Ex Parte Ameline et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2013

12004042 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte IAN R. AMELINE and ERIC A. BLAIS1
____________________

Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 4-9, and 13-22. Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled,
and claims 10-12 and 23-40 have been withdrawn from consideration. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held
January 24, 2013.
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Autodesk, Inc. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to a graphics processing system and
method and, more particularly, to a system and method for anti-aliased flood
filling without artifacts. Spec. ¶ [0003] (“Field of the Invention”).
Exemplary Claims
A. Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the
invention which is reproduced below (emphases added):
1. A method of performing a flood fill operation on
an image given a seed point, the method comprising:
determining using a computer having a processor,
whether to flood fill a point of the image based on the color of
the point, the color of the seed point, and based on the color of
a neighbor of the point,
wherein the determining is further based on a color
distance between the neighbor and the color of the seed point,
and on a color distance between the point and the color of the
seed point, the color distances take into account an alpha value
of the neighbor and the point, and
when a candidate point is determined to be flood filled,
weighting its fill contribution according to its color distance
from the color of the seed point, and for each point in a gap
between two corners, setting an opacity of the point according
to a ratio of portions connecting the corners.

2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
May 17, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 27, 2010); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 4, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed
Nov. 16, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Dec. 20, 2007).
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

3
B. Claim 4 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the
invention which is reproduced below (emphases added):
4. A method of, given a seed point, performing flood
fill operations on images using a computer having a processor
by applying a flood fill algorithm to the images to fill regions of
the images, where the flood fill algorithm comprises:
determining using the processor, whether to flood fill a
point of an image in a region of the image based on the color of
the point, the color of the seed point, and based on the color of
a neighbor of the point, and when a candidate point is
determined to be flood filled, weighting its fill contribution
according to its color distance from the color of the seed point,
where the region is at least in part bounded by pixels of
the image that have, in a direction away from the region,
substantially increasing color distances from the color of the
seed point and for each candidate point in a gap between two
corners, setting an opacity of the point according to a ratio of
portions connecting the corners:
the fill operation is to be anti-aliased without a halo
effect.
C. Claim 20 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the
invention which is reproduced below (emphases added):
20. A method of performing a flood fill operation on
an image, given a seed point, the method comprising:
generating a fill set with a first fill algorithm and
performing the flood fill operation; and
checking for dimples in the fill set,
the fill set generated by calculating color distances
between the color of the seed point using a computer having a
processor, and points of the image that are candidates to be
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

4
filled by the flood fill operation, and when a candidate point is
to be flood filled, weighting its fill contribution according to its
color distance from the color of the seed point, where the color
distances are based fully or partly on an alpha value of the color
of the seed point and the alpha values of the candidate points
and for each candidate point in a gap between two corners,
setting an opacity of the point according to a ratio of portions
connecting the corners.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Kanno US 4,947,158 Aug. 7, 1990
Andersen US 2003/0147100 A1 Aug. 7, 2003
Jia US 2004/0042682 A1 Mar. 4, 2004
Venable US 6,738,154 B1 May 18, 2004
Porikli US 2004/0130546 A1 Jul. 8, 2004
Taoka US 2004/0145599 A1 Jul. 29, 2004
Levene US 2005/0168476 A1 Aug. 4, 2005
Arcas US 2005/0206657 A1 Sep. 22, 2005
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 4-9, and 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 3.
2. Claims 1, 8, 13-16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Venable, Taoka,
Andersen, and Arcas. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

5
3. Claims 4-7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Venable, Taoka, Andersen,
Arcas, and Levene. Ans. 6.
4. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Venable, Taoka, Andersen,
Arcas, and Porikli. Ans. 8.
5. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Venable, Taoka, Andersen, Arcas, and
Kanno. Ans. 8.
6. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Venable, Taoka, Andersen, Arcas,
Kanno and Jia. Ans. 9.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions with respect to claims 1, 4-9, and 13-22, and we adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Arguments. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claims 1, 4, 13, and 20 for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

6
1. Indefiniteness Rejection of Claims 1, 4-9, and 13-22
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 2-4) that the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellants’ claimed
method of performing a flood fill operation on an image given a
seed point as in claim 1 is indefinite because the recitation of “a
ratio of portions connecting the corners” lacks sufficient
antecedent basis?
Analysis
Appellants contend that “a ratio of portions connecting the corners”
lacks antecedent basis and that claim 1 recites “for each point in a gap
between two corners, setting an opacity of the point according to a ratio of
portions connecting the corners.” App. Br. 20. On this basis, Appellants
contend that the commensurate limitation in claim 15 has sufficient
antecedent basis because one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that
for each point in a gap between two corners, there is a ratio of portions
connecting the corners, and an opacity is set based on this ratio. Along with
Appellants’ Figure 15, Appellants content that the meaning of the above
features would be clear to a person of ordinary skill. Id.
In response, the Examiner finds that “[c]laims 1, 4, 5, 13, and 20
recite the limitation ‘a ratio of portions connecting the corners’ [and that
t]here is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.” Ans.
3. The Examiner further finds that “[f]or portions to have antecedent basis,
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

7
they must be portions of something [and r]eferring to ‘portions’ alone
creates an ambiguity about what such ‘portions’ would refer to.” Id. at 3-4.
Appellants also contend that the term “portions” recited in claim 1
must be interpreted within the context of the other limitations in the claim,
and should not be interpreted in a vacuum, and that claim 1 recites “for each
point in a gap between two corners, setting an opacity of the point according
to a ratio of portions connecting the corners.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue
that it is clear when looking at the claim as a whole that “a ratio of portions
connecting the corners” refers to “each point in a gap,” the gap being
“between two corners,” and when reading the claim as a whole, claim 1
clearly points out and distinctly claims the subject matter of the claim. Id.
Finally, Appellants contend that “[w]hen reading the claim as a whole,
it is clear that ‘a gap between two corners’ has ‘a ratio of portions’ . . . [and]
the Examiner should not have concluded that ‘portions connecting the
corners’ ‘could read on any portion of anything that connects the corners
280,’ but rather have interpreted claim language within the context of all
other terms in claim 1 . . . .” Id. Appellants next then refer to their
disclosure as providing support for their proposed claim construction. Reply
Br. 2 (citing Spec. ¶¶ [0071] and [0072]; Figs. 15 and 16). For ease of
reference, we replicate Appellants’ Figure 15.
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

8
Figure 15 is reproduced below.

Figure 15 shows a gap between rough edges.
Appellants’ Specification explains that Figure 15 illustrates a gap
between rough edges, i.e., points/squares 280, seen as bold-lined squares,
and with both horizontal and vertical lines. Checkered points represent
points or pixels in the fill mask, and corners of two fill mask pixels 280 are
“rough edges”. Hypothetical line 282 passes through the corners which
create hypothetical regions 284 near the fill set (horizontal lines), and also
vertically striped regions 286 on the other side of the line 282. Spec.
¶ [0071]. Appellants’ Specification further discloses that points falling on
hypothetical line 282 between points 280 are filled 272 by setting their
respective opacity according to the ratio of areas of the portions on opposing
sides of the line 282. Pixels in the gap between the corner pixels 280 are
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

9
assigned an opacity or transparency according to how deep or shallow its
portion of the gap is. With reference to Figure 15, pixels are assigned
opacity according to a ratio of their horizontally-striped region to their
vertically-striped region. Spec. ¶ [0072].
While we agree that the above-cited disclosure illustrates that “a ratio
of areas of the portions on opposing sides of the line” is intended to be used
to determine the opacity or transparency, the claim does not include this
clarifying limitation. Instead, the claim more broadly recites “a ratio of
portions connecting the corners.” Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that the recitation in claim 1 of “a ratio of portions connecting the
corners” lacks sufficient antecedent basis as recited. Ans. 10.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of any reversible error
in the Examiner’s findings and claim construction, such that we sustain the
Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 1. As Appellants have not
provided separate substantive arguments with respect to the indefiniteness
rejection of independent claims 4, 5, 13, and 20, which each suffer from the
same indefiniteness in commensurate form, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2, as well as
claims 6-9, 14-19, and 21-22, variously depending therefrom.
2. Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 1, 8, and 13-19
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 5-6) that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

10
combination of Venable, Taoka, Andersen, and Arcas is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issues:
(a) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Venable, Taoka, Andersen, and Arcas, teaches or
suggests “when a candidate point is determined to be
flood filled, weighting its fill contribution according to its
color distance from the color of the seed point, and for
each point in a gap between two corners, setting an
opacity of the point according to a ratio of portions
connecting the corners,” as recited in claim 1?
(b) Did the Examiner improperly combine Arcas with
Venable, Taoka, and Andersen?
Analysis
Appellants contend that the reference combination does not teach or
suggest “when a candidate point is determined to be flood filled, weighting
its fill contribution according to its color distance from the color of the seed
point.” App. Br. 23. Appellants then specifically state that Andersen does
not teach or suggest weighting a fill contribution of a candidate point to
eliminate issues of corner fill-in. Id. Appellants contend that Andersen
“only discusses that a segmented image is weighted to characterize objects
as an object (plant) or background (non-plant) based on a distance from a
green colour locus and daylight locus used to eliminate reflection of light
sources. Id. (citing Andersen, ¶¶ [0026] and [0039]).
In addition, Appellants assert that Andersen compares the color of a
plant with a color locus and daylight locus for crop management and that
“the segmented image is weighted thereby that the elements characterized as
objects are assigned a value between the first and second values depending
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

11
on the distance of their colour vector (Cf) from the colour locus.” App. Br.
24 (citing Andersen ¶ [0026]). Appellants contend that Andersen attempts
to segment an image into a daylight locus and colour locus to eliminate
sunlight caused reflection errors, but is silent about weighting fill
contribution of a candidate point according to its color distance from the
color of the seed point. App. Br. 24.
In response, the Examiner finds that Andersen weights a fill
contribution of a candidate point according to color distance from the color
of a seed point by teaching “that elements are [color] weighted by being
assigned a value between a first and second value based on a color distance
between the element and the ‘colour locus.’” Ans. 13 (citing Andersen
¶ [0026]).
We agree with the Examiner that Andersen teaches that the value of
the assigned color is proportional to the color distance between a color
vector and the “colour locus.” Ans. 13 (citing Andersen ¶ [0040]).
Andersen further teaches that the “colour locus” is the point used to
determine if a color belongs to a plant or to the background. Ans. 13(citing
Andersen ¶ [0039]). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the “colour
locus” corresponds to the recited “seed color” for the plant region.” Ans. 13.
As such, “the weighting of a value’s contribution to a pixel based on color
distance between the candidate pixel and color locus in Andersen directly
corresponds to the claimed weighting of a fill contribution of a candidate
point according to color distance from the color of a seed point.” Ans. 14.
Appellants further argue the references do not teach “for each point in
a gap between two corners, setting an opacity of the point according to a
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

12
ratio of portions connecting the corners”. App. Br. 24. Specifically,
Appellants argue that “Arcas does not discuss setting an opacity of a point
based on a ratio of portions connecting the corners . . . [but instead] only
discusses drawing lines, i.e., roads, on a computer generated roadmap by
interpolating between a plurality of images and shows drawing antialiased
vertical lines by alpha blending.” App. Br. 25 (citing Arcas ¶¶ [0082]-
[0086]). In addition, Appellants argue that Arcas fails to discuss corners,
and only relates to antialiasing a line to change its appearance on a map in
accordance with the zoom level. Appellants further contend that this is
unrelated to “setting an opacity of the point according to a ratio of portions
connecting the corners,” because Arcas is silent regarding a ratio of portions
connecting the corners as shown in Appellants’ drawings. App. Br. 25
(citing Appellants’ Fig. 15, elements 284 and 286).
In response to Appellants’ arguments that Arcas fails to discuss
corners and a ratio of portions connecting the corners, supra, the Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Figure 16 of Arcas shows corners, “[where e]ach of
the ‘lines’ in fig. 16 is actually a rectangle with four corners.” Ans. 14-15.
Arcas shows a gap between a corner and adjacent corners filled with an
array of 3 by n pixels having different opacities depending upon the intended
width of the line, with the column of center pixels being 100% opaque. The
two columns of outer pixels can be set at different opacities, e.g., 0, 25%,
50%, or 100% opacity, depending on the intended width of the line. Ans.
14-15.
We emphasize that we find the italicized portion of the recitation in
claim 1 of “setting an opacity of the point according to a ratio of portions
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

13
connecting the corners” is broadly recited, and Appellants’ arguments
concerning the disclosure in Appellants’ Figure 15 (App. Br. 25) are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification.
We decline to read the embodiment described by Appellants’ Figure
15 into the claims. Instead we find that Arcas’ teaching of antialiased line
drawing as stated by the Examiner (Ans. 14-15) teaches or suggests a ratio
of portions connecting the corners because Arcas’ Figure 16 teaches
“corners” with gaps between which contain pixels of varying opacity
depending on the desired line thickness. As stated by the Examiner, with
whom we agree, “[i]n this case, the ‘portions’ are [construed as] the portions
of a pixel that exist after an imaginary line splits each of the outer pixel
columns.” The opacity of the two outer columns of pixels can be set as a
percentage, i.e., “ratio” of the opacity of the center column of pixels.
Ans. 15.
Appellants argue an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been
motivated to combine the references as Andersen only determines whether
pixels belong to vegetation in an image by eliminating reflected sunlight and
does not weight a fill contribution to fill an image. (App. Br. 24).
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner has not established proper
motivation to combine the references in the manner suggested because “[t]he
Office Action and Examiner’s Answer provide no other details as to why
one would have been motivated to combine a method of controlling an
agricultural implement [Andersen] with the teachings of Venable, Taoka and
Arcas other than . . . vague and overarching hindsight.” Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

14
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion in light of the Examiner’s
stated basis for motivation to combine the references, i.e., that “[i]t would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Venable and Taoka to
weight a fill contribution according to its color distance from a seed color in
order to control an implement using image processing as taught by
Andersen.” Ans. 5. Indeed, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning and Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence
or argument to persuade us the Examiner’s reasoning is in error. In this
case, we find that the Examiner has met his burden in establishing a prima
facie case for unpatentability by articulating a reason with a rational
underpinning for combining Andersen with Venable and Taoka, as cited
above. Ans. 5.
Accordingly, Appellants has not persuaded us of any reversible error
in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim
construction. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. Independent claim 13 recites the disputed limitations in
commensurate form, such that we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 13. As Appellants have not provided separate arguments with respect
to dependent claims 8 and 14-19, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3. Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 4-7 and 9
Issue 3
Appellants argue (App. Br. 27-28; Reply Br. 8-9) that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

15
combination of Venable, Taoka, Andersen, Arcas, and Levene is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellants’ claimed
method is rendered unpatentable by the combination of
Venable, Taoka, Andersen, Arcas, and Levene, particularly that
the reference combination teaches or suggests that “the fill
operation is to be anti-aliased without a halo effect,” as recited
in claim 4?
Analysis
Claim 4 recites limitations commensurate in scope to claim 1,
discussed, supra. Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s reliance
upon Levene as teaching “a halo effect” is in error because Levene merely
discusses that the “falloff” of a brush stroke at the edges of a brush may be
captured in a scratch texture and may avoid undesired artifacts by protecting
a selected region of an image with stencils, and that Levene says nothing
about a fill operation without a halo effect. App. Br. 27-28 (citing Levene
¶¶ [0060], [0029], and [0027]).
In response, the Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable definition
of a “halo effect” is an artifact created by a bright fringe surrounding an
object. Ans. 16. The Examiner further finds that Levene deals with
undesired artifacts at the ends of a segment of a brush stroke, and describes
avoiding higher intensities in the regions where the ends of pillbox shapes
overlap, i.e., Levene avoids a halo effect by avoiding the creation of a bright
fringe surrounding an object. Id. (citing Levene ¶¶ [0027], and [0060]). The
Examiner summarizes by finding that Levene states that brush strokes are
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

16
created without high intensity bright fringes (i.e. a halo effect), and that
brush strokes may include flood fills. Ans. 16.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding cited above that the
combination of Venable, Taoka, Andersen, Arcas, and Levene teaches or
suggests, “the fill operation is to be anti-aliased without a halo effect.” We
are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s “broadest
reasonable definition of a ‘halo effect’ as ‘an artifact created by a bright
fringe surrounding an object’” was not provided in the Final Office Action,
and that “Appellants’ Specification is entirely unrelated to an “ice halo.”3
Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade
us the Examiner’s interpretation is in error. In light of this interpretation, we
find Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
claim. We agree with the Examiner that Levene teaches avoiding the
creation of a bright fringe surrounding an object, thereby avoiding a halo
effect, and thus meeting the disputed limitation. Ans. 16 (citing Levene
¶ [0027]).
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of any reversible error
in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim
construction. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 4. As Appellants have not provided separate arguments with respect

3 The reference to “ice halo” came about by the Examiner’s identification of
a web page (URL: http://www.atopics.co.uklhalosim.htm) which provides an
example of a halo effect. Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 8) regarding
“ice halo” are not persuasive as the Examiner cited this reference merely to
provide an example of a halo.
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

17
to dependent claims 5-7 and 9, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4. Unpatentability Rejection of Claim 20
Issue 4
Appellants argue (App. Br. 30; Reply Br. 9-10) that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Venable, Taoka, Andersen, Arcas and Kanno is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellants’ claimed
method is rendered unpatentable over the combination of
Venable, Taoka, Andersen, Arcas and Kanno, particularly that
the reference combination teaches or suggests the step of
“checking for dimples in the fill set,” as recited in claim 20?
Analysis
Claim 20 recites limitations commensurate in scope to claim 1,
discussed, supra. Appellants further contend that “the Office Action has
failed to adequately articulate a rejection regarding ‘checking for dimples in
the fill set’ and the combination of references fails to discuss the above
features.” App. Br. 30. Appellants further contend that “[b]ecause the
Examiner provided contradictory remarks in the final Office Action and did
not produce a prima facie case, Appellants are under no obligation to submit
evidence of nonobviousness.” Reply Br. 10.
We disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner’s finding
that:
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

18
[The] examiner notes the typographical error contained
on p. 6, section 14 of the Final Rejection . . . It appears this
section should have been deleted. . . [but] it is clear from p. 3,
section 10 that claim 20 was not meant to be grouped with the
claims rejected under Venable, Taoka, Andersen, and Arcas. It
is also clear that p. 8, sections 22 and 23 of the Final Rejection
reject claim 20 with the added Kanno reference.
It is noted that appellant has failed to articulate an
argument against the Kanno reference, instead simply noting
examiner's typographical error and generally presuming that the
combination including the Kanno reference fails to disclose
checking for dimples in the fill set. Applicant’s arguments
amount to a general allegation that the claims define a
patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the
language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the
references.
App. Br. 17. We further agree with the Examiner that Kanno teaches or
suggests the limitation in dispute by teaching dealing with dimples in a fill
set, i.e., noise pixels, in order to eliminate the adverse effect of noise on a
scanned sheet of paper. Ans. 9 (citing Kanno Fig. 6; col. 2:41-46; and col.
7:6-64).
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of any reversible error
in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim
construction. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 20. As Appellants have not provided separate arguments with respect
to dependent claims 21-22, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-000834
Application 12/004,042

19
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to the indefiniteness
rejection of claims 1, 4-9, and 13-22, and the rejection is sustained.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to the various
unpatentability rejections of claims 1, 4-9, and 13-22, and the rejections are
sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4-9, and 13-22 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)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED

ELD