Elwha LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019006842 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
13/920,296 06/18/2013 Michael H. Baym SE2-1392-US 4906
80118 7590 12/30/2020
Constellation Law Group, PLLC
P.O. Box 580
Tracyton, WA 98393
EXAMINER
HULKA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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):
ISFDocketInbox@intven.com
Tyler@constellationlaw.com
admin@constellationlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL H. BAYM, WILLIAM DAVID DUNCAN,
RODERICK A. HYDE, EDWARD K.Y. JUNG,
RICHARD T. LORD, ROBERT W. LORD,
NATHAN P. MYHRVOLD, and LOWELL L. WOOD JR.
____________

Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 12, 14, 16, 24, 26, 28, 30, 39, 52, 54, 75, 92, 93,
96, 98, 99, 106, 126, 128, 131–133, 136, 142, 149–151, and 154–156.
Claims 2–11, 13, 15, 17–23, 25, 27, 29, 31–38, 40–51, 53, 55–74, 76–91, 94,

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references the Specification (“Spec., filed June 18,
2013), Final Office Action ( “Final Act.,” mailed Mar. 15, 2019), Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed May 31, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed June 28, 2019). No Reply Brief appears in the record.
Appellant identifies Elwha LLC, which is wholly owned by “The Invention
Science Fund II, LLC,” as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

2
95, 97, 100–105, 107–125, 127, 129, 130, 134, 135, 137–141, 143–148, 152,
and 153 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is the sole
independent claim on appeal and representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system comprising:
[(a)] an array of ultrasonic emitters;
[(b)] an imager;
[(c)] a passive receiver;
[(d)] a microphone sensor;
[(e)] at least one control system including at least one
steering component and including at least one computer
processing unit configured to perform operations including at
least:
[(i)] modulating at least two ultrasonic beams
based on digitally formatted audio for emission from the
array of ultrasonic emitters;
[(ii)] identifying using the imager a target location
for the at least two ultrasonic beams based on detection of
the passive receiver positioned at the target location;
[(iii)] steering using the at least one steering
component each of the at least two ultrasonic beams to
intersect at the target location, whereby the at least two
ultrasonic beams are down-converted to acoustic audio;
[(iv)] detecting a quality characteristic of the
acoustic audio at the target location using input from the
microphone sensor positioned proximate to the target
location; and
[(v)] changing at least one of a direction, a
frequency, or an amplitude of the at least two ultrasonic
beams based on the quality characteristic of the acoustic
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

3
audio detected by the microphone sensor positioned
proximate to the target location.

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 12, 14, 16, 24, 26, 28, 30, 39, 52, 54, 75, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99,
106, 126, 128, 131–133, 136, 142, 149–151, and 154–156 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,3 as incomplete for omitting essential
elements. Final Act. 5.
Claims 1, 12, 14, 16, 24, 26, 28, 30, 39, 52, 54, 75, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99,
106, 126, 128, 131–133, 136, 142, 149–151, and 154–156 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Final Act. 5.
Claims 1, 12, 14, 16, 24, 26, 28, 30, 39, 52, 54, 75, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99,
106, 126, 128, 131–133, 136, 142, 149–151, and 154–156 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 3.

2 The Examiner indicates that the “specification should be revised carefully
in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112” (Final
Act. 2), and Appellant asks us to review this requirement (Appeal Br. 15).
As a general rule, the Board does not review objections to the Specification
or the drawings. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1077–78 (BPAI
2010). In the present appeal, we review the Examiner’s objection to the
Specification only to the extent that it bears on the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
3 The present application is a continuation of co-pending Application
13/844,615, filed March 15, 2013. Based on this representation, we apply
pre-AIA law for purposes of this appeal. That said, neither party to this
appeal contends that the distinction between pre-AIA law and AIA law
would have any material bearing on the outcome of this appeal. Although
we apply pre-AIA law in order to decide this appeal, we make no finding as
to whether Application 13/844,615 describes or claims the subject matter of
the claims pending in the present application.
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

4
Claims 1, 12, 14, 16, 24, 26, 28, 30, 39, 52, 54, 75, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99,
106, 126, 128, 131–133, 136, 142, 149–151, and 154–156 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement. Final Act. 4.
Claims 1, 12, 14, 16, 24, 26, 28, 30, 39, 52, 54, 75, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99,
106, 126, 128, 131–133, 136, 142, 149–151, and 154–156 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to nonstatutory subject matter.4 Final Act. 5–6.
Claims 1, 24, 39, 75, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99, 106, 126, 128, 131–133, 136,
149–151, and 154–156 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yang (US 2004/0264707 A1, pub. Dec. 30, 2004) and Cheung (US
2007/0287516 A1, pub. Dec. 13, 2007).5 Final Act. 6–10.
Claims 12, 14, 16, 26, 28,6 30, 52, 54, and 142 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang, Cheung, and O’Brien (US
2004/0202339 A1, pub. Oct. 14, 2004). Final Act. 10–12.

4 In response to Appellant’s patent-eligibility arguments (see Appeal Br. 17–
26), the Examiner asserts that “no rejection under 35 USC 101 exists in the
most recent office action.” Ans. 7. We interpret this statement to clarify
that the claims are not rejected as directed to judicially-excepted subject
matter, but instead for failing to fall within one of the statutory classes of
patent-eligible subject matter. We do not interpret it as a withdrawal of the
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to nonstatutory
subject matter.
5 We treat the Examiner’s inclusion of claim 28, which depends from
claim 16, with this rejection as inadvertent. See Final Act. 6, 8.
6 We treat claim 28 as subject to this rejection in light of its dependence
from claim 16.
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

5
ANALYSIS
Incomplete for Omitting Essential Elements
Claim 1 recites, in part, a control system having at least one steering
component and at least one computer processing unit, that performs the
following steps:
modulating at least two ultrasonic beams based on
digitally formatted audio for emission from the array of
ultrasonic emitters;
identifying using the imager a target location for the at
least two ultrasonic beams based on detection of the passive
receiver positioned at the target location;
steering using the at least one steering component each of
the at least two ultrasonic beams to intersect at the target
location, whereby the at least two ultrasonic beams are down-
converted to acoustic audio;
detecting a quality characteristic of the acoustic audio at
the target location using input from the microphone sensor
positioned proximate to the target location; and changing at
least one of a direction, a frequency or an amplitude of the at
least two ultrasonic beams based on the quality characteristic of
the acoustic audio detected by the microphone sensor
positioned proximate to the target location[,]
i.e., limitations (e)(i)–(e)(v).
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the
Examiner takes the position that the pending claims are “incomplete
for omitting essential structural elements, such omission amounting to a gap
between the elements.” Final Act. 5 (citing MPEP § 2172.01). MPEP
§ 2172.01 (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020) provides (emphasis added):
a claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the
invention as described in the specification or in other statements
of record may be rejected . . . under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite (see, e.g., In re
Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976)); or under
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

6
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph,
as failing to claim the subject matter that the inventor . . . regards
as the invention (see, e.g., In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158
USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968)). Such essential matter may include
missing elements, steps or necessary structural cooperative
relationships of elements described by the applicant(s) as
necessary to practice the invention.
Here, the Examiner concludes that “[t]he omitted steps are: physical
control system.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner further explains that
[t]here is no apparent need for first transmitting the [ultrasonic]
beams and then steering away if the [electromagnetic] sensor is
used to detect a target location. What is the quality characteristic,
how is it measured and how is that information explicitly used in
supposed feedback and why? Lastly, there appears to be no use
of this system if the beams are being steered away from a target.
What exactly is the transmission of ultrasonic beams intended for
in the first place?
Id.
Yet, to the extent that the Examiner contends that the claims omit the
essential structural element of a control system, limitation (e) of claim 1
recites “at least one control system including at least one steering component
and . . . at least one computer processing unit” for performing the steps
recited in (e)(i) through (e)(iv). To the extent the Examiner maintains that
the control system omits essential steps, the Examiner does not identify
where Appellant describes elements not included in the claims as essential.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph as incomplete for omitting essential elements.
Indefiniteness
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
indefinite, the Examiner maintains that the phrase “detecting a quality
characteristic,” as recited in claim 1, limitation (e)(iv), is not descriptive to
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

7
the point that one of ordinary skill would not understand what the claimed
invention is doing. Ans. 8; see also Final Act. 5 (“What is the quality
characteristic, how is it measured and how is that information explicitly used
in supposed feedback and why?”). The Examiner further maintains that the
phrase “at least two ultrasonic beams are down-converted to acoustic audio,”
as recited in claim 1, limitation (e)(iii), appears to rely on a specific
environmental condition briefly mentioned in the Specification. Ans. 8.
However, we agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand what is claimed when the claims are read in light of
the Specification, including the claim language itself. See Appeal Br. 15
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 13, 82, 87, 96, 126, 127, 143, 147, 179). For example,
focusing first on limitation (e)(iv) (i.e., “detecting a quality characteristic”),
the Specification describes at paragraph 87 that down-converted audio
quality can be sensed through one or more microphone sensing portions of a
tablet computer. In particular, paragraphs 109 and 110 describe adjusting
the amplitude of the audio signal to be demodulated based on microphone
sensing at a laptop or tablet computer of down-converted audio signals.
Paragraph 126 describes frequency mixing of the audio signals modulated
based on frequency response sensing at a microphone of down-converted
audio signals. To the extent that claim 1 covers a wide variety of methods
for detecting a quality characteristic, this relates to the breadth of the claim,
and not to indefiniteness. See, e.g., In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA
1971) (“Breadth is not . . . indefiniteness.”).
Turning to limitation (e)(iii) (i.e., “at least two ultrasonic beams are
down-converted to acoustic audio”), we disagree with the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claim limitation as relying on an environmental
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

8
condition. Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the step
of down-converting (or demodulation) in light of the claim language to
occur as a result of steps performed by at least one computer processing unit
— namely, modulating at least two ultrasonic beams and steering the beams
in a manner to intersect at a target location so that they are down-converted
or demodulated.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
Written Description
“The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that
a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented”; the
requirement, thus, serves both to “satisfy the inventor’s obligation to
disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to
demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is
claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The
purpose of the written description requirement is “to ensure the scope of the
right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of
the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent
specification.” Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
In rejecting claim 1 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the Examiner takes the
position that the claims contain subject matter that was not described in the
Specification in such a way to convey that the inventors had possession of
the claimed invention at the time of filing. Final Act. 3. In particular, the
Examiner maintains that the phrase “detecting a quality characteristic,” as
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

9
recited in claim 1, limitation (e)(iv), is not descriptive to the point that one of
ordinary skill would not understand what the claimed invention is doing, and
that the phrase “at least two ultrasonic beams are down-converted to acoustic
audio,” as recited in claim 1, limitation (e)(iii) relies on a specific
environmental condition mentioned only briefly in the Specification. Ans.
4; see also Final Act. 3.
However, for reasons similar to those described above with respect to
the indefiniteness rejection, we agree with Appellant that the Specification
provides the requisite written description support to show that the inventor
had possession of these limitations at the time of filing. Appeal Br. 12
(citing ¶¶ 13, 82, 87, 96, 126, 127, 143, 147, 179). For example, focusing
first on limitation (e)(iii), paragraph 82 of the Specification, teaches
conditioning the ultrasonic beams emitted by the array of ultrasonic emitters
in such a manner that, once the ultrasonic beams are steered toward a target
location, the ultrasonic signals interact non-linearly to generate acoustic
audio signals. Once the conditioned ultrasonic beams are steered to the
target location, the beams down-convert to the acoustic audio signal without
further intervention. Spec. ¶ 13. Turning to limitation (e)(iv), various
paragraphs of the Specification teach sensing the acoustic environment of
down-converted audio signals near a target listener and adjusting the
conditioning of the ultrasonic beams accordingly. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 87,
109, 110, 126.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 or
its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

10
Enablement
Appellant does not present any substantive argument that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph for failing to comply with the enablement requirement. See
Appeal Br. 12–15. Although Appellant quotes the Examiner’s enablement
rejection, Appellant addresses it as an indefiniteness rejection.7 Id. As such,
Appellant has waived any argument addressing the substance of the
enablement rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075–76 (BPAI Feb. 26, 2010) (precedential). On this basis,
we sustain the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for lack of enablement.
Nonstatutory Subject Matter
Section 101 defines four statutory categories of invention that
Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes,
machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter. 35 U.S.C. § 101. “The
latter three categories define ‘things’ or ‘products’ while the first category
defines ‘actions’ (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be
performed).” MPEP § 2106. In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to nonstatutory subject matter, the Examiner finds that claim 1
recites a use without setting forth any steps involved in the process (i.e., an
improper process claim). Final Act. 5–6. Appellant contends that none of
the claims are limited to mere use. Appeal Br. 26. We agree with
Appellant.

7 Our analysis of the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection (see supra pp. 6–8)
considers Appellant’s arguments regarding indefiniteness.
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

11
Here, claim 1 recites a “system” that comprises an “array of ultrasonic
transmitters” (limitation (a)), “imager” (limitation (b)), “passive receiver”
(limitation (c)), microphone sensor (limitation (d)), and “at least one control
system” (limitation (e)). As such, claim 1 defines things or products
(namely, a machine), not a process. See MPEP § 2106.03 ¶ I (defining
“machine” as a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and
combination of devices” and explaining that this category encompasses
every mechanical device or combination of devices to perform a function
and produce a certain effect or result).
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
Obviousness
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1, because Yang and Cheung do not teach “identifying using
the imager a target location for the at least two ultrasonic beams based on
detection of the passive receiver positioned at the target location,” as recited
in limitation (e)(ii). Appeal Br. 27–35.
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds that
Yang teaches “identifying a target location for the at least two ultrasonic
beams.” Final Act. 6 (citing Yang ¶¶ 136–45). Yang describes a billboard
panel for generating a hyper-directional audible sound beam. Yang ¶ 131,
Fig. 1. Preprocessor module 40 processes an audio signal from a sound
source for broadcast. Id. ¶ 136, Fig. 4. The output of preprocessor module
40 is sent to beam steering and modulator unit 41, which modulates the
signal to an ultrasonic signal. Id. ¶ 137. A digital beam steering device
rotates an array of transducers 46 to allow beam 20 to cover an immediate
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

