Ex Parte 6625454 et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 17, 201190009093 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2011) 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. 90/009,093 03/28/2008 6625454 022.0304R 2606 66651 7590 06/17/2011 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (MOT) 7010 E. Cochise Road SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253 EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/17/2011 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 ____________ BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte WIRELESS VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ____________ Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 1 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before JAMESON LEE, KARL D. EASTHOM, and KEVIN TURNER Administrative Patent Judges. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Patent to Rappaport et al., Method and System for Designing or Deploying a Communications Network which Considers Frequency Dependent Effects (issued Sept. 23, 20003). Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arose from a third party request for ex parte reexamination of the „454 patent. Appellant and real party in interest, Wireless Valley Communications, Inc., seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) and contests the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-61. The Examiner confirmed claims 4 and 12. (See App. Br. 2, 4.) We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The „454 patent describes a computer model which displays a physical environment in which a communications network is or will be installed. The communications network is comprised of several components, each of which are selected by the design engineer and which are represented in the display. . . . The effects of changes in frequency on component performance are modeled and the results are displayed to the design engineer. (Abstract.) Exemplary Claims on Appeal Exemplary claims 1 and 2 follow: 1 (Original). A method for designing or deploying a communications network, comprising the steps of: providing a computerized model which represents a physical environment in which a communications network is or will be installed, said computerized model providing a display of at least a portion of said physical environment; providing performance attributes for a plurality of system components which may be used in said physical environment, a number of said system components having associated with them frequency dependent characteristics; Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 3 selecting specific components from said plurality of system components for use in said computerized model; representing said selected specific components in said display; running prediction models using the computerized model and said performance attributes to predict performance characteristics of a communications network comprised of said selected specific components, said prediction models utilizing said frequency dependent characteristics in calculations which predict said performance characteristics of said communications network. 2 (Original). The method of claim 1 wherein said frequency dependent characteristics define electrical properties of said system components at least two different frequencies. The Rejections and Objections The Examiner objected to claims 19, 27, 42, and 57 for certain informalities. (Fin. Rej. 4; Ans. 4-5.) Such objections are not appealable and are not before the Board. The Examiner also finally rejected claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. (Fin. Rej. 4; Ans. 5.) Appellant does not address this rejection in the opening Brief, thereby waiving the issue. Consequently, we sustain this rejection pro forma. The Examiner also finally rejected the claims as follows: Claims 1-3, 5, l0, 11, 13 and 15-61 under 35 U.S.C. § l02(b) as anticipated by the SitePlanner 3.0 User‟s Manual (1998); Claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as obvious over SitePlanner and U.S. Patent No. 6,496,290 to Lee; and Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 4 Claims 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as being unpatentable over SitePlanner and U.S. Patent No. 5,831,610 to Tonelli. (Fin. Rej. 5, 27.) ISSUES Appellant disputes the Examiner‟s findings with respect to two clauses in claim 1 (see App. Br. 1), raising the following issue: Does SitePlanner disclose “providing performance attributes for a plurality of system components which may be used in said physical environment, a number of said system components having associated with them frequency dependent characteristics” and “running prediction models using . . . said performance attributes to predict performance characteristics of a communications network comprised of said selected specific components, said prediction models utilizing said frequency dependent characteristics in calculations which predict said performance characteristics of said communications network,” as recited in claim 1? Appellant also presents arguments against the rejection, based on SitePlanner, of other claims, raising related additional issues as discussed below. Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 5 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) 1. Figure 5.18 from SitePlanner appears below: (SitePlanner 102.) Figure 5.18 shows a dialog box for selecting components from a Bill of Materials to add to an antenna system. It also shows that each coaxial cable (e.g., the HJ5-50 and HJ7-50A coaxial cable) is listed several times at more than one frequency with a corresponding attenuation (dB per 100m) value for that frequency. 