpiece of an implantable
hearing prosthesis, such as a button sound processor.” Id. ¶ 72. The
external headpiece is “held against the skin of the recipient via [a] magnetic
link” with “a magnet that is part of [an] implantable component” of the
hearing prosthesis.” Id. ¶ 56.
Illustrative Claims
Independent claims 1, 9, 16, and 24 illustrate the claimed subject
matter and are reproduced below:
1. An external headpiece of a hearing prosthesis,
comprising:
an RF coil;
a sound processing apparatus;
a cylindrical battery; and
a magnet configured to support the headpiece against skin
of the recipient via a transcutaneous magnetic coupling with an
implanted magnet implanted in a recipient, wherein a
longitudinal axis of the cylindrical battery extends through the
magnet.

2 In addition to the above-noted Appeal Brief, throughout this Decision we
refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed July 19, 2016 (“Spec.”); (2) the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed August 22, 2019; (3) the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 23, 2020; and (4) the Reply Brief
filed August 24, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

3
9. An external component of a hearing prosthesis,
comprising:
a battery;
an electrically powered component; and
a magnet apparatus, wherein
the magnet apparatus provides a path for electricity to flow
from the battery to the electrically powered component or
provides a path to complete the circuit from the electrically
powered component to the battery.

16. An external component of a prosthesis, comprising:
a battery; and
a magnet apparatus, wherein
the external component is configured such that a magnetic
force generated by the magnet apparatus applies a force onto the
battery such that the battery is urged against an electrical contact
of a circuit of which the battery is apart.

24. A method, comprising:
obtaining a headpiece for a prosthesis, the headpiece
including an electronic component of the prosthesis;
attaching a magnet to the headpiece, the magnet
establishing a magnetic field that extends external to the
headpiece; and
attaching a battery to the headpiece, wherein
the action of attaching the magnet to the headpiece
controls a location of the battery.

Appeal Br. 128–31 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:3
Name Reference Date
Brodie US 3,695,938 Oct. 3, 1972
Kasic US 2006/0183965 A1 Aug. 17, 2006
Kimura US 2010/0179782 A1 July 15, 2010
Sato US 2012/0214074 A1 Aug. 23, 2012
Partovi US 2012/0235636 A1 Sept. 20, 2012
Ruppersberg US 2015/0038775 A1 Feb. 5, 2015
Ridler US 2015/0265842 A1 Sept. 24, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
Claims References Final Act.
1 Ruppersberg, Kasic, Brodie 14
9, 16, 24 Ruppersberg, Brodie 16
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 Ruppersberg, Kasic, Brodie 20
7 Ruppersberg, Kasic, Brodie, Partovi 24
10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30
Ruppersberg, Brodie 26
11, 12 Ruppersberg, Brodie, Sato 35
13 Ruppersberg, Brodie, Partovi 37
22 Ruppersberg, Brodie, Kimura 38
23 Ruppersberg, Brodie, Ridler 39
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

3 All citations to the references use the first-named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

5
Rejections of Claims 1–8
The Examiner finds that Ruppersberg teaches most of the limitations
of independent claim 1, but finds that “Ruppersberg does not disclose an RF
coil,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 15. The Examiner relies on Kasic to
teach an RF coil, as claimed. Id. (citing Kasic ¶¶ 42, 45, Fig. 2B, 162). The
Examiner determines that sufficient motivation existed to combine the
teachings of the references because “Kasic discloses an implantable hearing
unit which is adapted to be located subcutaneously on a patient’s skull” and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to modify Ruppersberg to
incorporate a RF coil included with the hearing aid. The
modification would permit a hearing aid device to provide a RF
coil in order to provide energy to the hearing aid.
Final Act. 15.
The Examiner further finds “Brodie teaches wherein a longitudinal
axis of the cylindrical battery extends through the magnet,” as claimed. Id.
(citing Brodie 1:56–70, 2:25–28, Figs. 1–4). The Examiner determines “[i]t
would have been obvious . . . to modify Ruppersberg and Kasic to
incorporate a cylindrical battery extends through a magnet. According to the
Examiner, the modification would provide the integration of a battery
disposed in a magnetic [sic] in a headpiece for the purpose of reducing the
overall headpiece profile.” Final Act. 15–16. Thus, the Examiner
determines that sufficient motivation existed to combine the teachings of the
references. Id.
Appellant traverses the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying
Ruppersberg based on the teachings of Kasic. Appellant argues a person of
ordinary skill would not have had a reason to modify Ruppersberg to add an
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