12
area in front of billboard panel 10 to reach listeners A, B, or C selectively.
Id. ¶¶ 132, 139, Figs. 2, 3. Video camera 48 provides an image of a
potential listener, and a tracking system detects the location of the listener
and steers the audio beam directly to the listener to allow a message to
follow a moving listener or passenger. Id. ¶¶ 134, 140. In particular, video
camera 48 provides an image of a target zone in which potential listeners of
the sound beams may move, and an image processing and control unit 49
detects moving listeners in the target zone and, then, controls beam steering
and modulator unit 41 to steer ultrasonic transducer array 46 towards and
with the moving listeners. Id. ¶ 140; see also id. ¶ 141–142 (describing the
beam steering arrangement).
The Examiner acknowledges that Yang does not teach, in part, a
passive receiver, and relies on Cheung for teaching a passive receiver. Id. at
7 (citing Cheung ¶¶ 11–20, 95–103). Cheung relates to a directional
wireless communication system. Cheung ¶ 4. When a speaker is attached or
integral to a user’s clothing, the user can receive audio signals from the
speaker hands-free. Id. ¶ 11. The audio signals are directional, thereby
allowing the user to hear the audio signals without requiring an earpiece,
while providing a certain degree of privacy. Id. In one embodiment, the
speaker is attached to the shoulder of the user so that audio signals can be
directed towards one of the user’s ears. Id. ¶ 12.
The Examiner cites paragraphs 11–20 and 95–103 of Cheung as
purportedly teaching a “passive receiver.” Final Act. 7; Ans. 9. However,
the Examiner does not identify what element(s) of Cheung purportedly teach
the claimed passive receiver, nor does the Examiner otherwise explain how
the cited portions of Cheung teach a passive receiver. Moreover, the
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

13
Examiner does not provide any findings or technical reasoning as to why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in light of
Cheung to modify Yang’s billboard panel to identify a target location based
on detection of a passive receiver, instead of detection of a human within
range of the audio beam from a billboard.
For example, if Examiner premises the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) on Cheung’s directional speaker integrated into a user’s clothing
teaching the claimed passive receiver, then it is not apparent that such
speaker, even if properly construed as a passive receiver, would be readily
detectable by Yang’s video camera (the claimed imager). As such, the
Examiner does not adequately explain, how or why one of ordinary skill in
the art would be motivated in light of Cheung’s directional speaker to
modify Yang in a manner to arrive at limitation (e)(ii).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 or
the rejections of its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28, 30,
39, 52, 54, 75,
92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–133,
136, 142,
149–151,
154–156
112,
second
paragraph
Incomplete for
Omitting
Essential
Elements

1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28, 30,
39, 52, 54, 75,
92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–133,
136, 142,
149–151,
154–156
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

14
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28, 30,
39, 52, 54, 75,
92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–133,
136, 142,
149–151,
154–156
112,
second
paragraph
Indefiniteness
1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28, 30,
39, 52, 54, 75,
92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–133,
136, 142,
149–151,
154–156
1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28, 30,
39, 52, 54, 75,
92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–133,
136, 142,
149–151,
154–156
112, first
paragraph
Written
Description
1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28, 30,
39, 52, 54, 75,
92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–133,
136, 142,
149–151,
154–156
1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28, 30,
39, 52, 54, 75,
92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–133,
136, 142,
149–151,
154–156
112, first
paragraph Enablement
1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28,
30, 39, 52,
54, 75, 92,
93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–
133, 136,
142, 149–
151, 154–156

1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28, 30,
39, 52, 54, 75,
92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–133,
136, 142,
149–151,
154–156
101 Nonstatutory Subject Matter
1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28, 30,
39, 52, 54, 75,
92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–133,
136, 142,
149–151,
154–156
Appeal 2019-006842
Application 13/920,296

15
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1, 24, 28, 39,
75, 92, 93, 96,
98, 99, 106,
126, 128,
131–133, 136,
149–151,
154–156
103(a) Yang, Cheung
1, 24, 39, 75,
92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–133,
136, 149–151,
154–156
12, 14, 16, 26,
28, 30, 52, 54,
142
103(a) Yang, Cheung, O’Brien
12, 14, 16, 26,
28, 30, 52, 54,
142
Overall
Outcome
1, 12, 14, 16,
24, 26, 28,
30, 39, 52,
54, 75, 92,
93, 96, 98,
99, 106, 126,
128, 131–
133, 136,
142, 149–
151, 154–156

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