2. Other related dialog boxes (see e.g., Figures 5.9 and 5.10) allow users to find a desired component based on the manufacturer, add components, or edit existing entries. The entries in Figure 5.9 imply that users can select a different attenuation value for each cable in the Bill of Materials whereby each such value is associated with a particular frequency range. (See id. at 91-92; Fig. 5.9 (showing a selectable attenuation box and frequency range box).) Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 6 3. “Currently, the allowable component types are Amplifiers, Antennas, Cables, Connectors/Splitters, Leaky Feeder Antennas, and a generic Other Devices type.” (Id.) 4. “It should be noted that multiple instances of the same part number for the same manufacture is allowed. This means you are free to create separate instances of the same component in cases where one or more of the data fields (e.g., the attenuation if an adjustable amplifier) can vary.” (Id. at 92.) 5. After editing, the components can be saved as part of the Bill of Materials and/or thereafter removed. (Id. at 92-93.) For example, Figure 5.11 (id. at 93) lists for possible removal from the Bill of Materials, several different radiating cables, and similar to Figures 5.10 and 5.18 (id. at 92, 102), lists different frequencies (e.g., 900 MHz; 1700 MHz; 2400MHz) for each cable. 6. SitePlanner further describes the Bill of Materials as follows: Predictor maintains a full bill of materials for every drawing in a workspace. That is, each drawing may contain its own unique set of antennas and related components. These components are drawn from the global bill of materials, which resides under the Bom [Bill of Materials] directory of the global workspace. The ability to maintain a unique equipment list for each drawing enables you to carry out unique designs in which you can compare and contrast the performance of different vendor components and see the impact that using one component over another can have on your overall system. Information that can be tracked with the bill of materials includes the manufacturer and part number, cost, RF loss characteristics, connections, and the frequencies for which the component is valid. In addition, a rich set of customization Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 7 features is provided to enable you to tailor the bill of materials to suit your needs. (Id. at 89 §5.3.) 7. In other words, users can create and retrieve different drawings for use in a workspace for comparison purposes (and also create new workspaces and save old workspaces). (Id. at 52, 53, 89.) A workspace is the collection of all the files, drawings, bill of materials, channel sets, etc., for a particular job. (Id. at 16.) As an example, a user can assign a selected channel or channel set to a base station “already configured for the correct frequencies” to multiple drawings within a workspace. (Id. at 81.) LEGAL AUTHORITY “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal, Appellant‟s “brief must set forth the authorities and arguments relied on, and the extent that it fails to do so with respect to any ground of rejection, that ground may be summarily sustained.” MPEP § 2274, VI. ANALYSIS Anticipation Appellant, relying on a declaration by expert Dr. Skidmore, a co- inventor of the „454 patent and the primary author of SitePlanner and other related manuals, argues that the different components in SitePlanner are frequency independent, as opposed to frequency dependent. (App. Br. 20-22 (citing Skidmore Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7, 9, 11, 13-15, 18).) For example, Appellant explains that Figure 5.18 of SitePlanner (see supra FF) shows “nine separate Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 8 static values for nine separate cable components, each at a different frequency.” (App. Br. 22; accord Reply Br. 4.) Appellant also maintains that while SitePlanner‟s “„Bill of Materials‟” describes “„antennas and related components‟” as having “„RF loss characteristics‟” and “„the frequencies for which the component is valid‟” (FF6), “the modeled components of the SitePlanner . . . computer model did not respond, vary or otherwise depend upon the frequency applied to the component at all.” (App. Br. 20 (quoting SitePlanner at 89, §5.3).) Appellant‟s position is not persuasive. Figure 5.18 shows that a single component, for example, the “HJ5-50 series Heliax coaxial cable,” has nine different loss values which depend on frequency. (FF1.) Appellant‟s characterization of the nine values as corresponding to nine different components because the figure refers to selecting a component (Reply Br. 4-5 n. 3) lacks merit for the reasons that follow. Appellant does not dispute that a real-world physical coaxial cable, such as the HJ5-50 Heliax coaxial cable, or one of the antennae or other components modeled by the SitePlanner system, each constitute a single component which has output values which vary with frequency. (See FF1, FF1- FF6.) For example, Appellant states that the list represents “the same real-world AHJ5-50 cable at nine different frequencies.” (Reply Br. 5.) In addition, contrary to Appellant‟s related arguments (Reply Br. 9-10), SitePlanner‟s statement that “you are free to create separate instances of the same component” (FF4), verifies that the list in Figure 5-18 represents different frequency instances versus attenuation of the same real-world component and its corresponding model. (Accord Ans. 50.) While Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 9 Appellant states that this “separate instances” statement is “ten pages away from FIG 5.18” (Reply Br. 