6
RF coil in view of Kasic, because there is nothing in Ruppersberg’s
implanted component that would receive RF signals. Appeal Br. 38–42.
According to Appellant, Ruppersberg’s implanted component “is completely
passive − it is a piece of metal and a magnet screwed to bone. Nothing
more.” Id. at 39. Therefore, Appellant reasons, there is no need to include
an RF coil in Ruppersberg’s external component because there is no coil in
Ruppersberg’s implanted component that would receive RF signals and no
reason to add such a coil. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Figure 5(a) of
Ruppersberg is reproduced below.

Figure 5(a) of Ruppersberg shows a magnetic bone conduction
hearing device 10 coupled to a patient’s head. Ruppersberg ¶ 21. Plate 20 is
implanted under the patient’s skin and is screwed to the patient’s skull using
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

7
bone screws 15. Id. ¶ 30. Magnetic members 60a and 60b are affixed to
plate 20 and are “configured to couple magnetically to one or more
corresponding external magnetic members or magnets 55,” which are
mounted on “baseplate 50, which in turn is operably coupled to EM
[(‘electromagnetic/bone conduction’)] transducer 25 and metal disc 40.” Id.
“DSP 80 is configured to drive EM transducer 25, metal disk 40 and
magnetic spacer or baseplate 50 in accordance with external audio signals
picked up by microphone 85.” Id. This causes vibrations corresponding to
the external audio signals captured by microphone 85 to be transferred to the
patient’s skull. Id.
Turning back to the rejection, claim 1 recites an “external headpiece
. . . comprising: an RF coil” and the Examiner determines it would have
been obvious “to modify Ruppersberg to incorporate a RF coil” into the
external portion of hearing aid device 10 “to provide energy to the hearing
aid.” Final Act. 15.
Ruppersberg’s implanted component, however, is simply a metal
baseplate with attached magnets. Ruppersberg Fig. 5(a). The Examiner has
not demonstrated that the implanted component requires energy for
operation. As Appellant argues, the implanted component is completely
passive in that it does not require energy for its operation and therefore there
is no reason to add such a coil to provide energy to either Ruppersberg’s
internal or external component. Appeal Br. 39.
Moreover, even if one skilled in the art would have had reason to
install a coil in Ruppersberg to provide energy based on Kasic, as set forth
by the Examiner, that coil would have been different than the RF coil recited
in claim 1. Referring to Figure 3, the Specification explains that the external
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

8
headpiece uses a microphone 126 to convert external sounds into electrical
signals. Spec. ¶ 47. A “transmitter coil 442 of the external component 440
transmits these signals to implanted receiver coil 456 located in housing 458
of the implantable component 450,” where a “vibrating electromagnetic
actuator 452 converts the electrical signals into vibrations.” Id. Thus,
according to the Specification, the RF coil in the external headpiece is a
transmitter coil used to transmit electrical signals representing external
sounds to a receiver coil implanted under the user’s skin. Id.
Kasic’s coil external coil 162 provides power to internal coil 118 to
charge internal battery 140. Kasic Fig. 2B. Hence, the Examiner determines
it would have been obvious to add Kasic’s coil into the external portion of
Ruppersberg’s hearing aid device 10 to provide energy to the implanted
portion of the hearing aid. Final Act. 15.
In view of the Specification’s description of the claimed coil as an RF
coil for transmitting sounds as electrical signals, we find additional error in
the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to modify
Ruppersberg’s external member to add Kasic’s coil for the purpose of
providing energy to the implanted portion of the hearing aid. “[A] rejection
cannot be predicated on the mere identification . . . of individual components
of claimed limitations. Rather, particular findings must be made as to the
reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention,
would have selected these components for combination in the manner
claimed.” Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern Calif. Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, the Examiner has failed to establish why a
skilled artisan would have selected Kasic’s coil for installation into
Ruppersberg’s external member. Thus, it appears that the obviousness
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

