Ex Parte 6908316 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201890013555 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018) 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. 90/013,555 07/27/2015 6908316 33132.4002 3786 34313 7590 05/30/2018 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP IP PROSECUTION DEPARTMENT 2050 Main Street, Suite 1100 IRVINE, CA 92614 EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2018 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 HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. Appeal 2018-002190 Reexamination Control 90/013,555 Patent 6,908,316 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) from a Final Rejection of claims 19–67, which are all the pending claims. Claims 1–18 were canceled in a previous reexamination proceeding having control number 90/009,831 (the ’9831 proceeding). An oral hearing scheduled for May 15, 2018, was waived by Appellant. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE We refer to the patent that is the subject of the instant reexamination proceeding (“Ma B2,” US 6,908,316 B2, issued June 21, 2005, also referred to in the record as the “’316 patent”); the first previously issued reexamination certificate relating to the patent that is the subject of the instant reexamination proceeding (“Ma C1,” US 6,908,316 C1; issued Feb. 28, 2012); the second previously issued reexamination certificate relating to the patent that is the subject of the instant reexamination proceeding (“Ma C2,” US 6,908,316 C2; issued July 2, 2014); the Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent 6,908,316 (“Request” filed July 27, 2015); Appellant’s Briefs (“App. Br.” filed April 26, 2017; “Reply Br.”1 filed Aug. 21, 2017); the Final Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination (“Final Act.” mailed Aug. 26, 2016) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed June 20, 2017). Appellant’s disclosure relates to an electrical connector for electrical[ly] connecting an electrical package such as an integrated circuit (IC) chip with a circuit substrate such as a printed circuit board (PCB), and particularly to a connector adapted for receiving a land grid package (LGP) therein and electrically connecting the LGP with a PCB. Ma B2, col. 1, ll. 8–13. Claims 19 and 20, which are illustrative, read as follows: 19. An electrical component for receiving an integrated circuit chip, comprising: 1 We have reviewed the Reply Brief in detail, but do not identify and contentions or arguments that differ from, or expand on, the contentions and arguments in the Appeal Brief in a way that affects our analyses herein. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 3 a base including therein a substantially rectangular cavity defining thereof lengthwise and transverse directions perpendicular to each other; first, second, third and fourth side walls together surrounding said cavity circumferentially, wherein said first and fourth side walls extend along the lengthwise direction and the second and third side walls extend along the transverse direction; a floor integrally formed as one piece together with said first, second, third, and fourth side walls, wherein said cavity is bounded by said floor and said side walls; at least the first side wall defining a pair of substantially protrusions [sic2] inwardly extending toward the cavity from an inner face thereof; and at least one projection inwardly extending from a corresponding inner face of each of the remaining second, third and fourth side walls toward the cavity; wherein at least one of the projections is located at a position spaced away from each end region of its corresponding inner face; wherein said pair of protrusions on said first side wall are substantially similar to each other and located symmetrically located by two sides of a middle point of said first side wall; whereby under a warpage of said side walls along either the lengthwise or the transverse direction, a first line linked between two respective innermost points of said pair of protrusions is able to be essentially parallel to the lengthwise direction of a true position of the electrical component, so other two second and third lines respectively passing the respective two innermost points of the projections of the second and third side walls, which directly neighbor said first side wall, are in a perpendicular relation with regard to the first line and essentially parallel to the transverse direction, and a fourth line 2 In the event of further prosecution, Appellant and Examiner may wish to consider whether the phrase “substantially protrusions” in claim 19 as presented should be revised, as it is unclear what the adverb “substantially” modifies. See also Ma C2, col. 1, ll. 39–40. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 4 passing the innermost point of the projection of the fourth side wall opposite to the first side wall is in a parallel relation with regard to the first line and essentially parallel to the lengthwise direction, and thus said first, second, third and fourth side walls commonly define a rectangular region for compliance with a contour of said integrated circuit chip, wherein each of said protrusions defines a flat interior face normally facing the cavity. 20. An electrical connector for interconnecting an integrated circuit chip and a printed circuit board, the electrical connector comprising: a base comprising a support area, a substantially rectangular cavity in the support area, the cavity being bounded by a floor and a plurality of peripheral side walls; wherein each of the side walls defines at least one protrusion thereon extending into the cavity, at least one of the side walls defines at least two protrusions thereon extending into the cavity, and said at least two protrusions extend a same distance from the side wall; wherein each of the protrusions has a substantially parallelepiped-shaped configuration; and wherein at least one of said at-least-one-protrusion- defining side walls defines said at least one protrusion at a position spaced away from each end region of its defining side wall. App. Br. (Claims App’x) 67–68 (claim statuses omitted). The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Kandybowski US 4,647,124 Mar. 3, 1987 Choy US 6,644,981 B2 Nov. 11, 2003 Chip Scale Review, Vol. 5, No. 3 (April 2001) (hereinafter “CSR”), p. 1, 3 (hereinafter “CSR Fuzz button”), p. 393 (hereinafter “CSR ECT”). 3 Sometimes identified in the record as page 49. See, e.g., Request 2; compare id. at 9 with CSR 39. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 5 GR1: Claims 20, 21, and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by CSR. 4, 5 See Final Act. 3–7. GR2: Claims 19, 22, 23, 26–33, 36–41, 44–51, 54–62, and 64–67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over CSR and Kandybowski. See Final Act. 7–14. GR3: Claims 24, 25, 34, 35, 42, 43, 52, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over CSR, Kandybowski, and Choy. See Final Act. 14–17. GR4: Claims 19–23, 26–33, 36–41, 44–51, and 54–67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kandybowski and CSR. See Final Act. 17–22. GR5: Claims 24, 25, 34, 35, 42, 43, 52, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kandybowski, CSR, and Choy. See Final Act. 22–25. GR6: Claims 19–67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”), CSR, and Choy. See Final Act. 25–31. GR7: Claims 62–67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. See Final Act. 2. 4 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (“pre-AIA”). See, e.g., Final Act 3. 5 For convenience, we have adopted the rejection numbers used by Appellant. See App. Br. 8–9. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 6 ISSUES Appellant’s arguments raise the following issues: Issue A: With regard to GR7, claims 62–67, does the Examiner err in concluding the phrase “relatively small” renders the claims indefinite? Issue B: With regard to GR1, GR2, GR4, and GR6, does the Examiner err in finding the cited art discloses, teaches, or suggests “a substantially rectangular cavity in the support area,” as recited in claim 20 (GR1, GR4, and GR6), and similarly recited in claims 19, 22, 31, 40, and 49 (GR2, GR4, and GR6)? Issue C: With regard to GR1, GR2, GR4, and GR6, does the Examiner err in finding the cited art discloses, teaches, or suggests that “each of the protrusions has a substantially parallelepiped-shaped configuration,” as recited in claim 20 (GR1, GR4, and GR6), and similarly recited in claims 22, 32, 40, and 50 (GR2, GR4, and GR6)? Issue D: With regard to GR1, GR2, GR4, and GR6, does the Examiner err in finding the cited art discloses, teaches, or suggests that “at least one of the side walls defines at least two protrusions thereon extending into the cavity” as recited in claim 20 (GR1, GR4, and GR6), and similarly recited in claims 19, 22, 30, 40, and 48 (GR2, GR4, and GR6)? Issue E: With regard to GR1, GR2, GR4 and GR6, does the Examiner err in finding the cited art discloses, teaches, or suggests that “one of said two protrusions [defined by at least one of the side walls is positioned] between a midpoint of its defining side wall and one end region of its defining side wall and the second of said two protrusions is positioned between the midpoint of its defining side wall and the other end region of its defining side wall,” as recited in claim 21 (GR1, GR4, and GR6), and Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 7 similarly recited in claims 27, 29, 37, 39, 45, 47, 55, and 57 (GR2, GR4, and GR6)? Issue F: With regard to GR1, GR2, GR4, and GR6, does the Examiner err in finding the cited art discloses, teaches, or suggests that “each of the protrusions is relatively small compared to its defining side wall,” as recited in claim 63 (GR1, GR4, and GR6), and similarly recited in claims 62 and 64–67 (GR2, GR4, and GR6)? Issue G: With regard to GR2, GR4, and GR6, does the Examiner err in finding the cited art teaches or suggests that “each of the side walls defines two protrusions,” as recited in claim 26, and similarly recited in claims 36, 44, and 54? Issue H: With regard to GR2 and GR4, does the Examiner err in finding the cited art teaches or suggests “a floor integrally formed as one piece together with said first, second, third, and fourth side walls,” as recited in claim 19 and similarly recited in claims 22, 30, 40, and 48. Issue J: With regard to GR2 and GR4, does the Examiner err in in concluding one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of CSR and Kandybowski as articulated by the Examiner in rejecting claim 19? Issue K: With regard to GR3, GR5, and GR6, does the Examiner err in finding that the cited art teaches or suggests that “only one of the side walls defines two protrusions thereon, and each of the other side walls defines only a single protrusion thereon,” as recited in claim 24, and similarly recited in claims 34, 42, and 52? Issue L: With regard to GR3 and GR5, does the Examiner err in concluding one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 8 teachings of Choy with CSR and Kandybowski as articulated by the Examiner in rejecting claim 24? Issue M: With regard to GR4 and GR6, does the Examiner err in finding the cited art teaches of suggests “at least one of the projections is located at a position spaced away from each end region of its corresponding inner face,” as recited in claim 19, and similarly recited in claims 20, 22, 30, 40, and 48? Issue N: With regard to GR6, does the Examiner err in concluding one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of AAPA, CSR, and Choy as articulated by the Examiner in rejecting claim 19? ANALYSIS REJECTION GR7 Issue A — Claims 62–676 The Examiner finds that the phrase “relatively small” in the claim limitation “each of the protrusions is relatively small compared to its defining side wall” (claim 63) renders each of claims 62–67 indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because “it is unclear as to how small is considered as ‘relative small’ as compared the protrusion to its defining side wall.” Final Act. 2. Appellant contends the phrase is definite because A [person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)] reviewing the teachings of the ’316 patent (3:26–33)[7] would appreciate that “relatively small compared to its defining side wall” means that 6 The claim or claims identified in the headings are the claims for which Appellant has presented an argument for separate patentability based on the identified issue. 7 This convention is used by Appellant to refer to column 3, lines 26–33. We use the same convention herein for consistency. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 9 the protrusion does not extend deeply into the cavity, but rather extends only a small amount into the cavity, and that the protrusions only extend lengthwise across a small portion of the side wall, such as shown in FIGs. 1 and 2. The specification clearly teaches that the inner surfaces of relatively small protrusions are not affected by warpage of the side wall, because of their relatively small size. ’316 patent, 3:26–34. That is, the inner surfaces stay in position to receive the chip, even if the side walls warp. This provides a POSITA with a benchmark to measure the degree of the term “relatively.” App. Br. 65. We agree with Appellant that claims are not indefinite. We do not, however, agree that the POSITA must look to the degree to which the protrusions are affected by warpage to determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Indeed, one need look no further than the ordinary meaning of the language of claims 62–67 to ascertain the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “relatively small,” which, in the context of the claims and Specification, is clear and unambiguous on its face. Taking claim 63 as exemplary of claims 62–67, the claim recites that “each of the protrusions is relatively small compared to its defining side wall.” (Emphases added.) Thus, the claim itself recites that the benchmark by which the size of the protrusion is to be measured is the size of its defining side wall. As Appellant explains, “[a]s shown in FIG. 1 [of the Specification], the protrusions of the ’316 patent do not extend very far out from the side wall, nor do they extend very long along the side wall. Thus, they are relatively small compared to the side wall.” App. Br. 64. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “relatively small compared to its defining sidewall” means that the protrusion has at least one dimension Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 10 smaller than at least one dimension of the defining sidewall. If Appellant meant for resistance to warpage to be a benchmark defining when a protrusion is or is not relatively small, that limitation would have been recited in the claims. GR7 Summary For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 62–67 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. REJECTION GR1 Issue B — Claim 20 The Examiner finds CSR discloses “a substantially rectangular cavity in the support area,” as recited in claim 20. Final Act. 6. It is undisputed that the disclosure of the CSR Fuzz Button socket at page 3 of CSR is substantially identical to the disclosure of the CSR ECT socket at page 39 of CSR. App. Br. 16. It is further undisputed that the Examiner maps the “substantially rectangular cavity” to a cavity defined as illustrated by the dashed lines in the following marked-up figure from CSR, referred to herein as Figure I. App. Br. 18–19. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 11 Figure I. Figure I illustrates a CSR Fuzz Button socket (CSR 3) and is marked with four dashed lines to illustrate the “side walls” (claim 20) that form the boundaries of the “substantially rectangular cavity” (claim 20) and with circles to call attention to the end points of the dashed lines. See App. Br. 19. Appellant contends that because “the Examiner's endpoints for the allegedly rectangular shape are arbitrarily located deep within the structure of the connector” (App. Br. 19) the cavity is not substantially rectangular, but is, instead substantially circular (id.) as illustrated in the following marked-up figure from CSR, referred to herein as Figure II, or ovoid (App. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 12 Br. 16) as illustrated in the following marked up figure from CSR, referred to herein as Figure III. See App. Br. 19. Figure II. Figure II illustrates a CSR ECT socket (CSR 39) and is marked with a circular lines to illustrate Appellant’s contention that the cavity defined by the socket’s side walls is substantially circular. See App. Br. 19. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 13 Figure III. Figure III illustrates a CSR ECT socket (CSR 39) and is marked with straight and curved lines to illustrate Appellant’s contention that the cavity defined by the socket’s side walls is substantially circular. See App. Br. 19. To summarize, Appellant argues CSR’s cavity is not substantially rectangular because CSR discloses an L-shaped structure in each corner that prevents the sidewalls from meeting at the corner. Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate Examiner error because Appellant’s argument is inconsistent with Appellant’s use of the phrase “substantially rectangular.” In particular, Appellant’s Figures 3 and 4 illustrate a socket having an L- shaped structure made up of two protrusions 2310” in each corner of a cavity 230” formed by side-walls 231”. Ma B2, Figs. 3–4. Appellant’s written description describes cavity 230” as “substantially rectangular,” despite the presence of the L-shaped structures made up of protrusions 2310”. See Ma B2, 3:43–44, 49–53. Thus, Appellant’s written description describes a Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 14 configuration that is the same in every relevant respect to that shown in CSR as having “a substantially rectangular cavity in the support area,” as recited in claim 20. Issue C — Claim 20 The Examiner finds CSR discloses that the sidewalls of the socket define protrusions thereon wherein “each of the protrusions has a substantially parallelepiped-shaped configuration,” as recited in claim 20. As illustrated in Figure IV, below, illustrating the ECT socket (CSR 39) (see Final Act. 4), the Examiner maps recited protrusions to the protrusions located at the center of each side wall and to the protrusions located in each corner of the cavity bounded by the side walls. Final Act. 6. The Examiner explains as follows: The protrusion has a substantially parallelepiped shaped configuration as recited in the instant claim 20 does not limit the protrusions to any particular size; therefore, a square protrusion spaced away from the end region of one side wall merging with a rectangular protrusion at the end region of the other side wall to form an L-shape at one corner of the cavity as annotated in the figure shown on page 5 above would read into the claimed language. These protrusions have a parallelepiped shaped configuration and locate adjacent to each other at one corner of the cavity. Note that the instant claim 20 does not require the protrusions to have a same size or to be separated from each other, especially at the corner as shown by Chip Scale Review. Ans. 6. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 15 Figure IV. Figure IV illustrates a CSR ECT socket (CSR 39) and is marked to illustrate the Examiner’s mapping of the “protrusions ha[ving] a substantially parallelepiped-shaped configuration” to the protrusions at the center of each side wall of the socket and in the corners where the sidewalls meet. See Ans. 5. Appellant does not appear to dispute that CSR’s protrusions at the center of the side walls are have a “substantially parallelepiped-shaped configuration,” as recited in claim 20. Appellant does, however, contend that the L-shaped structures at the corners of CSRs cavity are not Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 16 “substantially parallelepiped-shaped” protrusions defined by the side walls. App. Br. 20–23. Appellant argues as follows: [I]n order to attempt to find the claimed “substantially parallelepiped” shape, arbitrarily draws a line where there is no side wall, or indeed any surface, in Chip Scale Review’s structure. Drawing the lines where the actual side walls are reveals that the protrusion the Examiner relies on is not parallelepiped-shaped, it is L-shaped. If it were proper to arbitrarily draw lines anywhere inside the material of the connector, to fabricate protrusions of any arbitrary shape, then it would be possible to transform any type of protrusion into a parallelepiped-shaped protrusion, merely by ignoring the portions of the actual protrusion that didn’t fit the desired shape. This simply highlights the fact that the Examiner’s alleged “protrusion” is not defined by the side wall. It is defined by an arbitrarily-drawn line placed on the figure in Chip Scale Review. App. Br. 20. Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate Examiner error because Appellant’s argument is inconsistent with Appellant’s use of the phrase “substantially parallelepiped-shaped” in describing protrusions defined by side walls. In particular, Appellant’s Figures 3 and 4 illustrate a socket having an L-shaped structure each made up of two protrusions 2310” in each corner of a cavity 230” formed by side-walls 231”. Ma B2, 3:43–44, 49–53, Figs. 3–4. Appellant’s written description describes the L-shaped structures made up of protrusions 2310” as follows: “A pair of parallelepiped-shaped protrusions 2310” extends from opposite ends of each side wall 231” into the cavity 230”. In addition, two adjacent protrusions 2310” at each of two adjoining side walls 231” are integrally formed together to provide an L- shaped configuration.” Ma B2, 3:49–53 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellant’s written description describes an L-shaped structure similar in every relevant respect to those shown in CSR as being made up of “[a] pair Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 17 of parallelepiped-shaped protrusions” defined by the side walls from which they protrude. Id. Issue D — Claim 20 The Examiner finds CSR discloses that “at least one of the side walls defines at least two protrusions thereon extending into the cavity” as recited in claim 20. Final Act. 6. The Examiner maps the at least two protrusions to one leg of each of the two L-shaped structures located at the ends of each side wall. Id.; see Fig. IV supra. Appellant contends the two L-shaped structures are defined by two adjacent sidewalls, rather than a single side wall as claimed. App. Br. 25. Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate error because it is not commensurate with the language of the claim. Claim 20 utilizes the open- ended transition term “comprising.” “‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Although claim 20 requires that the protrusions be defined by a (first) side wall, we find nothing in claim 20 that precludes an adjacent (second) side wall from cooperating with the first side wall to define the protrusion. Issue E — Claim 21 The Examiner finds CSR discloses that that “one of said two protrusions [defined by at least one of the side walls is positioned] between a midpoint of its defining side wall and one end region of its defining side wall and the second of said two protrusions is positioned between the midpoint of its defining side wall and the other end region of its defining Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 18 side wall,” as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 6–7. Referring to the parallelepiped-shaped protrusions forming legs of the L-shaped structures at the end of each side wall (see Fig. IV supra) the Examiner explains that these “protrusions [are] at opposite ends of each side wall, which necessarily means the protrusions are between a midpoint of the defining side wall and an end region thereof.” Final Act. 7. Appellant contends [t]he Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language reads the term “region” out of the claim. The claim does not say that the protrusion is between a midpoint and the end of a side wall. Instead it says that the protrusion is between a midpoint and the end region of a side wall. App. Br. 26. We agree with Appellant. A region is “an extensive, continuous part of a surface, space, or body” THE RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1623 (2d ed. unabridged 1987), and is synonymous with “area, section, portion,” id. The Examiner’s mapping ignores the plain meaning of “region,” which requires that a region of a surface or body, such as a side wall, have an extent, i.e., be an area and more than a boundary. In other words, a region can include a boundary, but it cannot comprise only a boundary. Therefore, Appellant demonstrates that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 21 as anticipated by CSR. But cf. GR4 (Issues E and M) infra. Issue F — Claim 63 The Examiner finds that CSR discloses that “each of the protrusions is relatively small compared to its defining side wall,” as recited in claim 63. Final Act. 7. Appellant argues as follows: Chip Scale Review’s protrusions . . . are deep and extend across a large portion of the side walls identified by the Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 19 Examiner. They extend well away from what the Examiner contends is the side wall, and they also expand lengthwise to cover a significant portion of what the Examiner contends is the side wall. This is significant, because recall that the purpose of the protrusions is to combat the effects of warpage in the side wall. ’316 Patent, 3:25-34. A structure such as that shown in Chip Scale Review, which extends over a significant portion of the side wall, would be warped nearly as much as the sidewall itself, and would thus not be useful to combat warpage. The use of relatively small protrusions is what allows the claimed socket to realize the advantages discussed in the specification, of combating warpage. A POSITA would appreciate that the inner surfaces of Chip Scale Review’s protrusions would be affected by warpage of Chip Scale Review’s sidewalls, and the large inner surfaces of Chip Scale Review’s protrusions would not stay in position to receive the chip, because of their relatively large size. Thus, Chip Scale Review does not teach the use of relatively small protrusions, as claimed in claim 63. App. Br. 28. Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 63 because it is not commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 63, as discussed supra regarding GR7 (Issue A). Rather, Appellant relies on limitations not found in the claim. Referring to Figure I supra, each of the illustrated protrusion is smaller in both width and depth than the overall length of the defining sidewall, and also smaller than portions of the sidewalls that do not have extending protrusions. Accordingly, CSR discloses that “each of the protrusions is relatively small compared to its defining side wall,” as recited in claim 63. GR1 Summary Appellant has not demonstrated error in Rejection GR1 regarding claims 20 and 63. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by CSR. Appellant has Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 20 demonstrated error in Rejection GR1 regarding claim 21. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by CSR. REJECTION GR2 Issues B, C, D, and F — Claims 19, 22, 31, 32, 40, 48, 49, 50, 62, and 64–67 Although GR2 is based on obviousness over CSR and Kandybowski rather than anticipation by CSR,8 with regard to Issues B, C, D, and F the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Final Act. 7–11) and Appellant’s contentions and arguments (App. Br. 30–33), are substantially the same as discussed supra regarding GR1 (Issues B, C, D). Appellant’s arguments and contentions regarding Issues B, C. D, and F do not demonstrate error in GR2 for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as for GR1. With regard to Issue F, we note for emphasis that Kandybowski also teaches protrusions that are relatively small compared to their respective defining sidewalls. See Kandybowski Fig. 1 (item 38). Issue E — Claims 27, 29, 37, 39, 45, 47, 55, and 57 With regard to Issue E, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Final Act. 13) and Appellant’s contentions and arguments (App. Br. 34–35) are substantially the same as discussed supra regarding GR1 (Issue E). Appellant’s arguments and contentions regarding Issue E demonstrate error in GR2 for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as for GR1. But cf. GR4 (Issues E and M) infra. 8 We note that “‘anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.’” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 21 Issue G — Claims 26, 36, 44, and 54 The Examiner finds CSR teaches that “each of the side walls defines two protrusions,” as recited in claim 26. Final Act. 12–13; see Fig. IV supra. Appellant’s contentions and arguments are substantially the same as discussed supra regarding GR1 (Issue D). See App. Br. 33–34. Appellant’s contentions and arguments do not demonstrate error for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as for GR1 (Issue D). Issue H — Claims 19, 30, 33, 40, and 48 The Examiner finds Kandybowski teaches or suggests a connector having “a floor integrally formed as one piece together with said first, second, third, and fourth side walls,” as recited in claim 19. Final Act. 12 (citing Kandybowski 2:35–39, Fig. 1). The Examiner explains that Kandybowski is relied on to teach the well-known technique of molding a part as a single piece, which is one of several well-known alternative techniques for assembling things together as one piece. Ans. 11 (citing Kandybowski 2:36–44, Fig. 1). Appellant contends as follows: Kandybowski simply mentions in passing that its housing 30 is preferably molded from a suitable material such as polysulfone. Kandybowski, 2:35-40. Kandybowski does not state that the housing 30 is formed by molding side walls 32 and floor 34 together as one piece, as opposed to, for example, molding the housing 30 in two pieces, one for the side walls 32 and one for the floor 34, and then gluing or otherwise assembling them together. App. Br. 35–36. Appellant has not demonstrated Examiner error. Kandybowski states that “[e]lectrical connector 10 includes dielectric housing 30 which is preferably molded from a suitable material such as a polysulfone” Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 22 (Kandybowski 2:35–37), and “upwardly extending side walls 32 of housing 30 and surface 34 define cavity 36 in which package 14 is received” (id. 2:40–42). Kandybowski’s Figure 1 illustrates housing 30 as a single piece with including side walls 32 and surface (floor) 34. Notably, there is no dividing line shown on the periphery of housing 30 that would indicate that the sidewalls and floor are two parts joined together after molding. We agree with the Examiner that the POSITA would infer from Kandybowski’s teachings that housing 30 is molded as a single piece, i.e., that the side walls are molded integrally or monolithically with the floor. Issue J The Examiner concludes as follows: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have integrally formed the housing having floor and side walls as a single piece as suggested by Kandybowski in Chip Scale Review structure since it would reduce complexity and provide a strong piece of housing. Final Act. 12. The Examiner explains that “[a] POSITA would have appreciated that by using molding technique, it would simplify the process, reduce processing time, and provide a strong piece of housing.” Ans. 11. Appellant contends neither Kandybowski nor say anything about “advantages to forming the floor and sidewalls together as a single piece.” App. Br. 35. Appellant further contends that the POSITA would perceive a number of disadvantages presented to molding a device connector such as that taught by Kandybowski and CSR as a single piece. App. Br. 36–38. Appellant’s arguments do not demonstrate Examiner error. “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 23 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). “Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.” Id. at 421. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. The Federal Circuit has “[held] that while an analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence that supports the required Graham factual findings, it also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“It has long been the law that the motivation to combine need not be found in prior art references, but equally can be found ‘in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.’” (quoting In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 351 (Fed. Cir. 1992))). Here the Examiner has relied on common sense and the knowledge generally available to the POSITA. Appellant does not dispute the correctness or predictability of the advantages articulated by the Examiner, but rather posits certain concomitant disadvantages, also drawn, at least in part, from knowledge available to the POSITA, rather than the references. See, e.g., App. Br. 37. However, a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 24 Appellant contends the combination articulated by the Examiner is based on hindsight, because the only discussion of using integral molding to reduce warpage appears in Appellant’s written description in Ma B2. App. Br. 38. Appellant does not demonstrate Examiner error, because the Examiner relies on the well-known and predictable advantages of integral or monolithic molding of simplified assembly and greater strength in the molded part. See Final Act. 12; Ans. 11. To be sure, in responding to Appellant’s arguments during prosecution, the Examiner does state “molding or integrally or monolithically forming . . . would have yielded predictable result such as to provide a strong, solid piece of housing which would further prevent the warpage problem.” Final Act. 37. However, when read in context, the Examiner is merely making the observation that it is predictable that a stronger, more solid housing would be less prone to warping, rather than relying on the resistance to warping as a motivation to combine the teachings of Kandybowski and CSR. GR2 Summary Appellant has not demonstrated error in Rejection GR2 regarding claims 19, 22, 26, 30–32, 36, 40, 44, 48–50, 54, 62 and 64–67. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 19, 22, 26, 30–32, 36, 40, 44, 48–50, 54, 62 and 64–67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over CSR and Kandybowski. We will also sustain the rejection of claims 23, 33, 41, 51, and 58–61, which variously depend from claims 22, 30, 40, and 48 and were not separately argued with particularity. Appellant has demonstrated error in Rejection GR2 regarding claims 27, 29, 37, 39, 45, 47, 55, and 57. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 27, 29, 37, 39, 45, 47, 55, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 25 § 103(a) as obvious over CSR and Kandybowski. We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 28, 38, 46, and 56 because of their respective dependency from claims 27, 37, 45, and 55. REJECTION GR3 Issue K — Claims 24, 34, 42, and 52 The Examiner finds that Choy, when combined with CSR and Kandybowski, teaches that “only one of the side walls defines two protrusions thereon, and each of the other side walls defines only a single protrusion thereon,” as recited in claim 24. Final Act. 14–17 (citing Kandybowski Figs. 10, 15). The Examiner explains that Choy teaches that it is known in the relevant art the use of two protrusions extending from one sidewall of a rectangular opening, with only one protrusion extending from each of the other three sidewalls, is a known alternative to the use of two protrusions extending from each of the four sidewalls. Final Act. 14, 16–17. The Examiner further explains “Choy is relied on for the teaching of protrusions’ locations, [that] the protrusions [are] defined by side members [is] disclosed by Chip Scale Review and Kandybowski.” Ans. 12. Appellant contends “claim[] 24. . . require[s] that the claimed side walls ‘define’ the claimed [protrusions.] Choy’s protrusions 18d are not defined by Choy’s side members 18a, which are the side walls.” App. Br. 40 (referring to Choy Figs. 10, 15). Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate Examiner error because it is not commensurate with the Examiner’s articulated rejection, which was based on a combination of Choy’s arrangement of protrusions with CSR’s and Kandybowski’s teaching that protrusions from a side wall may be defined by the respective sidewall. It is well established that “one cannot Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 26 show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). We note for further emphasis, that Choy teaches that the guide portion 18b, which includes pressing portion 18d (Choy 5:44–46), may be “integrally formed to [i.e., defined by] the guide member 18” (Choy 8:40– 41) which includes side portions 18a. See Choy Figs. 12–14. Issue L The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to arrange the substitute the protrusion arrangement taught by Choy’s Figure 15 (two protrusions from one side wall, only one protrusion from each of the other three side walls) for the protrusion arrangement taught by the combination CSR and Kandybowski (at least two protrusions from each of the four side walls) (see also Choy Fig. 10). App. Br. 16–17. The Examiner concludes the POSITA would have learned from Choy that the arrangement of Choy’s Figure 15 and the arrangement of Choy’s Figure 10, in which there are two protrusions from each of the four side walls, are art recognized equivalents performing the same function. Final Act. 16–17. The Examiner further concludes that the substitution of one arrangement for another would have been within the skill of the POSITA. Final Act 16–17. Appellant contends the POSITA would not be motivated to substitute Choy’s protrusions from those of CSR because they perform different functions. App. Br. 40–41. Appellant argues that Choy’s protrusions elastically hold an IC package in place, whereas CSR’s and Kandybowski’s protrusions are static and inflexible, and thus unable to hold an IC package in place elastically. App. Br. 41. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 27 Appellant’s arguments do not demonstrate error in the combination articulated by the Examiner. The POSITA would have recognized that CSR’s, Kandybowski’s, Choy’s, and the claimed protrusions have the same function, to hold an electronic component in place in a socket. Furthermore, Appellant’s argument mischaracterizes the rejection articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner’s rejection does not substitute Choy’s protrusions for CSR’s for Kandybowski’s protrusions, as asserted by Appellant, but rather, as pointed out by the Examiner, substitutes one arrangement of Choy’s (see Choy Fig. 15) protrusions for CSR’s or Kandybowski’s (or another one of Choy’s (see Choy Fig. 10)) arrangement of protrusions. See Ans. 12. Appellant contends Choy teaches away from combination with CSR and Kandybowski because “[s]tatic protrusions are, if anything, the opposite of elastic protrusions, and indeed Choy expressly teaches that using static protrusions is undesirable.” App. Br. 41 (citing Choy 1:58–67). Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate error. Appellant adduces no evidence whatsoever that the protrusions taught by CSR and Kandybowski are inelastic. Furthermore, we find nothing in Choy, or in any other reference that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of Choy’s arrangements of protrusions in CSR’s or Kandybowski’s sockets. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). GR3 Summary Appellant has not demonstrated error in Rejection GR3 regarding claims 24, 34, 42, and 52. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 24, 34, 42, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over CSR, Kandybowski, and Choy. We will also sustain the rejection of claims 25, Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 28 35, 43, and 53, which depend from claims 24, 34, 42, and 52 respectively, and were not separately argued with particularity. REJECTION GR4 Issue B — Claims 19, 20, 22, 31, 40, and 49 The Examiner finds Kandybowski teaches “a substantially rectangular cavity in the support area,” as recited in claim 20. Final Act. 18 (citing Kandybowski Fig. 1 (item 36)). Referring to the argument made for GR1 (Issue B), discussed supra, Appellant contends that when Chip Scale Review is combined with Kandybowski, to create the combination that the Examiner contends renders these claims obvious, the substantially rectangular cavity of Kandybowski would no longer exist. Instead, because the combination uses Chip Scale Review’s protrusions, the cavity would have the shape of Chip Scale Review’s cavity. App. Br. 42. Appellant’s argument fails to demonstrate Examiner error for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as discussed supra regarding GR1 (Issue B). We additionally note that Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate error because it assumes bodily incorporation of one reference into another, rather than a combination of the teachings and suggestions of the references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Issue C and F — Claims 20, 22, 32, 40, 50, and 62–67 Although GR4 is based on obviousness over Kandybowski and CSR rather than anticipation by CSR, with regard to Issues C and F the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Final Act. 20, 22) and Appellant’s contentions and arguments (App. Br. 43, 49–50), are substantially the same as discussed supra regarding GR1 (Issue C). Appellant’s arguments and Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 29 contentions regarding Issues C and F do not demonstrate error in GR4 for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as for GR1. We note for emphasis regarding Issue F that Kandybowski also teaches protrusions that are relatively small compared to an associated side wall. See Kandybowski Fig. 1 (items 36, 38). Issue D — Claims 19, 20, 22, 30, 40, and 48 The Examiner relies on Kandybowski to teach “at least one of the side walls defines at least two protrusions thereon extending into the cavity” as recited in claim 20. Final Act. 19 (citing Kandybowski Fig. 1 (item 38)). The Examiner relies on CSR, when combined with Kandybowski, to teach various structural features of the protrusions. Final Act. 20; see Figs. I–IV supra. Appellant contends Kandybowski’s arcuate bosses are not protrusions as claims because they lack certain structural features recited in the claims. App. Br. 44. Appellant then relies on arguments substantially identical to those presented for GR1 (Issues B, C, D, and E), discussed supra, to argue that CSR does not teach that “at least one of the side walls defines at least two protrusions thereon extending into the cavity” as recited in claim 20. Appellant’s arguments do not demonstrate Examiner error because the Examiner relies on a combination of Kandybowski and CSR to teach the claimed protrusions, not either reference alone. As we point out above, it is well established that “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 30 Furthermore, Appellant’s arguments do not demonstrate error for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as discussed above for GR1 (Issues B, C, and D).9 Issues E and M — Claims 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 37, 39, 40, 45, 47, 48, 55, and 57 The Examiner finds Kandybowski teaches that “one of said two protrusions [defined by at least one of the side walls is positioned] between a midpoint of its defining sidewall and one end region of its defining side wall and the second of said two protrusions is positioned between the midpoint of its defining side wall and the other end region of its defining side wall,” as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 21 (citing Kandybowski Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds Kandybowski teaches that “at least one of the projections is located at a position spaced away from each end region of its corresponding inner face,” as recited in claim 19. Final Act. 19 (citing Kandybowski Fig. 1). Appellant contends that “the Kandybowski arcuate bosses 38 are located in the end region” rather than spaced away from the end regions or between an end region and a midpoint of the defining sidewall. App. Br. 45, 48. Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate Examiner error. As discussed supra regarding GR1 (Issue E) the broadest reasonable interpretation of “end region” in Appellant’s claims requires that the “end region have an extent and be more than a boundary. Figure V below 9 We discuss GR4 (Issue E) and its relationship to GR1 (Issue E) under the immediately following heading. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 31 illustrates an end region of a sidewall as taught by Appellant’s written description. Figure V. Figure V is a top view of Appellant’s sidewalls with protrusions (Ma B2, Fig. 2) annotated with a circle to indicate an “end region” of a side wall in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “end region.” However, Appellant points to nothing in the written description or claims that limits the size of an “end region.” Accordingly, any region of a sidewall located between the end of a side wall and a protrusion is an “end region” of the side wall, regardless of its size, provided it has an extent and is more than a boundary. Figure VI below illustrates an end region of Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 32 Kandybowski’s sidewall that is encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “end region” in accordance with Appellant’s claims. Figure VI. Figure VI is a partial perspective view of Kandybowski’s side walls with protrusions (Kandybowski, Fig. 1) annotated with a circle to indicate an “end region” of a side wall in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “end region.” Appellant additionally contends that Kandybowski’s protrusions lack certain recited structural features—features for which the Examiner relies on CSR combined with Kandybowski, rather than Kandybowski alone. App. Br. 48–49. Appellant’s arguments fail to demonstrate error because they attack the reference separately, or rely on bodily incorporation of one reference into another, rather than the combined teachings and suggestions of the references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425–26. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 33 Issue G — Claims 26, 36, 44, and 54 The Examiner finds Kandybowski teaches that “each of the side walls defines two protrusions,” as recited in claim 26. Final Act. 21 (citing Kandybowski Fig. 1). Appellant contends that Kandybowski’s protrusions lacks certain recited structural features—features for which the Examiner relies on CSR combined with Kandybowski, rather than Kandybowski alone. App. Br. 46– 47. Appellant’s arguments fail to demonstrate error because they attack the references separately, and rely on bodily incorporation of one reference into another, rather than the combined teachings and suggestions of the references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425–26. Issue H — Claims 19, 22, 30, 40, and 48 Appellant does not specifically argue Issue H with regard to GR4, merely stating that “all of the reasons recited [regarding GR2] . . . for why a POSITA would not have combined Chip Scale Review with Kandybowski apply equally here.” App. Br. 53. Appellant’s arguments and contentions regarding Issue H do not demonstrate error in GR4 for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as for GR2. Issue J The Examiner concludes “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have replaced arcuate bosses with parallelepiped-shaped protrusion as suggested by Chip Scale Review in Kandybowski structure since the flat surface would provide an accurate measuring benchmarks.” Final Act. 20–21. Appellant argues the need for accurate measuring benchmarks is only found in Appellant’s Specification, and the Examiner’s conclusion is, Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 34 therefore, based on impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 50–53. Appellant additionally argues the half-circle shape of the arcuate bosses in Kandybowski actually teaches away from combining Kandybowski with Chip Scale Review. A POSITA would understand that the half-circle shape is easier to insert a chip package into, because there’s less surface area that would impact the package, and no sharp corners that would catch the package as its being inserted. App. Br. 51. Appellant’s contentions and arguments do not demonstrate Examiner error. Although not discussed in the cited art, the desirability of accurate measuring benchmarks in the knowledge available to the POSITA. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419; see also Nat’l Steel Car, 357 F.3d at 1337. That the POSITA would have known that accurate measuring benchmarks are important is evidenced by Appellant’s description of the prior art. See Ma B2 col. 1:39–43 (discussing Fig. 6 (PRIOR ART)). Appellant’s description of the prior art also evidences that the POSITA would have understood that a surface that acts as a single flat plane provides an accurate measuring benchmark. Id. As to Appellant’s “teaching away” argument, we find nothing in Kandybowski or in any other reference that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of CSR’s parallelepiped-shaped protrusions in Kandybowski’s sockets. See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Appellant has, at most, established that the use of CSR’s protrusions in Kandybowski’s sockets may have concomitant disadvantages. However, a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine. Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1165. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 35 Appellant further contends that “all of the reasons recited [regarding GR2] . . . for why a POSITA would not have combined Chip Scale Review with Kandybowski apply equally here.” App. Br. 53. Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate error in GR4 for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as for GR2 (Issue J). Rejection GR4 Summary Appellant has not demonstrated error in Rejection GR4 regarding claims 19–22, 26, 27, 29–32, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47–50, 54, 55, 57, and 62–67. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 19–22, 26, 27, 29–32, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47–50, 54, 55, 57, and 62–67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kandybowski and CSR. We will also sustain the rejection of claims 23, 28, 33, 38, 41, 46, 51, 56, 58–61, which variously depend from claims 22, 27, 30, 37, 40, 45, 48, and 55 and were not separately argued with particularity. REJECTION GR5 Issues K and L Regarding Issues K and L, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Final Act. 22–25) and Appellant’s contentions and arguments (App. Br. 53– 55) are substantially the same as for GR3 (Issues K and L). Appellant’s arguments and contentions regarding Issues K and L do not demonstrate error in GR5 for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as for GR3. Rejection GR5 Summary Appellant has not demonstrated error in Rejection GR5 regarding claims 24, 34, 42, and 52. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 24, 34, 42, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over CSR, Kandybowski, and Choy. We will also sustain the rejection of claims 25, Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 36 35, 43, and 53, which depend from claims 24, 34, 42, and 52 respectively, and were not separately argued with particularity. REJECTION GR6 Because we sustain the rejection under § 103(a) of each of claims 19– 67 at least one of GR1–GR5, we need not reach the merits of the alternative obviousness grounds GR6, which is merely cumulative to the Examiner’s unpatentability decision based on GR1–GR5. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that obviousness rejections need not be reached upon affirming a rejection of all claims as anticipated); Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (approving ITC’s determination based on a single dispositive issue, and not reaching other issues not decided by the lower tribunal). CONCLUSIONS On the record before us, we find and conclude as follows: GR1: We affirm the rejection of claims 20 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by CSR. We reverse the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by CSR. GR2: We affirm the rejection of claims 19, 22, 23, 26, 30–33, 36, 40, 41, 44, 48–51, 54, 58–62, and 64–67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over CSR and Kandybowski. We reverse the rejection of claims 27–29, 37– 39, 45–47, and 55–57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over CSR and Kandybowski. GR3: We affirm the rejection of claims 24, 25, 34, 35, 42, 43, 52, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over CSR, Kandybowski, and Choy. Appeal 2018-002190 Application 90/013,555 37 GR4: We affirm the rejections of claims 19–23, 26–33, 36–41, 44– 51, and 54–67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kandybowski and CSR. GR5: We affirm the rejection of claims 24, 25, 34, 35, 42, 43, 52, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kandybowski, CSR, and Choy. GR6: We do not reach the rejection of claims 19–67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over AAPA, CSR, and Choy. GR7: We reverse the rejection of claims 62–67 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. DECISION Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 19–67 is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation