Ex Parte 5774372 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2013

90009941 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2013)

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.
90/009,941 08/01/2011 5774372 LRA001RE2/ 4212
28524 7590 06/18/2013
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
RALIS, STEPHEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SIEMENS ENERGY, INC
________________

Appeal 2013-006688
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,941
Patent 5,774,372
1

Technology Center 3900
________________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
2

1
The patent issued on June 30, 1998. Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
US 5,774,372 C1 issued on August 23, 2011 (Reexamination Control
No. 90/009,528).
2
Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Request for Ex Parte Reexamination (Request) filed
August 1, 2011; the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed August 23, 2012; and the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed January 30, 2013.
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5, 8-11, and 15-31. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Examiner’s Answer incorporates from the Request for Ex Parte
Reexamination.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kenez (J.D. Kenez, Pressure Relieving System Design and
Evaluation, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia,
November 7-10, 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc., 1994),
Townsend (James J. Townsend, Introduction to Databases, Prentice Hall,
1992), and Getz (Ken Getz, Paul Litwin, Greg Reddick, Microsoft Access 2
Developer’s Handbook, Chapter 2: Database Design, Sybex, Inc., 1994).
Ans. 3-7; Request 89-92, 95-97.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kenez, Townsend, Getz, API Standard 2000 (Venting Atmospheric and
Low-Pressure Storage Tanks, Nonrefrigerated and Refrigerated, API
Standard 2000, Fourth edition, September 1992, American Petroleum
Institute, 1992), and API RP-520 (Sizing, Selection, and Installation of
Pressure-Relieving Devices in Refineries, Part I-Sizing and Selection, API
Recommended Practice 520, Sixth edition, March 1993, American
Petroleum Institute, 1993). Ans. 7-10; Request 92-97.
Claims 8, 9, 15-17, 21, 23, and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kenez and Townsend. Ans. 10-20; Request 97-99,
101-104, 109-110, 113-120.
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

3
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kenez,
Townsend, and API Standard 2000. Ans. 20; Request 99-100.
Claims 11 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious
over Kenez, Townsend, and API RP-520. Ans. 21-27; Request 100, 104-
112.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a pressure protection manager for
determining and documenting overpressure protection due to causes of
overpressure associated with equipment and pressure relief devices used in
industries such as, for example, process plants having process fluids.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for determining and documenting overpressure
protection due to causes of overpressure associated with equipment and
pressure relief devices the apparatus comprising:
a computer system comprising a memory device, a processing device,
a program in communication with the processing device and memory device,
the processing device performing tasks required by the program, the memory
device further comprising:
a relational database structure, the relational database structure
comprising:
(a) an equipment database,
(b) a pressure relief devices database,
(c) a linker database communicating with the pressure relief
devices database and the equipment database, and
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

4
(d) a causes of overpressure database communicating with the
equipment database.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Discussing the question of obviousness of claimed subject matter
involving a combination of known elements, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007), explains:
[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
If the claimed subject matter cannot be fairly characterized as
involving the simple substitution of one known element for another or the
mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the
improvement, a holding of obviousness can be based on a showing that
“there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed.” Id. at 418. Such a showing requires
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness”.... [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

5
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
Id. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 4, 5, AND 24 OVER KENEZ,
TOWNSEND, AND GETZ
Claim 1
The Examiner finds, with regard to claim 1, that Kenez, Townsend,
and Getz collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 3-7. The Examiner
relies on Kenez’s pressure relief contingency table (Table 1, p. 677) for all
limitations
except for [] the data structure being a relational database
structure, with the relational database structure[] comprising a
separate database for each of the equipment data, the pressure
relief devices data, and the causes of overpressure data with
[(c)] a linker database communicating with the pressure
relief devices database and the equipment database, and (d) a
causes of overpressure database communicating with the
equipment database.
Ans. 4.
The Examiner relies on Townsend for teaching a relational database
structure and separate databases. Ans. 5. The Examiner relies on Getz for
teaching a linker database. Ans. 5-6.
The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kenez with the
relational database structure and separate databases of Townsend in order to
track and store large sets of data. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

6
The Examiner further reasons it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kenez with the
linker database of Getz in order to model a many-to-many relationship in a
relational database model. Ans. 6.
Appellant argues there is no reason to combine the references to
achieve the claimed invention. Br. 10-20. Notable arguments include the
following:
(i) Townsend and Getz “provide no particular direction on how one
skilled in the art would take the relief system study and table of Kenez and
turn it into the specific database structure and method of the claims.” Br. 10.
(ii) “It is only by engaging in this impermissible hindsight
reconstruction that the Examiner can even argue that one skilled in the art
would have found it ‘obvious’ to modify the Kenez table utilizing the
general database publication manuals of Townsend and Getz.” Br. 11.
(iii) “Any other arrangement or dissection of the table [in Kenez]
would change the purpose and operation of the table, including rendering the
ability to scan down the columns to find the Governing Contingencies
impractical, and goes against the express teachings of Kenez.” Br. 14.
(iv) [T]here is no direction provided in Kenez as to any different
structure or organization for data other than that provided in Table 1.”
Br. 15.
(v)
An example in Getz when to denormalize is to improve report
performance to avoid having to join tables every time a report
needs to be generated. [Getz, p. 53, emphasis added]. It is
apparent from the express teachings of Getz that just because a
database can be normalized does not mean that it should be
normalized, and in the instant case, one skilled in the art would
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

7
not attempt to normalize the data collected in the Kenez study.
In fact, Getz specifically directs one skilled in the art to NOT
normalize a database if in doing so you would have to join
tables every time a report needs to be generated. Because the
Kenez table is essentially a summary report for determining the
Governing Contingency, Getz teaches that you would NOT
normalize the Kenez table.
Br. 16.
(vi) Kenez is missing a many-to-many relationship; Kenez illustrates
a one-to-many relationship where one pressure relief device may protect
multiple pieces of equipment; and Getz’s teaching of linking is inapplicable
to the Kenez table. Br. 16-18.
Appellant further argues regarding elements (a)-(d) of the relational
database structure. Br. 20-22. Notable arguments include the following:
(vii) “Kenez does not disclose an equipment database. Kenez Table 1
only lists by name in one row some but not all of the pieces of equipment as
part of its bivariate analysis.” Br. 20.
(viii) “Kenez does not disclose a pressure relief device database.
Instead Kenez Table [1] shows a single row with pressure relief valve tags,
its set pressure and its size in unformatted alphanumeric cells.” Br. 21.
(ix) “Kenez Table 1 does not teach any need for linker database to
effectuate a many-to-many relationship between equipment and relief
valves.” Br. 21.
(x) “Kenez does not disclose a database that contains causes of
overpressure. Instead Kenez Table 1 shows unordered and unformatted rows
and columns of overpressure scenarios in alphanumeric cells.” Br. 21.
In response, the Examiner explains claim 1 does not recite physical
links; rather, claim 1 recites the linker database communicating to both the
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

8
pressure relief devices database and the equipment database, and the causes
of overpressure database communicating with the equipment database.
Ans. 28. The Examiner further explains in Kenez’s Table 1 structured
communication relationships exist between equipment/relief valves,
equipment/causes of over pressure, and relief valves/causes of over pressure
via equipment. Ans. 28-29. The Examiner further explains
one of ordinary skill in the art would look at the Kenez database
structure of Table 1 and see multiple relief valves/disks/etc.
being associated with multiple pieces of equipment [] and
multiple causes of overpressure being associated with multiple
pieces of equipment, and look to [(Townsend’s and Getz’s)]
computer database automation of relational database structures
and linker databases in order to provide improved data
management and access.
Ans. 29. We agree with the Examiner.
The Examiner further explains Kenez discloses a single table database
structure (Table 1) including an equipment database (row 2), a pressure
relief devices database (row 1), and a causes of overpressure database
(rows 3-14) with the causes of overpressure database communicating with
the equipment database because the equipment database is the basis of
Table 1. Townsend and Getz teach a relational database structure comprising
separate databases as well as utilizing a linker database. Ans. 34-35. Again,
we agree with the Examiner.
We see no reason why Kenez’s single table database (Table 1) would
not benefit from a relational database structure including separate databases,
such as taught by Townsend (see Townsend, 37, 42-49, 297-299), which
describes databases. Townsend’s relational database structure including
separate databases is readily applicable to Kenez because Kenez’s single
table database (Table 1) includes data (equipment, relief valves, and causes
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

9
of over pressure) having structured communication relationships among the
data. We also see no reason why Kenez’s single table database (Table 1)
would not benefit from a linker database, such as taught by Getz (see
Getz, 31-33), which also describes databases. Getz’s linking table (database)
is readily applicable to Kenez because Kenez’s relief valves and equipment
have a structured communication relationship. Modifying Kenez’s single
table database (Table 1) into a relational database structure of separate
databases, including a linker database, would have been predictable uses of
prior art elements according to their established functions — an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Regarding Appellant’s arguments (i) and (iv), as explained above,
modifying Kenez’s single table database (Table 1) into a relational database
structure of separate databases, including a linker database, is a predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), we do not see impermissible
hindsight bias. Notably, Kenez’s Table 1 teaches structured communication
relationships between equipment/relief valves, equipment/causes of over
pressure, and relief valves/causes of over pressure via equipment, and
Townsend and Getz teach obvious ways of improving such structured
communication relationships. Ans. 28-29.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (iii), modifying Kenez’s single table
database (Table 1) into a relational database structure of separate databases,
including a linker database, does not preclude presenting the table to the user
for viewing as shown in Kenez’s Table 1.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (v), Getz (p. 53 (emphasis added))
teaches “several scenarios in which you might choose to break the rules of
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

10
normalization.” Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error because this
disclosure does not teach away from the combination with Kenez and
Townsend. While an alternative may be inferior to or less desirable than
another, that alone is insufficient to teach away from the inferior alternative
unless the disclosure criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages that
alternative. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200-01 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding Appellant’s argument (vi), the argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1 in that claim 1 does not recite a
“many-to-many relationship.” Kenez’s Table 1 does teach structured
communication relationships. Ans. 28-29.
Regarding Appellant’s arguments (vii)-(x), Kenez discloses a single
table database structure (Table 1) including an equipment database (row 2),
a pressure relief devices database (row 1), and a causes of overpressure
database (rows 3-14) with the causes of overpressure database
communicating with the equipment database because the equipment
database is the basis of Table 1. Townsend and Getz teach a relational
database structure comprising separate databases as well as utilizing a linker
database. Ans. 34-35.
Weighing Appellant’s arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we
find that Kenez, Townsend, and Getz collectively teach the limitations of
claim 1, and the Examiner’s reason to combine these teachings is supported
by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

11
Claims 4 and 5
Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1. We agree with the Examiner’s
position, with regard to claims 4 and 5, that Kenez, Townsend, and Getz
collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 4, 42-43.
Appellant argues none of the cited references describes or suggests the
claim limitations. Br. 23.
An argument that merely points out what a claim recites is
unpersuasive. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5.

Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 1. We agree with the Examiner’s
position, with regard to claim 24, that Kenez, Townsend, and Getz
collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 4, 43.
Appellant argues “the cited art does not suggest which relationships
between the particular databases should be formed out of the myriad of
possibilities. Getz’[s] description of a linker database again does not specify
where in the specific data structure the linker database should exist.” Br. 23.
Kenez’s equipment database device (Kenez, Table 1, row 2) is linked
(Kenez’s Table 1’s structured communication relationships, Table 1) to the
causes of overpressure database device (Kenez, Table 1, rows 3-14) and
structured such that each piece of equipment (Kenez, Table 1, row 2) has
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

12
associated with it one or more causes of overpressure (Kenez, Table 1,
rows 3-14) identified for that piece of equipment.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 2 AND 3 OVER KENEZ, TOWNSEND,
GETZ, API STANDARD 2000, AND API RP-520
Claim 2
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 2, that
Kenez, Townsend, Getz, API Standard 2000, and API RP-520 collectively
teach all claim limitations. Ans. 7-10.
Appellant argues (i) API RP-520 teaches away from the claimed
invention. Br. 24. Appellant further argues (ii) “the cited art does not suggest
which particular databases should be created out of the myriad of
possibilities.” Br. 24.
In response to argument (i), the Examiner explains “disclosed
examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from
a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. Furthermore, the
examiner can find no teaching to criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage
trying a relationship of causes of over pressure with equipment.” Ans. 44.
We agree with the Examiner.
In response to argument (ii), the Examiner further explains “Kenez
discloses the pressure relief devices database and other database devices
comprising a pressure relief valves database device, a rupture disks database
device.” Ans. 45 (citing Request, pp. 17-18, 92-93). The Examiner further
explains “API Standard 2000 and API RP-520 teach tank vents and other
devices being used to design relief systems.” Ans. 46 (see API
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

13
Standard 2000, section 1.2; API RP-520, section 2.7; Request 92-93). Again,
we agree with the Examiner.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), API RP-520 describes a
recommended practice for sizing and selection of pressure-relieving devices.
We are not persuaded of error because Appellant has not shown how this
disclosure teaches away (criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages)
from the combination with Kenez, Townsend, Getz, and API Standard 2000.
See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1200-01.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), we find this argument
unpersuasive. Kenez (p. 673) states “[a]lthough the most widely used
overpressure protective device is the safety relief valve, rupture disks are
preferred in some applications.” API Standard 2000 (section 1.2) describes
terms used in describing tank venting. API RP-520 (section 2.7) describes
the use of other types of pressure relief devices.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.

Claim 3
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 3, that
Kenez, Townsend, Getz, API Standard 2000, and API RP-520 collectively
teach all claim limitations. Ans. 7-10.
Appellant argues
(i) API RP-520 teaches away from the claimed invention. Br. 24.
(ii) The cited art does not describe or suggest the identification of
causes database. Br. 24.
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

14
(iii) The cited art does not suggest which relationships between the
particular databases should be formed out of the myriad of possibilities.
Br. 25.
(iv) The cited art shows the causes of overpressure associated with
relief devices rather than pieces of equipment. Br. 25.
Regarding argument (i), we find this argument unpersuasive for
reasons discussed above regarding claim 2.
Regarding argument (ii), the Examiner explains “Kenez discloses an
identification causes of overpressure database for identifying potential
causes of overpressure for each piece of equipment and providing identified
data for use in other database.” Ans. 45 (citing Request, pp. 17-18, 93-95).
We agree with the Examiner.
Kenez (p. 667) states “[a]ll credible causes of equipment overpressure
are then identified and required relieving rates quantified using simplified
calculation methods and process simulation for fluid properties.” Kenez’s
single table database structure (Table 1) includes multiple rows (rows 3-14)
for causes of overpressure, and teaches an identification causes of
overpressure database, as recited in claim 3.
Regarding argument (iii), the Examiner explains, and we agree, that
Townsend teaches the relational database structure and separate databases,
and Getz teaches the linker database. Ans. 45. We find Appellant’s
argument (iii) unpersuasive for reasons discussed above regarding claim 1.
See Kenez, Table 1; Townsend, 37, 42-49, 297-299; Getz, 31-33.
Regarding argument (iv), we also find this argument unpersuasive.
Kenez’s single table database structure (Table 1) includes an equipment
database (row 2) and a causes of overpressure database (rows 3-14).
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

15
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 8, 9, 15-17, 21, 23, AND 25-31 OVER
KENEZ AND TOWNSEND
Claims 8, 9, 15-17, 21, and 25-31
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 15, that
Kenez and Townsend collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 10-11,
15-20.
Appellant argues
[s]imilar to the discussion of this feature in Claim 3,
incorporated herein, the defining and linking are important
features that cannot be overlooked. The differences leave a non-
obvious gap between the invention and the cited art without any
factual support to fill the gap. Moreover, the art actually teaches
away from this feature by showing the causes of overpressure
associated with relief devices in order to determine the
Governing Contingency rather than pieces of equipment.
Br. 29 (emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner explains Kenez (Table 1) teaches linking
the causes records to the corresponding equipment record, and Townsend
teaches separate databases. Ans. 49. We agree with the Examiner.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given by
the Examiner (see Ans. 47-49) and for the reasons discussed above
regarding claim 3 (and claim 1). See Kenez, Table 1; Townsend, 37, 42-49,
297-299). Notably, Kenez’s single table database structure (Table 1)
includes an equipment database (row 2) and a causes of overpressure
database (rows 3-14).
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

16
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, and of
claims 8, 9, 16, 17, 21, and 25-31, which are not argued separately with
particularity.

Claim 23
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 23, that
Kenez and Townsend collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 13, 15-
20.
Appellant argues
[s]imilar to the discussion of the equipment database in
Claim 3, incorporated herein, the linking to the causes of
overpressure cannot be overlooked. It leaves a non-obvious gap
between the invention and the cited art without any factual
support to fill the gap. Moreover, the art actually teaches away
from this feature by showing the causes of overpressure
associated with relief devices rather than pieces of equipment.
Br. 29 (second emphasis added).
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive for the reasons discussed
above regarding claim 15.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 10 OVER KENEZ, TOWNSEND, AND
API STANDARD 2000
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 10, that
Kenez, Townsend, and API Standard 2000 collectively teach all claim
limitations. Ans. 20.
Appellant argues claim 10 is patentable for the reasons discussed for
claim 15. Br. 30.
Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

17
In light of our findings and conclusions above regarding claim 15, we
conclude Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 10. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 11 AND 18-22 OVER KENEZ,
TOWNSEND, AND API RP-520
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claims 11 and
18-22 that Kenez, Townsend, and API RP-520 collectively teach all claim
limitations. Ans. 21-27.
Appellant argues claims 11 and 18-22 are patentable for the reasons
discussed for claim 15. Br. 30.
In light of our findings and conclusions above regarding claim 15, we
conclude Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 11 and 18-22. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 11 and 18-22.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8-11, and 15-31 is
affirmed.
Extensions of time for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

ak

Appeal 2013-006688
Application 90/009,941

18

Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830

cc:

Gary L. Bush
Andrews & Kurth, LLP
600 Travis, Suite 4200
Houston, TX 77002