9
rejection was a product of impermissible hindsight reasoning, based upon
knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure. In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
We agree with Appellant, then, that the Examiner has not set forth a
sufficient factual basis to support the conclusion that one of ordinary skill,
having considered the three cited references, would have been motivated or
had a reasonable suggestion to combine the teachings in the manner claimed.
The Examiner’s asserted rationale of “provid[ing] a RF coil in order to
provide energy to the hearing aid” is merely a legal conclusion unsupported
by any reasonable factual basis. Final Act. 15.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as claims 2–8, which depend from claim 1.
Rejections of Claims 9–15
The Examiner finds that Ruppersberg teaches most of the limitations
of independent claim 9, but finds that “Ruppersberg does not teach wherein
the magnet apparatus provides a path for electricity to flow from the battery
to the electrically powered component or provides a path to complete the
circuit from the electrically powered component to the battery.” Final
Act. 16. The Examiner finds Brodie teaches this limitation, as claimed. Id.
(citing Brodie 1:56–2:17, Fig. 4). The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious “to modify Ruppersberg to incorporate a battery housed in a
magnetic [sic] in order to provide power to an electronic component. The
modification would provide a way to provide power from a battery that is
housed in a magnetic [sic] to provide power to a component.” Final Act. 17.
Appellant traverses the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying
Ruppersberg based on the teachings of Brodie, arguing a person of ordinary
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

10
skill would not have had a reason to move Ruppersberg’s battery according
to the teachings of Brodie. Appeal Br. 53–60.
In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner’s rationale to “move the
battery to a new location so that the battery can provide power from the new
location” is insufficient because “Ruppersberg already provides power to an
electronic component.” Appeal Br. 54. According to Appellant, one skilled
in the art would have had no reason to move the battery because the battery
should be installed “in the housing because that is where [it] can be
accessed” and easily replaced. Id. at 58. Referring to Ruppersberg’s
Figure 5a, Appellant adds that Ruppersberg’s unmodified battery location is
advantageous because it “is proximate where the power consuming portions
are – in the housing.” Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Figure 10 of
Appellant’s Specification is reproduced below with annotations added.

Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

11
Figure 10 of the Specification shows battery 566 and a stack of disk
“magnets 564 which are housed in subcomponent 550.” Spec. ¶¶ 52, 53.
Electrical lead 522 electrically connects the magnet stack 564 to circuit
board 554. Id. ¶ 71. Magnet stack 564 is electrically connected to
battery 566, thereby providing “a path for electricity to flow from the battery
to the electrically powered component,” e.g., sound processor 556 on circuit
board 554.
Referring to Ruppersberg’s Figure 5(a) (shown above), battery 95 is
installed within housing 107 while magnets 55a and 55b are disposed
external to the housing 107. Electrically powered components DSP 80 and
microphone 85 are also installed within housing 107 and DSP 80 is
illustrated as electrically connected to battery 95.
The Examiner’s rejection rationale proposes to modify Ruppersberg
based on Brodie, in which battery 5 and magnet 3 are physically and
electrically connected. Brodie Fig. 4. The reason for the proposed
modification is to “provide power to a component.” Final Act. 17.
As Appellant argues, however, Ruppersberg’s battery 95 provides
power to electrical components as is, without any apparent need for
modification. Moreover, the Examiner’s proposed modification to
Ruppersberg based on Brodie would require that either: (1) Ruppersberg’s
battery 95 is moved to be co-located and physically connected to
magnets 55a and 55b outside of housing 107; or (2) that electrical leads be
added to connect the two components.
With respect to proposed modification number (1), the Examiner has
not shown why one skilled in the art would have found it beneficial to move
battery 95 from inside housing 107 to outside housing 107 to physically
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