9-10), Appellant does not argue that the statement does not relate to Figure 5.18. In any event, the statement and Figure 5.18 (FF1) relate to choosing components for SitePlanner‟s modeling system “where one or more of the data fields . . . can vary” (FF4). Hence, Figure 5.18 shows a dialog box (FF1), and with aid of other system dialog boxes, a user can select or create different component instances (i.e., different frequency versus attenuation values) for the same modeled real- world component (see FF1- FF7). In a related argument, Appellant states that “the Examiner is confusing actual parts of a real-world network with the components of the computerized model.” (Reply Br. 10.) This argument does not provide a clear distinction over claim 1. Claim 1 recites “providing performance attributes for a plurality of system components which may be used in the physical environment, a number of said system components having associated with them frequency dependent characteristics” (emphasis supplied). Hence, under one reasonable claim interpretation, the claim 1 “system components” at least can be (and arguably must be) real-world components because such components may be used in a physical environment. The claim 1 step of “selecting specific components from said plurality of system components for use in said computerized model” does not change the previously introduced system components into modeled components. In other words, as just discussed, the “providing” step in claim 1 indicates that each system component is a real-world component (which the recited system Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 10 models). The “selecting” step refers back to “said system components” introduced in the “providing” step, thereby implying that such “specific components from the . . . system components” must or can also be real- world; i.e., the “specific components,” being “for use” as real-world subjects to be modeled. The next-to-last “representing” step merely provides for “representing” real-world components, while the final “running” step in claim 1 further implies that the selected specific components are part of a real-world “communications network.” Moreover, claim 3, which depends from claim 1, bolsters this claim interpretation and verifies that “said selected specific components” are real-world components which are available for purchase because the method recited in claim 3 generates a “bill of materials containing cost information.” Similarly, claim 4 provides a “maintenance schedule for selected specific components” – also implying real-world components which require maintenance. Similarly, SitePlanner describes real-world components which depend on frequency, and models these components, as Appellant acknowledges as noted above. (See also App. Br. 26 (“While the behavior of actual network components is clearly affected by the operation frequency . . . .”).) And even pursuant to a narrower claim interpretation under which a system component in claim 1 requires a component model which must be frequency dependent, as opposed to merely a real-world component as discussed supra under a broader claim interpretation, each component model in SitePlanner (of a real-world component) does depend on frequency. That is, SitePlanner models each real-world component by providing a list of paired frequency and attenuation loss (or some other characteristic) values for each Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 11 component model (FF1, see also FF2- FF4) to thereby allow a user to “compare and contrast” such components in terms of, inter alia, “RF loss characteristics” (FF6). (See also FF7.) While Appellant argues that “[t]he only way to model operation at a different frequency [in SitePlanner] was to build a new model using entirely different modeled components” (App. Br. 21), this argument incorrectly 1) implies that claim 1 requires a model of a system operating at more than one frequency, and 2) even if claim 1 does require such a model, the argument improperly characterizes “a new model” and “components.” Assuming for the sake of argument that claim 1 does require a model of a communications system operating at more than one frequency, as discussed above, SitePlanner models each real-word component as a single component which has a characteristic which varies with frequency by listing the same component at several frequency instances. (FF1-FF4, see e.g. Fig. 5.18.) Contrary to Appellant‟s arguments, SitePlanner‟s list of discrete entries does not mean that SitePlanner employs a different computer system model or a different component in that model by merely allowing a user to choose a different frequency instance from the list for each component. In general, as indicated supra, SitePlanner allows a user to “compare and contrast the performance of different vendor components and see the impact that using one component over another can have on your overall system. Information that can be tracked . . . includes . . . RF loss characteristics . . . and the frequencies for which the component is valid.” (FF6.) In particular, SitePlanner allows the user to compare two different drawings (in one workspace) which have the same modeled components, Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 12 albeit at different frequencies (i.e., with each same component in the separate drawings modeled at a different frequency with its corresponding attenuation and/or frequency channel transmitter value). (FF1, FF6, FF7.) Under this scenario (again, assuming arguendo that claim 1 implicitly requires a comparison at two frequencies), the recited computerized model reads on two of SitePlanner‟s drawings which reside in a single workspace. (See FF7.) Under an alternative SitePlanner scenario upon which claim 1 reads, a user can employ the same drawing and simply swap frequency versus attenuation values from a list for each component to correspond to a new operating frequency. 