Ex Parte 7,144,170 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2013

95001371 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 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.
95/001,371 06/07/2010 7,144,170 PLP0003USR 1432
29180 7590 07/01/2013
K&L Gates LLP
P.O. BOX 1135
CHICAGO, IL 60690
EXAMINER
LEWIS, AARON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2013 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
____________________

PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Requester, Appellant

v.

RICHARD PARKS CORROSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
1

Patent Owner, Respondent
____________________

Appeal 2013-001649
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
2

Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
Richard Parks Corrosion Technologies, Inc. is the Patent Owner and the
real party in interest (Patent Owner‟s Respondent Brief Under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.68 (hereinafter "Resp. Br.") 1).
2
Patent US 7,144,170 B2 (hereinafter "the '170 patent") issued December 5,
2006, to Richard Parks and Heather Parks.
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-17 of the „170 patent are the subject of the present appeal.
The Requester appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 from the Examiner's
refusal, as set forth in the Right of Appeal Notice (RAN)
3
, to adopt certain
rejections proposed by the Requester, and from the Examiner‟s withdrawal
of a previous adoption of certain other rejections, and relies on its Appeal
Brief (hereinafter "App. Br.") in support of its positions. The Patent Owner
relies on a Respondent Brief in support of the Examiner's decision. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315.
The following proceedings have been identified as being related to
subject '170 patent (App. Br. 5; Resp. Br. 2):
1. Reexamination Control 95/001,656 (Appeal 2013-007786) for
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,384, which issued from a continuation application of
the application that issued as the subject '170 patent; and
2. Richard Parks Corrosion Tech Inc. v. Plas-Pak Indus Inc., V.O.
Baker Co. Inc., Thomas Baker and Jason Baker, Civil Action No.
2010cv00437 (D. Conn.), which is characterized by the Requester and the
Patent owner as a contract action.
We AFFIRM.

3
The Examiner's Answer mailed August 14, 2012 merely incorporates by
reference the RAN mailed December 15, 2011, and thus, we cite to the RAN
herein.
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
3
THE INVENTION
The '170 patent is directed to a device for applying a coating. Claim 1
is the sole independent claim on appeal and reads as follows (Claims
Appendix, emphasis added):
1. A device for applying a coating, comprising:

a multi-component cartridge comprising at least
two cylindrical cartridges,

each cylindrical cartridge comprising an aperture
and an open filling end that is disposed opposite
the aperture and

that is slidingly sealed by a cartridge piston seal,

a static mixing nozzle in fluid communication with
each aperture,

and at least one paint applicator selected from the
group consisting of a roller, a brush, and a spray
tip, in fluid communication with the nozzle,

wherein at least one flexible hose is disposed
between and in fluid communication with the
cartridge and nozzle.

PROPOSED REJECTIONS NOT ADOPTED
The Requester appeals from the Examiner‟s refusal to adopt the
following proposed rejections:
(i) Claims 1, 9-12 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kott (US 2001/0030241, published Oct. 18, 2001);
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
4
(ii) Claims 2-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kott in view of Wise (US 3,847,112, issued Nov. 12, 1974);
(iii) Claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kott in view of Anson (US 2,504,487, issued Apr. 18, 1950);
(iv) Claims 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kott
in view of Hansen (US 6,632,860 B1, issued Oct. 14, 2003); and
(v) Claims 12, 13, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kott in view of Hermele (US 5,686,507, issued Nov. 11,
1997).

REJECTIONS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED, NOW WITHDRAWN
The Requester further appeals from the Examiner‟s withdrawal of the
following previously-adopted rejections:
(vi) Claims 1 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Jacobsen (US 6,241,125 B1, issued Jun. 5, 2001) in view of Hunter (US
2002/0170982, issued Nov. 21, 2002);
(vii) Claims 1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Jacobsen in view of Wise, Flackett (US 6,099,160, issued Aug. 8, 2000) and
Gaither (US 5,496,123, issued Mar. 5, 1996);
(viii) Claims 1, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jacobsen in view of Anson, Flackett and Gaither;
(ix) Claims 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Jacobsen in view of Hunter and Hansen; and
(x) Claims 12, 13, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of Hunter and Hermele.
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
5

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being
modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion
or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "To facilitate review, [an obviousness] analysis
should be made explicit." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections
on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness")).

ISSUES
1. Whether the Requester has established that Kott discloses the use
of a flexible hose disposed between and in fluid communication with a
cartridge and a static mixer nozzle, or that Kott renders obvious such a
construction.
2. Whether the Requester has established that the Examiner erred in
finding that the Requester‟s proposed modification of the Jacobsen device to
include any of a spray tip, a roller or a brush would have rendered the
Jacobsen device unsuitable for its intended purpose.
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
6
ANALYSIS
Proposed Rejections (i)-(v)--Not Adopted
(i) Claims 1, 9-12 and 14-17--Unpatentability over Kott
The Requester contends that the Examiner erred in finding that “there
is no teaching of situating the flexible hoses (34a and 34b) between mixing
tube (94) and the caulking gun (200), as required by the language of claim
1.” App. Br. 10, quoting RAN, para. 9. The Requester additionally
contends that, even if there is no explicit disclosure in Kott of a flexible hose
connecting a static mixing tube to the caulking gun, the Examiner erred in
not concluding that such an arrangement would have been obvious as being
“a simple, predictable variation that is of common sense to one of ordinary
skill in the art . . .”. App. Br. 13.
Through its own arguments, Requester effectively concedes that there
is no explicit disclosure of disposing a flexible hose between a static mixing
tube or nozzle and a multi-component cartridge, which, in Kott, takes the
form of a caulking gun. Instead of pointing to a specific drawing figure or a
specific passage in Kott evidencing such explicit disclosure, the Requester
proffers a discussion of various details of the Kott structure illustrated in
Figure 1, which does not employ a multi-component cartridge, and the Kott
structure illustrated in Figure 8, which illustrates a caulking gun with a
threaded connection thereon to directly connect to the static mixing tube
using no flexible hose. The Requester then makes the arguments that “a
direct connection or a flexible hose connection is a simple design choice,”
that “a flexible hose connection between the caulking gun and mixing tube
(94) would be based on engineering choices,” and further that “there are
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
7
only a finite number of ways in which the caulking gun (200) can „engage‟
the mixing tube (94).” App. Br. 12. The Requester then “submits” that
these factors result in an “overall disclosure” in Kott that one way to connect
the Figure 8 caulking gun to the static mixing tube is by a flexible hose
connection. Id.
Accepting, arguendo, the underlying contentions as true, they fall
short of establishing an explicit disclosure in Kott of the use of a flexible
hose disposed between a static mixing tube and a caulking gun. Each of the
contentions directed to design choice, engineering choice and finite number
of ways to connect, are in the nature of arguments that the claimed structure,
although “not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102”
nevertheless would have been obvious under § 103. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As
such, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner‟s finding that Kott does
not explicitly disclose disposing a flexible hose between its caulking gun and
its static mixing tube.
We are similarly not persuaded that the Examiner erred in not
concluding that it would have been obvious in view of Kott to dispose a
flexible hose between its caulking gun and its static mixing tube. The
Requester asserts that such a construction is “a simple, predictable variation
that is of common sense to one of ordinary skill in the art under KSR.” App.
Br. 13.
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
8
The Requester discusses the factual situations underlying two Federal
Circuit cases
4
decided subsequent to the Supreme Court decision in KSR.
We do not regard either of these decisions as involving facts that are
sufficiently similar to the facts at hand that we are compelled to follow either
decision, nor do we believe that either is particularly instructive in
approaching the facts of the instant case. The Requester urges that the
present situation presents an even more compelling case for concluding that
the claims are unpatentable, in that the Kott patent itself discloses the two
embodiments relied on, whereas, in Tokai and Leapfrog, obviousness was
established based upon a combination of teachings from more than one
reference. App. Br. 14-15. The Requester cites to Boston Scientific SciMed
Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009) as an example of a case
in which obviousness was found as a result of combining features of two
embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a single prior art reference.
App. Br. 15. We are unaware, however, of any precedent that stands for the
proposition that a more compelling case of obviousness will exist when all
of the teachings relied upon in establishing obviousness are drawn from a
single reference.
The Requester insufficiently addresses the position that employing a
flexible hose connection between the Kott caulking gun and mixing tube is a
“simple, predictable variation” of the direct, threaded connection that Kott
explicitly discloses. App. Br. 13. In this regard, the Requester maintains
that this modification would have been obvious “to provide flexibility for