12
connect the battery to magnets 55a and 55b. Nor has the Examiner shown
that moving the battery from inside to outside of housing 107 would have
been practically achievable.
With respect to proposed modification number (2), the Examiner has
not sufficiently explained the benefit of running electrical leads from
battery 95 inside housing 107 to outside of housing 107 to connect with
magnets 55a and 55b and then back again to connect the magnets with
DPS 90. As Appellant argues, “[o]ne would not want to run wires all the
way from the skin interface portion of the implant to the digital signal
processor and then, from the DSP to the electromagnetic transducer. Indeed,
this would unnecessarily complicate things, as compared to the original
design, which has the battery closest” to the DSP 80. Appeal Br. 58.
Moreover, we note that the Examiner simply repeats the rationale
originally provided in the Final Office Action in response to Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief. Ans. 35–36.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
modify Ruppersberg with Brodie’s teaching of a physically connected
magnet and battery. Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9, as well as claims 10–15,
which depend from claim 9.
Rejections of Claims 16–23
The Examiner finds that Ruppersberg teaches most of the limitations
of independent claim 16, but finds that “Ruppersberg does not teach wherein
the external component is configured such that a magnetic force generated
by the magnet apparatus applies a force onto the battery such that the battery
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

13
is urged against an electrical contact of a circuit of which the battery is
apart.” Final Act. 17. The Examiner finds “Brodie teaches wherein the
external component is configured such that a magnetic force generated by
the magnet apparatus applies a force onto the battery such that the battery is
urged against an electrical contact of a circuit of which the battery is apart,”
as claimed. Id. (citing Brodie 1:56–2:5, Figs. 1–4). The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious “to modify Ruppersberg to
incorporate a battery housed in a magnetic [sic] which provides force on the
battery to be directed inward” and the “modification would provide the
battery to stay electrically connected by the magnetic force being applied on
the battery.” Final Act. 18.
Appellant traverses the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying
Ruppersberg based on the teachings of Brodie, arguing a person of ordinary
skill would not have had a reason to modify Ruppersberg’s according to the
teachings of Brodie. Appeal Br. 61–69. In particular, Appellant argues the
Examiner’s rationale to move the battery to a new location so that the battery
can stay electrically connected by a magnetic force is insufficient because
“Ruppersberg already has an arrangement where the battery stays
electrically connected. If not, it would not work. Electrical connection is a
necessary feature for something that is powered by a battery.” Appeal
Br. 62. According to Appellant, one skilled in the art would have had no
reason to move the battery because the battery should be installed “in the
housing because that is where [it] can be accessed” and easily replaced. Id.
at 67. Referring to Ruppersberg’s Figure 5a, Appellant adds that
Ruppersberg’s unmodified battery location is advantageous because it “is
proximate where the power consuming portions are –in the housing.” Id.
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

14
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Referring to
Ruppersberg’s Figure 5(a) (shown above), battery 95 is installed within
housing 107 while magnets 55a and 55b are disposed external to the
housing 107. Electrically powered components DSP 80 and microphone 85
are also installed within housing 107 and DSP 80 is illustrated as electrically
connected to battery 95. The Examiner’s rejection rationale proposes to
modify Ruppersberg based on Brodie, in which battery 5 and magnet 3 are
physically and electrically connected. Brodie Fig. 4.
The reason for the proposed modification is to “provide the battery to
stay electrically connected by the magnetic force being applied on the
battery.” Final Act. 18. As Appellant argues, however, Ruppersberg’s
battery 95 stays electrically connected as is, without any apparent need for
modification. Appeal Br. 62. Appellant further argues the Examiner’s
proposed modification to Ruppersberg based on Brodie would require
moving Ruppersberg’s battery 95 to be proximate to magnets 55a and 55b to
allow the magnets to apply a magnetic force to the battery. Id. at 67.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown why one
skilled in the art would have found it beneficial to move Ruppersberg’s
battery 95 from inside housing 107 to outside housing 107 to allow the
battery to be proximate to magnets 55a and 55b. Nor has the Examiner
shown that moving the battery from inside to outside of housing 107 would
have been practically achievable. Moving the battery would unnecessarily
complicate the original Ruppersberg’s design, which places the battery
within the housing 107 and closest to DSP 80 and other important
components.
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

15
Moreover, we note that the Examiner simply repeats the rationale
originally provided in the Final Office Action in response to Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief. Ans. 36–38.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
modify Ruppersberg with Brodie’s teaching of a physically co-located
magnet and battery. Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16, as well as claims 17–23,
which depend from claim 16.
Rejections of Claims 24–30
The rejection of independent claim 24 is unclear. The Examiner
appears to find that Ruppersberg teaches all of the limitations of claim 24
including attaching a magnet to the headpiece “wherein the action of
attaching the magnet to the headpiece controls a location of the battery.”
Final Act. 18–19. The Examiner however cites Brodie, noting that “Brodie
discloses a battery (5) that extends through the magnet (3).” Id. at 19 (citing
Brodie 1:56–70, 2:25–28, Figs. 1–4). The Examiner, however, does not
sufficiently explain why Brodie is cited when Ruppersberg teaches all of the
limitations of claim 24. The Examiner determines it would have been
obvious “to modify Ruppersberg to incorporate a cylindrical battery [that]
extends through a magnet. The modification would provide the integration
of a battery disposed in a magnetic [sic] in a headpiece for the purpose of
reducing the overall headpiece profile.” Final Act. 19.
Appellant argues that Ruppersberg fails to teach attaching a magnet to
the headpiece “wherein the action of attaching the magnet to the headpiece
controls a location of the battery,” as recited in claim 24. Appeal Br. 71–72.
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

16
In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown how attaching
Ruppersberg’s magnets 55 controls the location of battery 95. Id.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. Referring to Ruppersberg’s
Figure 5(a) (shown above), battery 95 is installed within housing 107 while
magnets 55a and 55b are disposed external to the housing 107. In addition,
Ruppersberg does not show battery 95 and magnets 55a and 55b as being
physically co-located. Furthermore, Ruppersberg does not indicate that
battery 95 has anything other than a fixed location. Ruppersberg ¶¶ 30, 32,
Fig. 5(a). Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
shown how attaching Ruppersberg’s magnets 55 controls the location of
battery 95. Appeal Br. 71–72.
Next, Appellant traverses the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying
Ruppersberg based on the teachings of Brodie, arguing a person of ordinary
skill would not have had a reason to modify Ruppersberg’s according to the
teachings of Brodie. Appeal Br. 80. In particular, Appellant argues the
Examiner’s rationale to incorporate the magnet and cylindrical battery of
Brodie would require moving Ruppersberg’s battery to a new location.
Appeal Br. 80–81. And, according to Appellant, one skilled in the art would
have had no reason to move the battery because the battery should be
installed “in the housing because that is where [it] can be accessed,” easily
replaced, and is “closest to the digital signal processor.” Id. at 80. And,
according to Appellant, there is “ample room in the housing for the battery”
and the Examiner has not adequately explained how modifying
Ruppersberg’s battery to extend through the magnet would result in a lower
profile of the device. Id. at 81.
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

17
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown why one
skilled in the art would have modified Ruppersberg to incorporate a
cylindrical battery that extends through a magnet or how the modification
would have reduced the overall headpiece profile. The Examiner has not
explained whether the proposed modification of Ruppersberg based on
Brodie’s would involve moving the magnets into Ruppersberg’s housing or
moving the battery outside the housing with magnets disposed on the skin
interface pad.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 24, as well as claims 25–30,
which depend from claim 24.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Ruppersberg,
Kasic, Brodie
1
9, 16, 24 103 Ruppersberg,
Brodie
9, 16, 24
2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 8
103 Ruppersberg,
Kasic, Brodie
2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 8
7 103 Ruppersberg,
Kasic, Brodie,
Partovi
7
10, 14,
15, 17,
18, 19,
20, 21,
25, 26,
103 Ruppersberg,
Brodie
10, 14, 15,
17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 25,
26, 27, 28,
29, 30
Appeal 2020-006372
Application 15/213,786

18

REVERSED

27, 28,
29, 30
11, 12 103 Ruppersberg,
Brodie, Sato
11, 12
13 103 Ruppersberg,
Brodie,
Partovi
13
22 103 Ruppersberg,
Brodie,
Kimura
22
23 103 Ruppersberg,
Brodie, Ridler
23
Overall
Outcome
1–30