2 (See FF1, FF6, FF7.) Since claim 1 recites “running prediction models [i.e., plural models] using the computerized model” (emphasis added), it does not preclude running the same computerized model (i.e., using a different drawing and/or frequency component instance) successively at separate frequencies as occurs in SitePlanner. The „454 patent supports these claim interpretations under which claim 1 reads on SitePlanner‟s manual dual-drawing or dual- value comparison system because the „454 patent states that “„components can be considered on a frequency dependent basis either automatically or 2 Claim 1 specifies that the computerized model “represents a physical environment in which a communications network is or will be installed,” further bolstering the claim interpretation under which the recited computerized model does not become another model just because a modeled component‟s input frequency and corresponding frequency dependent characteristic changes. Alternatively, under the broader claim interpretation discussed above, since the computerized model selects real-world components for use (i.e., for modeling) in the model, it follows that as long as the selected real-world components do not change, the recited model does not either. Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 13 through the use of a prompt.‟” (See App. Br. 18 (quoting „454 patent at col. 3, l. 56 to col. 4, l.1) (emphasis added); Ans. 39 (reasoning that claim 1 does not require automatic frequency comparisons).) In other words, selecting a second drawing or second frequency instance after a particular run at a first drawing or frequency instance, as SitePlanner allows (FF6, FF7), is akin to responding to a prompt as occurs in the „454 patent. Since SitePlanner‟s real-world components and models thereof have loss and other values which depend upon frequency and SitePlanner provides outputs based on such values, it also follows that SitePlanner‟s prediction models also utilize “said frequency dependent characteristics in calculations which predict said performance characteristics of said communications network” as set forth in claim 1. (See FF1-FF7, Ans. 7 (citing SitePlanner 3, 11, 42, 43, 79, 108; § 5.7 Powerful Prediction Modes); Ans. 40.) Based on the foregoing discussion, the Examiner‟s rejection of claim 1 is sustained, as is the rejection of claims 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 24, and 41 because Appellant does not present separate arguments for these claims (see App. Br. 25, 30.) With respect to claim 2, as the Examiner generally found, SitePlanner‟s Bill of Materials §5.3 describes at least two different frequencies versus electrical performance for each component. (Ans. 7; FF1, FF2.) Also, SitePlanner‟s Figure 5.18, related to this Bill of Materials, shows two different values versus two frequencies each for the HJ5-50 cable and for the HJ7-50A cable. (See Ans. 39; FF1.) Similarly, Figure 5.11 also shows multiple cables at different frequencies in the same Bill of Materials. Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 14 (FF5.) While claim 2, like claim 1, does not require a comparison at the two frequencies, even if it does, SitePlanner provides for modeling different cables and/or components at the same frequency for use in different portions of the physical system, and then, models the same cables and/or components at a different frequency, albeit in successive computer runs, all to allow for comparisons of RF loss, as discussed supra. (Accord FF1-FF7.) Appellant‟s arguments with respect to similar claims 16, 33, and 49 track those with respect to claim 2. (See App. Br. 27 and 31.) As such, the rejection of claims 2, 16, 33, and 49 is sustained. With respect to claims 15 and 32, Appellant‟s arguments largely parallel those with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 26-27.) Contrary to Appellant‟s arguments, the nine different loss values for a single model component or physical component (FF 1) show that the properties of the system components vary with an operating frequency at which said system components operate either in the real-world and/or in the computer model. Accordingly, based on the arguments presented, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that SitePlanner anticipates claims 15 and 32. Claims 17, 25, 34, 42, and 55 require frequency dependent characteristics of system components that vary based on a frequency band over which the components operate. Appellant essentially relies on arguments presented for claim 1: “While we have acknowledged that real- world components operate differently at different frequencies, the modeled components of the SitePlanner model contained only static frequency independent values. . . . [and therefore,] SitePlanner . . . did not have Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 15 characteristics that varied based upon a gross frequency band . . . .” (App. Br. 28.) The argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Also, since real-world components modeled by SitePlanner have characteristics that depend on frequency as Appellant acknowledges, it follows that these same components also inherently have characteristics which vary within a gross frequency band. (App. Br. 27-28; Ans. 45 (citing an equation implying inherency in loss versus frequency).) And as the Examiner generally found (see Ans. 45-46), a gross frequency band, which the