Ex Parte Agarwal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12910142 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/910,142 10/22/2010 Parag Agarwal
104102 7590 09/26/2016
BrooksGroup
48685 Hayes
Shelby Township, MI 48315
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
GP-309180-DIV-R&D-MJL 7430
EXAMINER
ZIMMERMAN, JOHN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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 PARAG AGARWAL, ANIL K. SACHDEV, and
SURESH SUNDARRAJ
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-8, 18-30, and 32-34. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed October 22, 2010,
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed February 28, 2014, the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed May 30, 2014, and Appellants' Reply
Brief (Reply Br.) filed July 29, 2014.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Motors LLC.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to an insert for damping vibration in a product in
which it is cast. Spec. i-fi-13, and 32-33.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Limitations
at issue are italicized.
1. A product comprising an insert for a brake rotor
compnsmg:
a body portion comprising an annular portion comprising
an inner edge and an outer edge, the inner edge and outer
edge each having arc segments having a common center;
a plurality of tabs extending radially from the body
portion, wherein the tabs are tapered and the tabs being
spaced apart from each other along the inner edge or outer
edge so that a portion of the inner edge or outer edge
between adjacent tabs is exposed; and
wherein the insert is constructed and arranged to provide
frictional damping of a brake rotor to extend radially beyond
the brake rotor; and
to reduce the total area of the insert exposed to an
environment outside of the brake rotor in which the insert is
placed.
Rejections
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request our review of, the
following grounds of rejection:
2
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
A. Claims 1-8, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA),
second paragraph, as indefinite;
B. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 29 underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
anticipated by Miskinis;3
C. Claims 3, 6, 8, 18-20, 27, 28, 30, and 32-34 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Miskinis;
D. Claims 3, 6, 8, and 18-28 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Miskinis in view of Hanna;4
E. Claims 1, 2, 4, 29, 30, and 32-34 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
102(a) anticipated by Chuo; 5
F. Claims 3 and 18-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chuo;
G. Claims 1-5, 21, 22, 29, 30, and 32-34 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) anticipated by McDowall; 6
H. Claims 6 and 18-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McDowall;
I. Ciaims 1--4, 18----20, and 29 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
anticipated by Hendrickson; 7
J. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 29, 30, and 32-34 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) anticipated by Stanley;8 and
K. Claims 18-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stanley.
3 Miskinis et al., US 2007/0235270 Al, published October 11, 2007.
4 Hanna et al., US 2007/0062768 Al, published March 22, 2007.
5 Chuo, US 2006/0264281 Al, published November 23, 2006.
6 McDowall, US 2,690,248, issued September 28, 1954.
7 Hendrickson, US 2, 508,065, issued May 16, 1950.
8 Stanley, US 2,062,480, issued December 1, 1936.
3
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
ANALYSIS
We sustain each of the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the
Examiner in the Answer. We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact as our
own. The following comments are added for emphasis.
Rejection A: § 112, 2nd paragraph
Appellants do not argue the rejected claims separately. Therefore, we
select claim 1 to decide this issue, and claims 2-8, 33, and 34 stand or fall
with claim 1.
The Examiner notes that claim 1 recites that the insert is "constructed
and arranged to provide frictional damping of a brake rotor to extend
radially beyond the brake rotor; and to reduce the total area of the insert
exposed to an environment outside of the brake rotor in which the insert is
placed.'' Ans. 2. The Examiner also notes that this claim recitation recites
the construction and arrangement of the insert relative to an object, i.e., a
brake rotor, which is not part of the positively recited structure of the insert.
Id. In addition, the Examiner notes that because the brake rotor itself is not
structurally defined in this claim, the brake rotor may be variable
configuration and dimension. Id. As such, the Examiner determines that
claims 1-8, 33, and 34 "are rendered indefinite by reference to an object that
is variable since it is unclear what insert configurations and/or dimensions
would meet (or not meet) the [limitations of] the claims." Id. In further
support of the indefiniteness position, the Examiner notes that Appellants
continue to argue that the applied reference structures fail to meet the
4
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
"constructed and arranged" limitation, even though each of the references
meet the positive structural limitations of the claims in question.
Appellants submit that the ordinary artisan would know or could
easily obtain dimensions required for the invention to be used with any of a
variety of various brake rotors. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Orthokinetics, Inc., v.
Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Appellants further argue that the claims must be read in light of the
Specification, and direct our attention to paragraphs 41 and 45, which
provide an example of a configuration and dimensions of a brake rotor.
Reply Br. 6.
Appellants' arguments fail to persuade us of reversible error in the
Examiner's determination as to the indefiniteness of claims 1-8, 33, and 34.
As the Examiner notes, claim 1 is directed to "[a] product comprising an
insertfor a brake rotor." The italicized clause is directed to Appellants'
intended use for the insert, and does not positively require that the product
include the brake rotor. The limitation in question, the "constructed and
arranged" clause defines certain functional and structural features of the
insert albeit relative to the brake rotor. These features include 1) providing
frictional damping of a brake rotor; 2) to extend radially beyond the brake
rotor; and 3) to reduce the total area of the insert exposed to an environment
outside of the brake rotor in which the insert is placed.
However, these features are recited as part of a "constructed and
arranged" clause, which requires that the insert be somehow constructed and
arranged relative to a brake rotor which is not a positive structural feature of
the claims. To be constructed and arranged, the insert must not only be
structurally constructed or configured but also arranged so as to accomplish
5
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
the functional and structural features as listed above. Yet, without the brake
rotor, it is not possible to construct and arrange the insert to do so.
Therefore, Appellants' claims present a conundrum in which the brake rotor
is not a positive limitation, but is necessary to accomplish the "constructed
and arranged" clause. In essence, Appellants' claims present a relationship
between two structures where only one of the structures is the subject of the
claim.
Further, we note that Appellants' disclosure of examples of parts that
the insert may be located in including, inter alia, a brake rotor (Spec. i-f 41)
or a rotor assembly (id. at i-f 45), is insufficient to remedy the indefiniteness
problem in these claims. Such examples fail to address the conundrum, and
fails to address the Examiner's concern that on the one hand, Appellants
state that one skilled in the art could determine the configuration and
dimensions required for the insert to be used with any variety of brake
rotors, and on the other hand, Appellants argue that the prior art fails to
teach the configuration and dimensions. Indeed, Appellant states that the
"constructed and arranged" language "denotes an actual state of
configuration that fundamentally ties the insert with the brake rotor to the
physical characteristics of the insert ... [which] reaches well beyond merely
describing an intended use since the claims actively recite an actual state of
configuration." Appeal Br. 14.
As for Appellants' reliance on the Orthokinetics decision, we note that
this decision is based on patent validity in a district court, rather than a
decision in an ex parte appeal from the US PTO. 9 Our reviewing court has
9 United States Patent and Trademark Office.
6
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
"noted that indefiniteness rejections by the USPTO arise in a different
posture from that of indefiniteness challenges to an issued patent." In re
Packard, 751F.3d1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, our reviewing
court stated:
during patent prosecution [ ] claims can be amended, ambiguities
should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and
clarification imposed .... An essential purpose of patent examination
is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous.
Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as
much as possible, during the administrative process.
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Finally, Orthokinetics
decided the definiteness of a patent claim that recited a wheelchair
dimensioned to fit into a vehicle. This issue is quite different from the issue
before us which involves a "constructed and arranged" clause including
functional and structural features relative to a part that is not a positive
limitation of the claim. Appellants' have not persuasively explained why
this "constructed and arranged" clause is not actually unclear. Packard, 751
F .3d at 1311. We, therefore, will sustain the Examiner's indefiniteness
rejection.
Rejection B: Anticipation by Miskinis
Appellants argue claim 29 separately, and the rest of the claims as a
group. We select claim 1 to decide the issues raised by Appellants, and the
remaining claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 stand or fall with claim 1.
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
all features of the claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'! Corp., 150 F.3d 1354,
7
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (A claim is anticipated only where "each and every
limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art
reference.")
Further, as we previously held, certain of the appealed claims are
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, due to the "constructed
and arranged" clause. In our view, this situation is distinguishable from the
situation presented in In re Steele, 305 F .2d 859 (CCP A 1962) where the
court stated that the Examiner and Board engaged in considerable
speculation as to the meaning of claim terms and made a number of
assumptions respecting the scope of the claims. Here, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, that the "constructed and arranged" clause is merely directed
to Appellants' intended use for the insert because the claims do not
positively recite the brake rotor as a structural limitation of the claims, nor
do Appellants ever state such. Instead, this clause recites the actual state of
configuration of the insert alone, such that it is capable of the functional and
structural features recited in the clause upon being located in a brake rotor.
However, because the brake rotor is neither positively recited in Appellants'
claims, nor are any structural features of the brake rotor recited, as the
Examiner finds, and we agree, the "constructed and arranged" clause merely
recites Appellants' intended use for the insert.
Therefore, unlike Steele, our holding that certain of Appellants'
claims are indefinite does not compel a conclusion that the Examiner's
§ 102(b) rejection be reversed as based on unsupported speculative
assumptions. In other words, as the Examiner explains, Miskinis meets the
structural recitations of the claim and would be capable of being used as
Appellants' "constructed and arranged" intends by merely modifying the
8
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
configuration and dimensions of a brake rotor in which the insert may be
placed. See Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (BPAI 1993); Ex
parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (BPAI 1984).
Claim 1
Appellants argue that Miskinis fails to teach two elements of claim 1 :
1) the tabs are tapered (Appeal Br. 13-14); and 2) "the insert is constructed
and arranged to provide frictional damping of a brake rotor to extend
radially beyond the brake rotor and to reduce the total area of the insert
exposed to an environment outside of the brake rotor in which the insert is
placed" (id. at 14--15). Turning to the first element, Appellants assert that
Miskinis shows various embodiments of a brake rotor showing radially
extending rectangular tabs or slotted tabs which are bent to extend
perpendicular to the insert. Id. at 13. Appellants also offer a definition of
"tapered'' as meaning "gradual diminution of width or thickness in an
elongated object." Id. at 14 (citing only to "Dictionary.com"). According to
Appellants, "none of [Miskinis'] Figures 1-12 teach or disclose 'tapered'
tabs nor does the remainder of the [S]pecification of Miskinis teach or
disclose this feature." Id.
We disagree. As the Examiner finds, Miskinis' Figure 7 shows tabs
11010 extending radially from an annular body portion 100, the tabs having a
tapered portion 112. See also Miskinis i-f 28. Appellants do not explain how
Miskinis' tapered tab portions 112 are do not have a gradual diminution of
10 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
9
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
width or thickness therein in accord with Appellants' proffered definition.
Therefore, Appellants have not persuasively identified reversible error in the
Examiner's finding that Miskinis teaches tapered tabs.
With regard to Appellants' second argued element not shown in
Miskinis, Appellants contend the "constructed and arranged" clause requires
more than intended use. Appeal Br. 14. Instead, Appellants urge that this
clause "denotes an actual state of configuration that fundamentally ties the
insert with the brake rotor to the physical characteristics of the insert." Id.
Appellants submit that Miskinis fails to teach or disclose an insert so
defined. Id. at 15.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of reversible error.
As the Examiner finds, Miskinis meets the positive structural limitations of
the claims and, therefore, would have reasonably been expected to be
capable of being combined with a brake rotor of variable configuration and
dimensions so as to provide frictional damping of the brake rotor, to extend
radially beyond the brake rotor, and to reduce the total area of the insert
exposed to the environment outside the rotor.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device
does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the patentability of an apparatus claim depends
on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina
Mktg. Int'!, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir.
2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844,
848 (CCPA 1959); In re Gardiner, 171F.2d313, 315-16 (CCPA
1948). Although "[a] patent applicant is free to recite features of an
apparatus either structurally or functionally[,] .... choosing to define an
10
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk." In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where the Examiner
establishes a reasonable belief that a property or characteristic recited in the
claims would have been inherent to the apparatus, the burden of proof shifts
to Appellant to show that this characteristic or property is not possessed by
the prior art. Id.
Appellants have not shown any structural difference between the
Miskinis insert and that of the claims, nor have Appellants provided any
evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to refute the Examiner's
reasonable determination that Miskinis' insert would have been capable of,
when combined in a brake rotor, frictionally damping the rotor, extending
radially beyond the rotor, and/or reducing the total area of the insert exposed
to the environment beyond the rotor. "It is well settled that the recitation of
a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old
product patentable.'' Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477.
In their Reply Brief, Appellants present a new argument not raised in
the Appeal Brief concerning the claim 1 limitation "a plurality of tabs
extending radially from the body portion" (Reply Br. 7). In addition,
Appellants also argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that Miskinis
teaches away from Appellants' use as recited in the "constructed and
arranged" clause (id. at 10). Under regulations governing appeals to the
Board, any new argument not timely presented in the Appeal Brief will not
be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause
explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Appeal
Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 14 73, 14 7 6-77 (BP AI 2010)
(informative). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 and§ 41.41. Appellants have
11
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
provided this record with no such showing. Accordingly, we will not
consider these new arguments in the Reply Brief.
Claim 29
Appellants argue that Miskinis fails to teach or disclose that the tab
has a first end with a greater width than a second end, and the second end is
radially spaced from the annular portion. Appeal Br. 16. However,
although Appellants urge that Miskinis' tabs as shown in Figure 7 do not
meet these limitations, Appellants do not persuasively explain why these
tapered tabs 112, which clearly have a narrower width at an end distal from
the annular body portion 100 than the end connecting the tabs to the body
portion, and whose distal end is clearly depicted to be radially spaced from
the body portion, do not actually meet the limitations in question. We note
that claim 29 does not require that the radially spaced second end is co-
planar with the annular body portion.
Rejections C and D: Obviousness over Miskinis, alone or in view of Hanna
Appellants argue that Miskinis and Hanna fail to teach various
features of Appellants' claims. Appeal Br. 17-20. We find that the
Examiner has made extensive fact finding with respect to the argued claims.
See Ans. 4--8 and 15-16. Nonetheless, Appellants' arguments repeatedly
restate elements of the claim language and simply asserts that the elements
are missing from Miskinis and Hanna. Apart from summarily asserting that
Miskinis and Hanna fail to teach or disclose the features of the claims
covered by this rejection, Appellants do not present any arguments to
explain why the Examiner's explicit fact findings and conclusions in this
rejection are in error.
12
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
Appellants' unexplained arguments provide no basis to reject the
Examiner's findings and conclusions on these points. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.");
see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art"). Therefore, we do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection over Miskinis, alone
or in view of Hanna.
Rejections E and F: Anticipation by, and Obviousness over, Chuo
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that
a bicycle sprocket as described in Chuo could not be used as an insert for a
brake rotor. Appeal Br. 21. However, this argument fails to persuade
because Appellants fail to explain why the ordinary artisan would know that
Chuo' s sprocket could not be used as an insert for a brake rotor. In this
regard, we note that the Examiner's finding of anticipation is based on an
individual sprocket or wheel of Chuo, not the combined sprocket module
including the chain wheels, the freewheel sprocket, the start wheel, and other
bicycle components, as Appellants mistakenly imply.
Appellants further argue that, while Chuo' s Figure 3 shows sprocket
40 and start wheel 50 having semi-tapered tabs, the sprocket and wheel do
not include exposed arc segments having a common center. Appeal Br. 22.
However, Appellants do not specifically address the Examiner's finding that
13
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
gears or sprockets 20, 33 each have spaced regions between adjacent tapered
tabs (teeth of the gears). Appellants also do not explain why these spaced
regions are not exposed arc segments.
Finally, Appellants argue that Chuo fails to teach various features of
Appellants' claims. Appeal Br. 21-25. We find that the Examiner has made
extensive fact finding with respect to the argued claims. See Ans. 8-10.
Nonetheless, Appellants' arguments repeatedly restate elements of the claim
language and simply assert that the elements are missing from Chuo. Apart
from summarily asserting that Chuo fails to teach or disclose the features of
the claims covered by these rejections, Appellants do not present any
arguments to explain why the Examiner's explicit fact findings and
conclusions in these rejections are in error.
Appellants' unexplained arguments provide no basis to reject the
Examiner's findings and conclusions on these points. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, we do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's
anticipation and obviousness rejections over Chuo.
Rejections G and H: Anticipation by, and Obviousness over, McDowall
Appellants argue that McDowall, Figures 1---6, show spline teeth 52 of
clutch plate 18 having generally rectangular edges, and the clutch plate fails
to include exposed arc segments. Appeal Br. 26. Appellants also assert that
the space between the land and grooves 62, 61 is linear. Id.
However, McDowall, Figure 3, clearly shows that the teeth or tabs are
both tapered and spaced apart. Moreover, while the spaces between the
teeth are individually short so as to appear linear, these spaces arc around the
14
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
interior of the annular body portion. Appellants do not explain why these
spaces are not exposed arc segments.
Finally, Appellants argue that McDowall fails to teach various
features of Appellants' claims. Appeal Br. 26-29. We find that the
Examiner has made extensive fact finding with respect to the argued claims.
See Ans. 10-11. Nonetheless, Appellants' arguments repeatedly restate
elements of the claim language and simply assert that the elements are
missing from McDowall. Apart from summarily asserting that McDowall
fails to teach or disclose the features of the claims covered by these
rejections, Appellants do not present any arguments to explain why the
Examiner's explicit fact findings and conclusions in these rejections are in
error.
Appellants' unexplained arguments provide no basis to reject the
Examiner's findings and conclusions on these points. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, we do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's
anticipation and obviousness rejections over McDowall.
Rejection I: Anticipation by Hendrickson
Appellants argue that Hendrickson fails to teach various features of
Appellants' claims. Appeal Br. 30-31. We find that the Examiner has made
extensive fact finding with respect to the argued claims. See Ans.12.
Nonetheless, Appellants' arguments repeatedly restate elements of the claim
language and simply assert that the elements are missing from Hendrickson.
Apart from summarily asserting that Hendrickson fails to teach or disclose
the features of the claims covered by this rejection, Appellants do not
15
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
present any arguments to explain why the Examiner's explicit fact findings
and conclusions in this rejection is in error.
Appellants' unexplained arguments provide no basis to reject the
Examiner's findings and conclusions on these points. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, we do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's
anticipation rejection by Hendrickson.
Rejections J and K: Anticipation by, and Obviousness over, Stanley
Appellants argue that Stanley fails to teach various features of
Appellants' claims. Appeal Br. 32-35. We find that the Examiner has made
extensive fact finding with respect to the argued claims. See Ans. 13-14.
Nonetheless, Appellants' arguments repeatedly restate elements of the claim
language and simply assert that the elements are missing from Stanley.
Apart from summarily asserting that Stanley fails to teach or disclose the
features of the claims covered by these rejections, Appellants do not present
any arguments to explain why the Examiner's explicit fact findings and
conclusions in these rejections are in error.
Appellants' unexplained arguments provide no basis to reject the
Examiner's findings and conclusions on these points. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, we do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's
anticipation and obviousness rejections over Stanley.
16
Appeal2014-008322
Application 12/910, 142
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Answer, we sustain each of the Examiner's rejections on appeal.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-8, 18-30, and 32-34
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
17