4
Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc., 632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011),
and Leapfrog (Enterprise), Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
9
moving the spray gun during spraying.” App. Br. 14. The Requester further
observes that, in Kott, “whether other attachments such as a flush tank can
be directly connected to the mixer body depends on whether the attachment
is light enough so as to allow the spray gun to be portable,” and that “Kott
teaches braided steel flexible hoses as a preferred connection for providing
flexibility for moving the spray gun.” App. Br. 15, citing to Kott, p. 4, para.
[0042], p, 5, para. [0048].
The disclosure directed to the use of braided steel flexible hoses
pertains to providing flexibility for moving the spray gun when the spray
gun is employed with, and coupled to, tanks containing the components to
be mixed for spraying, with the tanks installed on a relatively non-portable
cart. Kott, p. 2, para. [0027], p. 4, paras. [0041], [0042]. The discussion in
Kott of preferably providing a flush tank that is sufficiently small and light
enough to be directly mounted to a mounting block on a spray gun is
consistent with Kott‟s disclosure of employing a direct, threaded connection
when the caulking gun (200) is to be used with the static mixing tube (94).
In other words, providing another component, such as a flush tank, is not
seen by Kott as reducing the flexibility for moving the spray gun, provided it
is sufficiently small and light. Kott, p. 5, para. [0048]. Similarly, the
caulking gun is implicitly seen by Kott as being sufficiently small and light
so as to allow for a direct connection to the mixing tube, without reducing
the flexibility for moving the spray gun, or impairing the ability to employ
the caulking gun and mixer tube in applying a finish color or texture. Kott,
p. 7-8, paras. [0078], [0079].
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
10
The Requester‟s position fails to fully appreciate that, in the Figure 8
embodiment of Kott, the caulking gun and mixing tube being coupled by a
direct, threaded connection results in those components together, along with
spray tip (44), forming the spray gun. While replacing the direct, threaded
connection with a flexible hose connection would seemingly provide the
predictable result that the caulking gun and mixing tube would still be
connected in the sense of being in fluid communication with one another
5
,
the Requester has not addressed what, if any, desirability or predictability
there is to decoupling previously directly connected components of what is
effectively the spray gun itself, in terms of how the components of the spray
gun are handled, and whether and how such a modification would
predictably provide flexibility for moving the spray gun during spraying.
The Examiner‟s decision to not adopt the proposed rejection of claims
1, 9-12 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kott is
sustained.

(ii) Claims 2-6 and 8--Unpatentability over Kott and Wise
The Requester relies on the same arguments advanced with respect to
claim 1 in assigning error to the Examiner‟s failure to adopt this ground of

5
This broad result is essentially the same as finding that the caulking gun
and mixing tube can or could be connected by a flexible hose. However, the
mere fact that the prior art may be modified in a particular manner does not
render obvious such a modification unless there is a rational reason to make
such a modification, or the prior art suggests its desirability. KSR, 550 U.S.
at 418; Gordon, 733 F.2d at 902; In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
11
rejection. App. Br. 15. For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner‟s
decision to not adopt this proposed rejection is sustained.

(iii) Claims 6 and 7--Unpatentability over Kott and Anson
The Requester relies on the same arguments advanced with respect to
claim 1 in assigning error to the Examiner‟s failure to adopt this ground of
rejection. App. Br. 16. For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner‟s
decision to not adopt this proposed rejection is sustained.

(iv) Claims 12-17--Unpatentability over Kott and Hansen
The Requester relies on the same arguments advanced with respect to
claim 1 in assigning error to the Examiner‟s failure to adopt this ground of
rejection. App. Br. 16. For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner‟s
decision to not adopt this proposed rejection is sustained.

(v) Claims 12, 13, 15 and 16--Unpatentability over Kott and Hermele
The Requester relies on the same arguments advanced with respect to
claim 1 in assigning error to the Examiner‟s failure to adopt this ground of
rejection. App. Br. 16-17. For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner‟s
decision to not adopt this proposed rejection is sustained.

Withdrawn Rejections (vi)-(x)
(vi) Claims 1 and 9-11--Unpatentability over Jacobsen and Hunter
The Requester contends that the Examiner‟s withdrawal of the
adoption of this rejection was founded on taking the erroneous position that
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
12
the intended use of the Jacobsen device is to dispense fluid material into
cracks while ensuring minimum leakage. App. Br. 17-20. According to the
Requester, this allegedly erroneous interpretation of Jacobsen led the
Examiner to an erroneous determination that it would not have been obvious
to substitute the spray device of Hunter for the dispensing nozzle of
Jacobsen, as such substitution would render Jacobsen unsuitable for its
intended purpose. App. Br. 20-23; see RAN, p. 7, l. 17-p. 8, l. 14.
The Requester takes the position that the Examiner‟s position “is
based on one specific embodiment of Jacobsen,” and that Jacobsen includes
what the Requester appears to be regarding as a different, less-specific
embodiment that is not necessarily limited to dispensing fluid materials into
cracks, but instead has no specific dispensing device identified, for the
purpose of dispensing fluid material “where and when needed.” App. Br.
18, citing to Jacobsen, col. 2, ll. 46-56. This latter purpose or intended use is
argued by the Requester as being fulfilled by the purportedly different
embodiment illustrated in Figure 10 of Jacobsen, which illustrates a fluid
delivery system made up of components from a kit, to which no specific
dispensing device is attached. App. Br. 18-19; Jacobsen, Fig. 10.
We believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not view
the Jacobsen disclosure in the dissected manner that the Requester urges. In
attempting to create the impression that Jacobsen discloses a separate
embodiment that has broader usage, the Requester relies on what Jacobsen
discloses, not as a separate embodiment, but as one of two basic objects of
the invention. App. Br. 18-19, quoting Jacobsen, col. 2, ll. 46-56 ("[a] basic
object of this invention is to provide . . . multiple piece kits . . .").
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
13
Jacobsen discloses two “basic objects” of “this invention.” Jacobsen,
col. 2, l. 46-col. 3, l. 4. Those basic objects, in short, are to provide
multiple-piece kits suitable for connection in alternate manners, to convey
separately different components prior to mixing and dispensing, and to
provide a modified dispensing tool and accessory kit for dispensing fluid
material into cracks and voids. Id. Importantly, both of these objects are
directed to what Jacobsen refers to as “this invention.” Immediately
preceding the recitation of the basic objects, Jacobsen describes “this
invention” as:
relat[ing] to devices for establishing leak-proof
seated connections with great universality of use
with many different types and sizes of dispensing
tubes, nozzles, surface ports used in dispensing
fluid material from cartridges, for directing such
fluid material into cracks in underlying structures.
Jacobsen, col. 2, ll. 40-45 (emphasis added).
Elsewhere, Jacobsen similarly identifies “this invention” as:
relat[ing] to devices usable for dispensing fluid
material(s) via conventional dispensing outlet
nozzle(s) directly into a surface crack of a
structure, such as concrete floors, walls or ceilings.
Jacobsen, col. 1, ll. 13-16 (emphasis added).
In contrast to these detailed statements as to the function or intended
purpose of the Jacobsen device, as mentioned previously, the Requester
maintains that the broader function or intended purpose of the device is to
dispense fluid “where and when needed.” Such a function or purpose would
seemingly, however, be the intent or desire of any and all fluid dispensing
systems of whatever design, and is not particularly instructive to the person
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
14
of ordinary skill in the art in developing an understanding of the Jacobsen
invention.
The Requester has not pointed to any portion of Jacobsen, and we see
none, disclosing a location (where) and time (when) in which the device is
provided to do anything other than dispense fluid to fill cracks in structures.
Indeed, in the portion of the Jacobsen disclosure that discusses the hose H-4,
to which no dispensing device is connected in the Figure 10 illustration
relied on by the Requester, Jacobsen describes that the mixing hose provides
a comparatively short mixed conveyance path before the mixed components
are discharged, and goes on to discuss that a pinch clamp 301-1 disposed on
the hose “is effective for accurate and intermittent control of the material
discharge in close proximity of the crack or void to be filled . . .”. Jacobsen,
col. 7, l. 65-col. 8, l. 3 (emphasis added). This further illustrates how the
Requester has taken the Jacobsen expression “where and when needed” out
of context and has attempted to imbue it with far greater significance than it
has when read in context.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in taking
the position that the intended purpose of the Jacobsen device is to dispense
fluid material into cracks in a manner that minimizes leakage in the course
of dispensing. The Requester‟s remaining arguments as to alleged error in
not adopting the rejection over Jacobsen and Hunter are directed to the
combination as not being unfit for the purpose of discharging material
“where and when needed,” and are thus not seen as being persuasive. See,
e.g., App. Br. 22-23.
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
15
The Requester additionally contends that the Examiner erred in
affording patentable weight to the intended use language in the preamble
6
,
and in finding that the port component of Jacobsen teaches away from the
claimed invention. App. Br. 23-24. As pointed out by the Patent Owner, the
Examiner does not explicitly or specifically rely on either of these positions
in determining that the adoption of the rejection should be withdrawn. Resp.
Br. 15. The Examiner‟s position, that the modification of Jacobsen in view
of Hunter would not have been obvious because the modification would
render Jacobsen unsuitable for its intended purpose, does not appear to rely
in any manner on these grounds, and we are thus not persuaded of error in
the Examiner‟s position.
The Examiner‟s decision to withdraw the rejection of claims 1 and 9-
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jacobsen and Hunter is
sustained.

(vii) Claims 1-6 and 8--Unpatentability over Jacobsen, Wise, Flackett and
Gaither
The Requester relies on essentially the same arguments advanced
with respect to claim 1 and the withdrawn rejection over Jacobsen in view of
Hunter in assigning error to the Examiner‟s withdrawal of this ground of
rejection. App. Br. 26-28. For the reasons discussed above, we are not
apprised of Examiner error based on those arguments.
The Requester additionally points to Jacobsen‟s listing of “acrylics”
as one common multiple component material. App. Br. 27. The Requester

6
Claim 1 recites, “[a] device for applying a coating, comprising:” App. Br.,
Claims Appendix.
Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
16
further argues, without citing to any evidence, that “„acrylics‟ is [sic, a]
commonly used synonym for paint.” Id. Although the significance of this is
not well-explained, it appears that the Requester believes that this evidences
that the Jacobsen device was intended to have different uses beyond filling
cracks in concrete structures and the like. Not only is the alleged
synonymity of “acrylics” and “paint” not substantiated by evidence,
Jacobsen appears to evidence that the listing therein which includes
reference to “acrylics” is a listing of materials “for filling surface cracks in
concrete structures to restore structural integrity,” and not simply “paint.”
Jacobsen, col. 1, ll. 54-56. This argument fails to persuade us of Examiner
error in withdrawing the rejection.
As such, the Examiner‟s decision to withdraw the rejection of claims
1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jacobsen and Wise
is sustained.

(viii) Claims 1, 6 and 7--Unpatentability over Jacobsen, Anson, Flackett and
Gaither
The Requester relies on essentially the same arguments advanced with
respect to claim 1 and the withdrawn rejection over Jacobsen in view of
Hunter in assigning error to the Examiner‟s withdrawal of this ground of
rejection. App. Br. 28-29. For the reasons discussed above, we are not
apprised of Examiner error based on those arguments.
As such, the Examiner‟s decision to withdraw the rejection of claims
1, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jacobsen and
Anson is sustained.

Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
17
(ix) Claims 12-17--Unpatentability over Jacobsen, Hunter and Hansen
The Requester relies on the same arguments advanced with respect to
claim 1 and the withdrawn rejection over Jacobsen and Hunter in assigning
error to the Examiner‟s withdrawal of this ground of rejection. App. Br. 24-
25. For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner‟s decision to withdraw
this rejection is sustained.

(x) Claims 12, 13, 15 and 16--Unpatentability over Jacobsen, Hunter and
Hermele
The Requester relies on the same arguments advanced with respect to
claim 1 and the withdrawn rejection over Jacobsen and Hunter in assigning
error to the Examiner‟s withdrawal of this ground of rejection. App. Br. 25.
For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner‟s decision to withdraw this
rejection is sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner's refusal to adopt proposed rejections (i) through (v) is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner‟s decision to withdraw rejections (vi) through (x) is
AFFIRMED.
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.956 and 41.77(g).

Appeal 2013-001649
Reexamination Control 95/001,371
Patent US 7,144,170 B2
18
AFFIRMED

Patent Owner:
K & L GATES LLP
P.O. BOX 1135
CHICAGO, IL 60690

Third Party Requester:

CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 CHURCH STREET, 22
ND
FLOOR
HARTFORD, CT 06103

lb