claims do not define, reasonably can be defined as one that simply encompasses two of SitePlanner‟s different frequencies associated with the frequency versus attenuation pairs for a modeled or real-world component. (See FF1, Fig. 5-18.) Accordingly, based on the arguments presented and the scope of the claims, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that SitePlanner anticipates claims 17, 25, 34, 42, and 55. Notwithstanding Appellant‟s similar arguments with respect to claims 20, 22, 30, 39, and 47 of similar scope to those in the preceding paragraph (see App. Br, 29-30), these claims recite limitations which merely specify the implicit fact that real-world components operate at different pluralities of gross frequency bands. Similar remarks apply to claims 23, 31, 40, and 48 which merely further specify that the gross bands correspond to known (i.e., standard) wireless bands in which real-world components can operate. Also, SitePlanner discloses that even a model for certain components is valid only within a frequency band. (See FF2, Figure 5-9; FF6.) Based on the Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 16 foregoing discussion, Appellant has not demonstrated error in the rejection of claims 15, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30-32, 34, 39, 40, 42, 47, 48, and 55. Claim 19 depends from claim 15 and recites “displaying in real-time . . . changes in coverage of said communications network.” With respect to claims 19 and 21, Appellant refers to the language recited therein and asserts that the claims are allowable “for all the reasons stated above.” (App. Br. 29.) This argument is interpreted as relying on arguments asserted for the independent claims and fails to show how the Examiner erred. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is the applicants‟ burden to precisely define the invention, not the PTO‟s.”); see also In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by appellant . . . .”). Further, the „454 patent describes “information . . . updated in real- time as the designer makes changes to the wireless system” (col. 25, ll. 35- 36) and implies that these updates can be made based on “the addition, removal, or change of any component” (id. at l. 32). The Examiner‟s finding relies on SitePlanner Figure 5-14 (Ans. 11-12), which displays the antenna pattern of a selected antenna. The pages cited by the Examiner also disclose manipulating, removing and replacing antennae and other components, including coaxial cables, pursuant to modeling a system. (See Ans. 11-12 (citing SitePlanner at 97-99 and Fig. 5-14); accord FF3, FF5, FF6, FF7.) In light of the „454 patent and arguments presented, claims 19 and 21 are broad enough to allow for modeling and displaying different antennae and other components at different times, for example, which would show Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 17 different patterns in “real-time,” since “real-time,” according to the „454 patent and the claim phrases at issue here, allow a user to add or change components. Based on the foregoing discussion, Appellant has not showed error in the Examiner‟s rejection of claims 19 and 21. With respect to claims 18, 26, 35, 43, 50, and 56, Appellant argues that the Examiner‟s finding that SitePlanner‟s “inconvenient” operation of entering values manually does not satisfy the claim limitations of “displaying in real time changes in the performance characteristics of the communications network on the display in response to a change in the operating frequency for the selected specific components,” as set forth in these claims. (App. Br. 28-29.) The Examiner‟s finding that manually entering new component values corresponds to a display of real-time changes in response to a change in the operating frequency, without a further explanation, does not appear reasonable in light of the claim phrase and the „454 patent. For example, the „454 patent describes how a Parts List Library contains frequency dependent information values and other values for components and later describes preferably applying values “automatically in real time . . . according to the active frequency of the signal arriving at and/or leaving a component.” („454 patent, col. 26, ll. 33-53; see also App. Br. 8-9 (citing similar support in the „454 patent for the real-time limitation).) Claims 27-29, 36-38, 44-46, 51-54, and 57-61 ultimately and respectively depend from claims 26, 35, 43, 50, and 56. Based on the foregoing discussion, the rejection of claims 18, 26-29, 35-38, 43-46, 50-54, and 56-61 is not sustained. Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 18 Obviousness With respect to claims 6-9 and 14 which depend from claims 1 and 10 and which were rejected based on a combination of SitePlanner and one of either Lee or Tonelli, Appellant relies solely on the above-discussed alleged deficiencies of SitePlanner and the rejection of claims 1 and 10. (App. Br. 32.) Based on the foregoing discussion of SitePlanner and claims 1 and 10, the rejections of claims 6-9 and 14 are sustained also. DECISION The Examiner‟s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19-25, 30- 34, 39-42, 47-49, and 55 is affirmed. The Examiner‟s decision to reject claims 18, 26-29, 35-38, 43-46, 50-54, and 56-61 is reversed. Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). Appeal 2011-006643 Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093 Patent 6,625,454 B1 19 AFFIRMED-IN-PART ak Ingrassia Fisher & Lorenz, PC 7010 E. Cochise Road Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Third Party Requester: Cesari and McKenna, LLP 88 Black Falcon Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation