David ChinDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 13, 20212020002291 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 13/864,281 04/17/2013 David H. Chin 00092.00003CIP2 3151 98262 7590 09/13/2021 David E. Crites 15900 Rochin Terrace Los Gatos, CA 95032 EXAMINER MISHLER, ROBIN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/13/2021 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): critesd@umich.edu davidcrites@frontier.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID H. CHIN Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, 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, 2, 4–8, 11–13, 15–19, and 25–27.2,3,4 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the Inventor, David H. Chin. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 3, 9, 10, 14, and 20–24 were canceled. Final Act. 1. 3 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Final Rejection mailed July 17, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed October 11, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 2, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed January 29, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 4 This application was previously subject to an appeal (Appeal No. 2017- 008309, decided February 22, 2018). Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 2 INVENTION The present invention relates to methods for “sharing gestures among multiple electronic devices” by “accepting a first applied gesture on a first electronic device,” “generating a shared gesture by transmitting the first applied gesture to a server,” “associating the shared gesture with an associated electronic device,” and “generating a local gesture by copying the shared gesture from the server to the associated electronic device.” Abstract. Claim 12 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below. 12. A method comprising: accepting a first applied gesture at a first location on a first touch-receptive surface of a first electronic device; storing, on a server, a shared gesture and a first datum that identifies the first electronic device wherein the first datum is not stored solely to facilitate temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic device; associating, on the server, the shared gesture with the first datum, wherein the associating provides that the shared gesture controls an access to a first locked operating state on the first electronic device; comparing the applied gesture with the shared gesture; and unlocking the first locked operating state of the first electronic device when the comparing determines that the applied gesture mimics the shared gesture. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 3 Name Reference Date Drader et al. US 2012/0191993 A1 July 26, 2012 Ouyang et al. US 2013/0074014 A1 Mar. 21, 2013 REJECTIONS Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2–3. Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite. Final Act. 3–4. Claims 1, 2,5 4–8, 11–13, 15–19, and 25–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang in view of Drader. Final Act. 4–8. OPINION § 112(a) Rejection of Claims 12 and 25 The Examiner finds claim 12’s limitation of “the first datum is not stored solely to facilitate a temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic device” is “a negative limitation which does not appear to have support in the Specification.” Final Act. 2. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s § 112(a) rejection, asserting that paragraphs 17 and 18 in the Specification support the disputed limitation of claim 12. Appeal Br. 10–11. In particular, Appellant argues [in paragraph 17 of the Specification] the inventor clearly demonstrates possession of “facilitat[ing] a temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic device.” . . . 5 Although claim 2 is not listed in the statement of the § 103 rejection on page 4 of the Final Action, claim 2 is rejected under § 103 (see Final Act. 6). Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 4 [and in paragraph 18 of the Specification], the inventor clearly demonstrates possession of “wherein the first datum [a device ID] is [] stored” to facilitate a useful network association. So, when paragraphs [0017-18] are read together the inventor clearly demonstrates possession of the disputed amendment. This conclusion is buttressed by the maturity and predictability of the art. To be sure, it is predictable that data, such as a device ID, must be stored on a server to support communicative coupling with that device. Appeal Br. 11. In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates these points. Reply Br. 5. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because Appellant misinterprets the scope of the negative limitation at issue in this rejection and fails to sufficiently address possible scenarios covered by the broadest reasonable interpretation of this negative limitation. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.”). Here, we interpret the claimed negative limitation (“the first datum is not stored solely to facilitate temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic device”) as covering various scenarios including: 1) the first datum is stored on the server to facilitate a permanent (i.e., wired) network coupling with the first electronic device; and 2) the first datum is stored permanently or persistently on the server to facilitate a wired network coupling between the server and the electronic device. Appellant’s arguments, however, discuss written description support only for “facilitat[ing] a temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic device” (which is the opposite of the claimed negative limitation), and for a “‘first datum [a device ID] is [] stored’ to facilitate a useful network association.” See Appeal Br. 11. Here, the negative claim limitation in Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 5 claim 12 was added during prosecution. Such a negative claim limitation is adequately supported when the Specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also MPEP § 2173.05(i) (“Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. . . . The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.”). Although Appellant has provided citations to particular paragraphs in the Specification, Appellant does not identify any specific written description support for the disputed negative limitation. See Appeal Br. 10–12 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 17–18); Reply Br. 5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 17–18). We note paragraph 17 in the Specification generally describes “[n]etwork coupling [that] may be any permanent or temporary communicative coupling, and may be achieved by wireless communication or direct physical connection between two or more electronic devices, computers, or servers.” Spec. ¶ 17. However, Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence or support to show where the Specification supports a first datum being stored on the server to facilitate a permanent (i.e., wired) network coupling with the first electronic device (one scenario covered by the claimed negative limitation) or a first datum being stored permanently or persistently on the server to facilitate a wired network coupling (another scenario covered by the claimed negative limitation). In addition, Appellant’s discussion of the Specification (see Appeal Br. 10–11) does not sufficiently address the written description support for any scenarios covered by the claimed negative limitation. Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 6 Because Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence to address the written description support for the claimed negative limitation, we sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection of claim 12. With respect to claim 25, the Examiner finds the limitation of “the associating is not solely to facilitate temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic device” is “a negative limitation which does not appear to have support in the Specification.” Final Act. 3. Appellant contends the limitation is supported by paragraphs 17 and 18 in the Specification, whereby paragraph [0017] of the Subject Application clearly demonstrates possession of “facilitat[ing] [a] temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic device.” (Subject Claim 25.) The only remaining question is whether there is support for associating a gesture and a device ID for the purpose of communicative coupling. Paragraph [0018] . . . demonstrates possession of “wherein the associating is [] to facilitate” a useful network association. Appeal Br. 12. In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates these points. Reply Br. 5. Although we agree with Appellant that the Specification provides support for associating a gesture and a device ID for the purpose of communicative coupling (see Appeal Br. 12 and Spec. ¶¶ 15, 17–18), we do not agree that this is what claim 25 requires. As for claim 12, Appellant’s arguments for claim 25 fail to provide sufficient evidence to address the written description support for the claimed negative limitation. We interpret the claimed negative limitation in claim 25 to cover various possible scenarios including: 1) the associating is used to facilitate a permanent (i.e., Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 7 wired) communicative coupling with the first electronic device; and 2) the associating information is kept permanently or persistently on the server to facilitate a permanent (i.e., wired) coupling with the first electronic device. Appellant’s arguments, however, discuss written description support for “facilitat[ing] [a] temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic device,” which is the opposite of the claimed negative limitation. See Appeal Br. 12. We find Appellant’s arguments do not sufficiently address the support for any scenarios covered by claim 25’s negative limitation. Because Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence to address the lack of written description support for the claimed negative limitation recited in claim 25, we sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection of claim 25. § 112(b) Rejection of Claims 12 and 25 The Examiner rejects “Claim 12 . . . as being indefinite” because “[t]he newly amended claim language: ‘Network coupling may be any permanent or temporary communicative coupling’ is a negative limitation which does not appear to have support in the Specification.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner further rejects “Claim 25 . . . as being indefinite” because “[t]he newly amended claim language: ‘wherein the associating is not solely to facilitate temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic device’ is a negative limitation which does not appear to have support in the Specification.” Final Act. 3–4. We disagree with the Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection of claim 12 because the rejection relies on language not recited in claim 12 (i.e., “Network coupling may be any permanent or temporary communicative Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 8 coupling,” (Final Act. 3)). In addition, we disagree with the Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection of claims 12 and 25 because the rejection does not identify words or phrases whose meaning is unclear (as required in an indefiniteness rejection). See MPEP § 2173; Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (during prosecution, “[a] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Instead, the Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection references issues pertaining to written description support. See Final Act. 3–4 (asserting lack of “support in the Specification”). Because the Examiner has not provided reasons to support the conclusion of indefiniteness for claims 12 and 25, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection of claims 12 and 25. § 103 Rejection of Claims 12, 13, 15–19, and 25–27 With respect to independent claim 12, Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Ouyang teaches or suggests “storing, on a server . . . a first datum that identifies the first electronic device,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 1–3. Particularly, Appellant argues Ouyang’s server backs up customized gesture-shortcut associations, but [the] “customized associations” are “of a user”, meaning that customized associations are linked to a user, and so do not need to be linked to any device. . . . . . . in Ouyang, a “backup” of a customized gesture-shortcut association is stored in association with a user, not in association with a specific device. Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 9 Appeal Br. 8–9 (citing Ouyang ¶¶ 34–35, 77, 81, 115); see also Reply Br. 2 (“Ouyang’s mechanism for ‘backup’ of gesture associations may be accomplished by storing the gesture associations with a user ID instead of a device ID”). As such, Appellant argues the claimed “device ID ‘storing’ element is not implicit” or suggested by Ouyang. Appeal Br. 6–7, 9. We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 3–5. At the outset, we note Appellant has submitted arguments that are not commensurate with the broad scope of claim 12. In particular, Appellant argues the cited art is missing Appellant’s “device ID ‘storing’ element.” See Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 8 (arguing Ouyang’s server does not store a “device ID”), 9 (arguing “the device ID element” is not present in Ouyang); Reply Br. 2 (arguing Ouyang backs up the gesture associations “with a user ID instead of a device ID”). Claim 12, however, does not require storing a device ID. Instead, claim 12 recites “storing, on a server . . . a first datum that identifies the first electronic device.” Appeal Br. 16 (claim 12) (emphasis added). A datum that identifies an electronic device is broader than Appellant’s argued device ID, as also evidenced by Appellant’s Specification—which provides that an “electronic device may be represented by a unique identification number or other identifier.” Spec. ¶ 18 (emphasis added). The Specification, therefore, does not restrict the claimed datum to a unique identification number (or device ID, as Appellant argues); rather, the Specification discloses the datum could be some other identifier by which an electronic device is represented at the server. See id. The Specification also does not provide a definition for (or even any examples of) such other identifier. See generally Spec. Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 10 In light of the broad language of claim 12, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Ouyang is deficient because (i) Ouyang’s backup of gesture associations is “accomplished by storing the gesture associations with a user ID instead of a device ID,” or because (ii) Ouyang’s “customized [gesture-shortcut] associations are linked to a user, and so do not need to be linked to any device.” Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 8. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Ouyang’s backup of customized gesture-shortcut associations at a server teaches or at least suggests “storing, on a server . . . a first datum that identifies the first electronic device,” as recited in claim 12. Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 4–5. More particularly, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that a user’s customized gesture-shortcut associations (learned by an originating electronic device in Ouyang) are sent by the originating device to a server to create a backup for (i) later retrieval and reload onto the originating device, or (ii) later retrieval for migration to another device of the user. Ans. 3–5 (citing Ouyang ¶¶ 26, 28, 32, 35, 81, Fig. 1); Final Act. 8–9 (citing Ouyang ¶¶ 77, 81, 115, 120). For example, Ouyang’s paragraphs 81 and 115 provide that a “computing device 2A . . . learn[s] the association between the inputted gesture 8A and the selected shortcut for future queries . . . [and] may transmit the customized gesture-shortcut association to server 12 for backup”—which allows for backed-up “[c]ustomized gestures and gesture- shortcut associations . . . to be retrieved and used to identify gestures detected on the originating computing device [(2A)] or to allow a user of the originating computing device to restore or migrate the customized gesture- shortcut associations the user developed.” See Ouyang ¶¶ 81, 115; Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 4–5. The Examiner finds that, in the process of saving and Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 11 caching the user’s customized associations, Ouyang’s server stores some datum that identifies the originating electronic device because the “copies of locally created [customized gesture-shortcut] associa[tions] stored on server” are associated with a specific device (e.g., a user’s originating device) that the user may want to restore from (or to). Ans. 5; see Ouyang ¶¶ 35, 77, 81, 115. As further support for these findings, the Examiner references Ouyang’s Figure 1 and paragraphs 26, 28, and 32 as evidence that during [Ouyang’s] analysis, which is performed on the server, information regarding the sending electronic device (e.g. 2A) is maintained/stored on the server, such that the server can send back the identified shortcuts, post analysis, to the corresponding electronic device for which the gesture was originally entered . . . a computing device transmits data of a gesture locally performed on a specific device 2A to the server for analysis and the server responds to the specific device 2A with the corresponding associated shortcut to the locally input gesture. . . . [W]herein each separate computing device (2A–2N) has an individual path for sending and receiving data with the server, wherein each specific path would be used by the server based on stored or associated information of the original sending computing device; such that a particular device which requested a particular analysis from the server would receive the particular analysis. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner concludes, “the specific device is identified on the server, such that customized associations made by the originating device may be restored to the originating computing device.” Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, which are supported by the disclosure of Ouyang. Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred rely upon Appellant’s arguments that Ouyang’s “custom gesture-shortcut associations are tagged to a user rather than to a device” and “Ouyang’s mechanism for ‘backup’ of Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 12 gesture associations may be accomplished by storing the gesture associations with a user ID instead of a device ID.” Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. As discussed supra, the claimed datum in claim 12 (that identifies the first electronic device at the server) is not required to be a device ID, as Appellant argues. Rather, the claimed datum that identifies the first electronic device is broad and does not preclude an identification of the device using information about the device’s user or information about the device’s customization attributes. In the Reply Brief, Appellant further explains that “the inherent characteristics of Ouyang’s networking connection are clearly distinguished in Subject Claims 12 and 25 because these claims recite ‘wherein the first datum is not stored solely to facilitate temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic device.’” Reply Br. 2. Appellant relies on this argument to contend the claimed storing “is not found in the inner-workings of Ouyang’s networking connection” and is not taught by “Ouyang’s mechanism for ‘backup’ of gesture associations [that] may be accomplished by storing the gesture associations with a user ID instead of a device ID.” See id. Appellant’s “networking connection” argument is unpersuasive for the following reasons. First, as discussed supra, claim 12 does not recite or require storing a device ID, and neither does independent claim 25 (whose similar “datum” limitation is argued by Appellant for the same reasons as claim 12, see Appeal Br. 5–6 and Reply Br. 1–2). Second, Appellant’s argument does not explain with sufficient evidence how or why the “storing” recited in claims 12 and 25 is different from Ouyang’s networking and storage. For example, Appellant has not shown that claim 12’s negative limitation “wherein the first datum is not stored solely to facilitate temporary Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 13 communicative coupling with the first electronic device” would produce a storing operation that is different from the storing operation disclosed by Ouyang. The claimed negative limitation does not reconfigure the claimed server to perform a particular storing function that is different from generic data storage; and the claimed storing does not depend on the nature of the specific type of information claimed (i.e., shared gesture and datum). Therefore, the claimed negative limitation is considered nonfunctional descriptive material and, as such, does not distinguish Appellant’s claimed storing from Ouyang’s storage operation that stores, on a server, an electronic device’s gesture data. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In light of the broad terms recited in claims 12 and 25 and the arguments presented, Appellant has failed to sufficiently distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 12 and 25, and dependent claims 13, 15–19, 26, and 27, not separately argued. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 11 With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Ouyang teaches or suggests “storing, on a server, a shared gesture, a first datum that identifies a first electronic device, and a second datum that identifies a second electronic device” and “associating, on the server, the shared gesture with the first datum and the second datum.” Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 14 Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 3–4. Particularly, Appellant argues Ouyang’s server backs up customized gesture-shortcut associations, but Ouyang paragraphs [0081], [0077], and [0115] do not suggest storing, on the server, a customized gesture-shortcut association in association with a device ID. . . . [But] even if a device ID were stored, on the Ouyang server, with each customized gesture-shortcut association. . . . the gesture-shortcut association customized by a first user on a first device could be stored on the server with the ID of the first device, and the same gesture-shortcut association, independently customized by a second user on a second device, could be stored a second time on the server with the ID of the second device. In contrast, Subject Claim 1 states that the gesture on the server is stored once, in association with the IDs of both the first and second devices. Appeal Br. 9–10 (emphases added); see also Reply Br. 3–4. We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 4–5, 9; Ans. 4–5. As discussed supra with respect to claim 12, we are not persuaded that Ouyang does not teach or suggest storing, on a server, a datum that identifies an electronic device (as also recited in claim 1). In addition (for reasons similar to those discussed supra with respect to claim 12), claim 1’s first datum and second datum are not required to be device IDs, as Appellant argues. Rather, the claimed first datum and second datum that identify electronic devices are broad and do not preclude an identification of the devices using information about the user of the devices or information about the devices’ customization attributes. As to Appellant’s argument that Ouyang does not teach or suggest a single shared gesture associated with a first datum (that identifies a first Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 15 electronic device) and a second datum (that identifies a second electronic device) (see Reply Br. 4; Appeal Br. 10), we agree with the Examiner that Ouyang’s backup of customized gesture-shortcut associations that are used by multiple electronic devices, teaches the claimed “associating.” See Final Act. 4–5, 9 (citing Ouyang ¶¶ 77, 81–83, 86, 115, 120); Ans. 5 (citing Ouyang ¶¶ 26, 35, 81). In particular, Ouyang discloses a user’s customized gesture-shortcut associations (learned by an originating electronic device) are sent by the originating device to the server to create a backup for (i) later retrieval and reload onto the originating device, and (ii) later retrieval for migration to another device of the user. See Ouyang ¶¶ 35, 77, 81, 115, 120; Final Act. 9; Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner that Ouyang’s server stores some data that identifies the user’s originating device and “a new or different computing device” of the user (see Ouyang ¶ 35) because Ouyang’s “copies of locally created [customized gesture-shortcut] associa[tions] stored on server” are associated with the specific devices the user may want to restore from (and to). Ans. 5. As noted by the Examiner, “analysis [of the user’s customized gestures] is performed on the server [of Ouyang] for multiple unique devices” of the user, thereby teaching the user’s gesture (that is backed-up at the server) is associated with data that identifies multiple devices of the user. Ans. 5; Final Act. 9; Ouyang ¶ 46 (“determination of one or more shortcuts associated with identified gesture 8A may occur on server 12 . . . . Server 12 may transmit an associated shortcut, or data representative of the associated shortcut, identified on server 12 to computing device”). In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues “the inherent characteristics of Ouyang’s networking connection are clearly distinguished Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 16 in this case because Subject Claim 1 recites ‘wherein the comparing step follows the storing and associating steps.’” Reply Br. 3. We remain unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument because the argument does not sufficiently explain how or why claim 1’s storing and comparing are distinguished from “characteristics of Ouyang’s networking connection.” See id. In addition (as the Examiner finds), Ouyang’s comparing (e.g., gesture identification by server 12, see Ouyang ¶¶ 45–46, 95–96) is performed after storing and associating (e.g., performed on a new user device after migration of the user’s backed-up gestures from the server, see Ouyang ¶¶ 35, 77, 81, 83, 86). Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 5. In light of the broad terms recited in claim 1 and the arguments presented, we find Appellant has failed to sufficiently distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 4–8, and 11, not separately argued. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is REVERSED. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–8, 11–13, 15–19, and 25–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Appeal 2020-002291 Application 13/864,281 17 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 12, 25 112(a) Written description 12, 25 12, 25 112(b) Indefiniteness 12, 25 1, 2, 4–8, 11–13, 15– 19, 25–27 103 Ouyang, Drader 1, 2, 4–8, 11–13, 15– 19, 25–27 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–8, 11–13, 15– 19, 25–27 Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation