Ex Parte Belady et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2010

11039156 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN L. BELADY and ERIC PETERSON
_____________

Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided: March 30, 2010
_______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 28, 29, 31, 40-48, 50-58, 60, and 62, which are all of the
pending claims.
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.1

A. Appellants’ invention
By way of background, Appellants’ Specification explains that
cell boards are the building blocks for multi-processor computer systems and
may include such components as processors, memory, application specific
integrated circuits (ASICs), and/or input/output (I/O) components.
Specification [0002].2 The most common method of interfacing cell boards
in a computer system is to provide each cell board with a bus connector and
to plug each cell board’s bus connector into a matching socket or “slot”
mounted to a backplane or motherboard (id. at [0003]). Because traditional
backplanes are solid structures, the cooling systems in multi-processor
computer systems typically generate air flow in a direction parallel to the
backplane (e.g., bottom-to-top air flow) (id. at [0006]).
Appellants’ invention is a cell board interconnection architecture that
is configured to allow air to pass therethrough in a direction in which the cell
boards couple therewith (id. at [0008]).

1 The Examiner’s position is stated in the August 30, 2007, Final Office
Action (“Final Action”), the March 19, 2008, Answer (“Answer”), and the
July 1, 2008, Supplemental Answer (“Supp. Answer”). Appellants’
arguments are stated in January 30, 2008, Appeal Brief (“Br.”), the May 12,
2008, Reply Br. (“Reply Br.”), and the August 18, 2008, Supplemental
Reply Brief (“Supp. Reply Br.”).
2 References herein to Appellants’ Specification are to the Application as
filed rather than to corresponding Patent Application Publication
(Continued on next page.)
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

3
Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Figure 1 shows an example of one embodiment of Appellants’ cell
board interconnection architecture (id. at [0009]), in which interconnection
boards or cards 101A-101D are arranged orthogonal to cell boards 102A-
102D (id. at [0052], [0053]).
Figure 8A is reproduced below.

2005/0207134 A1.
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

4

Figure 8A is a front view of an example interconnection structure 800
that effectively provides a porous backplane for interconnecting a plurality
of cell boards and allows for front-to-back air flow (id. at [0066]).
Connectors 803 allow connection to the cell boards (id. at [0067]). The
apertures (e.g., 805A, 805B) permit front-to-back airflow therethrough, as
indicated by the arrows (id. at [0069]). Projections 804 “aid in reducing the
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

5
resistance to the front-to-back air flow by directing the air to the apertures”
(id.).
Figure 8B is reproduced below.

As shown in Figure 8B, the back side of interconnection structure 800
has connectors 806 for connection to the switch cards (id. at [0067]).
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

6

B. The claims
The independent claims before us are claims 28, 40, and 58. Claim 28
specifies that the interconnection structure is “configured to enable air to
flow therethrough” and recites “projections configured to direct air flow
through” the interconnection structure:
28. A multi-processor computer system comprising:
a plurality of cell boards that each include at least one
processor and logic for managing routing of data between
components of the cell board;
an interconnection structure having a first side coupled to
said plurality of cell boards and an opposite side coupled to at
least one switch card, wherein at least one of said
interconnection structure and said at least one switch card
includes logic for managing routing of data between the
plurality of cell boards, said interconnection structure
configured to enable air to flow therethrough; and
a plurality of projections disposed on said
interconnection structure, said plurality of projections
configured to direct air flow through said interconnection
structure.
Claims App. (Br. 13.)
Independent claims 40 and 58 are more specific. Claim 40 recites “a
porous midplane structure” that “allow[s] air to pass [there]through . . . in
the direction [in] which said cell boards couple to said porous midplane” and
has “projections . . . configured to direct air flow through said structure.”
Claim 58 recites a “midplane structure [that] includes a plurality of apertures
to enable air to flow therethrough in a same direction as said plurality of cell
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

7
boards connect to said midplane structure” and has “projections . . . adapted
to direct air flow to said apertures.”

C. The references
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Stucke US 5,335,146 Aug. 2, 1994
Guenthner US 2002/0181215 Dec. 5, 2002
Cooper US 6,639,795 B1 Oct. 28, 2003

D. The rejections
Claims 28, 29, 40-44, 46, 58, and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness over Guenthner in view of Cooper. (Answer 4.)
Claims 45, 47, 48, and 60 stand rejected under § 103(a) for
obviousness over Guenthner in view of Cooper and “Applicants’ Admitted
Prior Art.” (Id. at 7.)
Claims 28 and 31 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Stucke in view of Cooper. (Id. at 9.)
Appellants argue only the independent claims.

THE ISSUES
The first issue raised by Appellants’ arguments is whether the
Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious in view of
Cooper to provide Guenthner’s midplane board and Stucke’s interconnection
board with cooling holes.
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

8
The second issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
connectors in Guenthner and Stucke as modified to include cooling holes
will function as “projections” that are “configured to” (claims 28, 40) or
“adapted to” (claim 58) “direct” air flow in the claimed manner.

GUENTHNER IN VIEW OF COOPER
Guenthner discloses a midplane board that avoids the need for pins
that extend into or though the midplane board. Guenthner [0016].
Figure 1 of Guenthner is reproduced below.

Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

9
Figure 1 illustrates a cross-section of a prior-art midplane board for
connecting a plurality of circuit boards (id. at [0012]). Midplane board 102
has a plurality of double-ended pins 108 for directly connecting connectors
104a-104c to a connector 106 and also has a plurality of single-ended pins
110 for connecting connector 106 to connectors 104a-104c using short
conductive traces (not shown) disposed in the midplane board (id.). The
diameter of a pin with adequate mechanical strength to serve as a pluggable
connector is typically large enough that it occupies significant space on
every layer of the midplane board, which is a limit on the overall routability
of the board (id. at [0014]). Close packing of such pins results in a small
distance between pins, which limits the number of signals, i.e. routing traces,
that can be routed between the pins (id.). Because of the limited available
space, if additional traces are desired, additional layers must be added to
midplane board 102, thereby increasing the thickness, cost, and complexity
of board 102 (id.)
Guenthner’s midplane circuit board differs from the prior-art
midplane board in that Guenthner’s does not employ pass-through pins.
Figure 2 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

10

Figure 2 shows the front side 204 of an embodiment of Guenthner’s
midplane circuit board 200, which has a plurality of contact regions 202
formed thereon. Guenthner [0035]. As shown in Figure 3 (not reproduced
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

11
herein), the back side 304 of midplane circuit board 200 has connectors 302
arranged orthogonally with respect to the front side connectors (id. at
[0036]).
Guenthner’s Figure 4A is reproduced below.

Figure 4A is an isometric view of a midplane circuit board having a
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

12
plurality of logic boards and an interconnect board mounted thereon (id. at
[0024]). Midplane circuit board 200 is shown in phantom lines so that
contact regions 202 on the front side 204 and contact regions 302 on the
back side 304 can be viewed simultaneously (id. at [0037]).
Figure 6B is reproduced below.

Figure 6B is an isometric view of one of a plurality of surface-mount
connectors 602B that are mounted on midplane circuit board 200 for
receiving edge connectors 602A (Fig. 6A) on boards 402 and 404 (id. at
[0027], [0052]).
Figure 7 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

13

Figure 7 is a cross-section of an exemplary surface mount and a cross
section of selected connections in midplane board 200 between component
contacts on front side 204 and back side 304 (id. at [0054]). The midplane
board is comprised of a plurality of layers (e.g., 712-1 to 712-4) on and
through which connections are formed by traces (e.g., 704) and vias (e.g.,
706) (id. at [0055]). Solder masses 710 connect pins 606 of connector 602B
to the routing traces (id. at [0054]). Because the pins do not extend through
any layers, “the inner layers can be fully utilized for interconnect routing
without having to circumvent pass-through holes for connection pins” (id. at
[0058]). In addition, the traces and vias need only be large enough to carry
an electrical signal, in contrast with the prior art pass-through pins, which
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

14
have to be much larger in order to physically support boards mounted on the
midplane board, with the result that Guenthner’s midplane board 200 can
accommodate more interconnections than a midplane board using pass-
through pins (id.).
Comparing claim 28 to Guenthner’s Figure 4A, the Examiner reads
the recited “interconnection structure” on midplane circuit board 200, the
recited “plurality of cell boards” on logic boards 402, and the recited “at
least one switch card” on interconnect boards 404 (Final Action 2). As
explained below, the Examiner reads the recited “plurality of projections
disposed on the interconnection structure . . . to direct air flow through said
interconnection structure” on connectors 602B after Guenthner has been
modified in view of Cooper.
After finding that “Guenthner is silent as to the interconnection
structure being configured to enable air to flow therethrough,” the Examiner
relies on Cooper for a “teach[ing of] the conventionality of having a
midplane (3) configured to enable air to flow therethrough” (id.).
Cooper discloses a backplane3 that receives a plurality of printed
circuit boards and has air holes to allow ventilation (Cooper, col. 1, ll. 28-
30).
Figure 2 of Cooper is reproduced below.

3 Spelled “backpane” throughout the Cooper patent.
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

15

Figure 2 is a top view of backplane 3 and some of the printed circuit
boards (PCBs) 4 and 5 that can be connected thereto (col. 1, ll. 48-49; col. 2,
ll. 4-8). In order to maximize the density of the PCBs (i.e., allow as many
PCB’s to be connected to the backplane as possible), there is very little space
inside the enclosure once the PCBs are inserted into the enclosure, with the
result that the backplane in effect becomes a solid wall that prevents the
effective flow of cooling air (col. 2, ll. 49-55).
Cooper explains that in order to cool PCBs 4 and 5 in the front and
rear of the backplane 3, air must be allowed to flow from the front to the rear
of the enclosure 2 (col. 2, ll. 47-49).
Figure 4 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

16

Figure 4, which is a partial plan view of the backplane, shows
apertures 7 for receiving connectors 9 (Fig. 3) associated with the backplane
and shows air holes 8 for providing cooling (col. 1, ll. 53-55; col. 2, ll. 55-
62).

A. Whether it would have been obvious to provide the peripheral
region of Guenthner’s midplane board with cooling holes
The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the
teachings of Cooper with that of Guenthner to provide improved ventilation”
(Final Action 3). Appellants argue that Guenthner “teaches away from using
anything other than a completely solid midplane board” because
using the flow through butterfly backplane (3) of Cooper in the
Guenthner device would render the Guenthner device
unsatisfactory for its stated purpose since the plurality of holes (7,
8) in the Cooper backplane (3) would not allow the inner layers of
the backplane to be “fully utilized for interconnect routing without
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

17
having to circumvent pass-through holes” as taught by Guenthner
[¶ 0058].
(Reply Br. 2-3.) The Examiner responded by further explaining that
[e]ven if one assumes Guenthner wishes to avoid both pass-
through pins and holes in the area of interconnecting routes, . . .
Fig[.] 2 of Guenthner . . . clearly teaches that there are areas of the
midplane where there is no need to have any interconnect routing
(For example, around the periphery). Therefore, while (based
upon the above assumptions) it may not be advantageous for
Guenthner to utilize pass[-]through pins in the sections of the
midplane where space is important [0057-0058], Guenthner does
not teach away from adding holes to other areas of the midplane,
for example around the periphery.
(Supp. Answer 2) (emphasis added).
Appellants responded by arguing that Cooper teaches away from
providing holes only in the periphery of backplane, quoting the following
passage from column 2, lines 56-62 as follows:
It is important when placing the air holes on the
backp[l]ane 3 to provide as many as possible, however, it is
critical that in doing so, the strength of the backp[l]ane is not
compromised. Therefore, the air holes are placed above and
below the apertures 7 that will receive the connectors (not
shown) in the back plane 3 that will electrically connect the
PCB’s 4, 5.
(Supp. Reply Br. 2-3.) “A reference may be said to teach away when a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Depuy
Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

18
Cir. 2009). The above-quoted passage does not teach away from providing
air holes in only the peripheral region of Guenthner’s midplane board. To
the contrary, the quoted passage calls for providing “as many [air holes] as
possible” (Cooper col. 2, ll. 56-57), which suggests that cooling holes can be
located in only those midplane areas that are or can be made available for
that purpose. Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s finding that
the peripheral region of Guenthner’s midplane is available to accommodate
Cooper’s cooling holes.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to add cooling holes
to at least the peripheral region of Guenthner’s midplane board in order to
improve cooling. Although not stated by the Examiner, this modification
would clearly include providing some means (e.g., a fan) for causing air to
flow through the cooling holes so as to “flow from the front to the rear of the
enclosure” (Cooper, col. 2, ll. 48-49

B. Whether, in Guenthner as modified above, connectors 602B will
“direct” air flow through the cooling holes
The Examiner found that when the peripheral region of Guenthner’s
midplane circuit board is modified by adding Cooper’s cooling holes,
Guenthner’s connectors 602B will function as the recited “projections” for
“direct[ing]” air through the cooling holes (i.e., the recited “apertures”).
Final Action 8. In so holding, the Examiner interpreted the claim 28 phrase
“configured to” direct air flow through the interconnection structure as “only
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

19
requir[ing] that the projections be capable of performing the function”
(id.)(emphasis added). Although Appellants state that “Appellant
respectfully disagrees with this characterization” (Br. 6-8), they have not
explained in any of their briefs why they believe interpreting “configured to”
to mean “capable of” is unreasonably broad.
Appellants argue in the Brief that “[c]onnector 602b does not and
cannot direct airflow through the interconnect structure, because they are
[sic: it is] disposed on a solid backplane, see Guenthner at FIG[.] 6B” (Br. 6)
(emphasis added). This argument is not responsive to the rationale of the
rejection, which relies on Cooper for a teaching of providing a previously
solid backplane with cooling holes. Appellants also ague in the Brief that
“the pins of connector 602b are not even capable of directing airflow
because they are mated with connector 602a” (id.). This argument, too, is
not responsive to the Examiner’s explanation of the rejection, which makes
no reference to the pins of the connectors and thus should have been
understood to be based on the walls of the connectors. See Answer 11, para.
4 (“[I]t was never the Examiner’s position that the pins cause the deflection
of air as alleged, rather that the projections (602b) cause the deflection of
air.”).
In the Answer, the Examiner elaborated on the meaning of the
“configured to direct air flow” language of claim 28 by explaining: (1) that
“claim 28 recites, ‘a plurality of projections configured to direct airflow
through said interconnection structure[,]’ not that the projections positively
direct airflow through the interconnection structure as implied in the
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

20
argument” (Answer 10); (2) that “turbulent air will hit the walls of
[Guenthner’s connector] 602b and flow in multiple directions which
includes toward the interconnection structure” (id.); and (3) that “[w]hen the
Guenthner reference is combined with the Cooper reference, which clearly
teaches a porous midplane, at least a portion of the air which strikes the
projection will pass through the interconnection structure” (id. at 11). We
therefore understand the Examiner’s position to be that it would have been
obvious to locate the cooling holes adjacent to side walls of some of
Guenthner’s connectors 602B and that at least some of the cooling air that is
directed generally toward the midplane board will be directed to the cooling
holes by these sidewalls. Appellants responded to this position of the
Examiner by arguing that
[i]f the Examiner's interpretation of Appellants’ claim limitation
was correct, then just about any structure would qualify as “a
plurality of projections configured to direct airflow through said
interconnection structure” which basically renders this
limitation meaningless. In other words, the Examiner is
suggesting that the mere presence of any sort of component
such as the Guenthner connectors (602b) on a midplane or
interconnection structure would disclose Appellants’ claimed
projections since airflow would be deflected in some manner by
the component and thus the airflow would have no other place
to go than through the midplane. On the contrary, projections
that are configured to direct airflow through a structure as
claimed by Appellants must have something that actually leads
the airflow through the structure.
(Reply Brief 5-6.) Appellants then point to their V-shaped projections (804,
Fig. 8A) as examples of projections that lead the airflow through openings
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

21
805 in interconnection structure 800 (id. at 6). The Examiner responded by
stating that “the V-shaped configuration . . . should be claimed and not
merely [the] functionally recited properties,” citing MPEP §§ 2111.04 and
2106 (Supp. Answer 3).
We agree with Appellants that they are entitled to claim the
projections using functional language rather than being required to recite the
disclosed structure for performing that function (Supp. Reply Br. 4). We
also agree that the functional language “direct air flow” should be construed
to mean “lead the air flow” (id. at 5-6). Nevertheless, we are not persuaded
that the claim language thus construed fails to read on the combined
reference teachings. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that
the cooling air that is moving through the enclosure of Guenthner as
modified above in view of Cooper will be turbulent. As a result, some of the
cooling air will strike the connector side walls that are located adjacent to
the cooling holes in Guenthner’s midplane board, thereby directing at least
some of the cooling air through those cooling holes.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that when Guenthner is modified to provide the peripheral
region of the midplane with cooling holes, connectors 602B will “direct” air
flow through the cooling holes.

C. Conclusion of law
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the rejection of claim 28 for
obviousness over Guenthner in view of Cooper as well as the rejection on
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

22
that ground of independent claims 40 and 58, as to which Appellants only
repeat their claim 28 arguments, and dependent claims 29, 41-44, 46, and 62,
which are not separately argued. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
We are also affirming the rejection of dependent claims 45, 47, 48,
and 60 for obviousness over Guenthner in view of Cooper and Applicants’
Admitted Prior Art, which rejection is not separately argued. In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

STUCKE IN VIEW OF COOPER
Stucke’s invention is an interconnection scheme that greatly increases
the efficiency of making large numbers of interconnections between circuit
boards (Stucke, col. 2, ll. 3-5).
Stucke’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

23

Figure 1 shows an assembly of electronic circuit boards attached to
the mounting boards in an orthogonal arrangement (col. 2, ll. 19-21).
Printed circuit boards 28 are connected to interconnection board by ZIF
(zero insertion force) connectors 14 having pins 12 that extend through
interconnection board 10 for engagement by connectors 20 of printed circuit
boards 24 (col. 2, ll. 38-44, 56-61; col. 3, ll. 10-11). Interconnection board
10 also has pins 13, which are not part of ZIF connectors 14, for engaging
connectors 20 of printed circuit boards 24 (col. 2, ll. 47-51, 61-65).
Figure 2 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

24

Figure 2 illustrates the electrical connections of ZIF connectors (14 in
Fig. 1) through the connection board (col. 2, ll. 22-24). Pins 12 in areas 40
are pins of ZIF connectors 14, some of which pins are engageable by
connector 20, depicted by area 42 (col. 4, ll. 1-24). Pins 13 in area 44 are
not pins of ZIF connectors 14 but are engageable by connector 20 (id.).
The Examiner reads the recited “projections” on connectors 14 and
20, finds that “Stucke is silent as to the interconnection structure being
configured to enable air to flow therethrough,” and relies on Cooper for a
teaching of “the conventionality of having a midplane (3) configured to
enable air to flow therethrough” (Final Action 7). Appellants, citing
column 5, lines 6-11 of Stucke, object to the Examiner’s characterization of
Stucke as “silent” regarding the interconnection structure being configured
to enable air to flow therethrough and argue that the Examiner should have
found that “Stucke fails to disclose or suggest an interconnection structure
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

25
being configured to enable air to flow therethrough.” (Reply Br. 4.) Even
assuming for the sake of argument that Appellants are correct on this point,
Appellants have not explained, and it is not apparent, how the alleged
mischaracterization of Stucke has any bearing on the merits of the rejection.
The Examiner relies on Cooper rather than Stucke for a teaching of adding
cooling holes to Stucke’s interconnection board.

A. Whether it would have been obvious to provide
Stucke’s interconnection board with cooling holes
The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the
teachings of Cooper with that of Stucke to provide improved ventilation.”
Final Action 7. Appellants’ argument that “the structure 10 of Stucke
appears to be solid, and thus cannot be configured to enable air to flow
therethrough, as is required by the claim” (Br. 10-11) is unpersuasive
because it is not responsive to the rationale of the rejection, which relies on
Cooper for a teaching of providing Stucke’s interconnection board 10 with
cooling holes.
As a result, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
concluding that it would have been obvious to add Cooper’s cooling holes to
Stucke’s interconnection board 10.

Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

26
B. Whether, in Stucke as modified to provide interconnection board 10 with
cooling holes, connectors 14 and 20 will “direct” air flow therethrough
In the Answer, the Examiner stated that Stucke’s projections 14 and
20 are “akin to” Guenthner’s projections 602B and thus satisfy the claims in
the same way. (Answer 12.) Thus, we understand the Examiner’s position
to be that it would have been obvious in view of Cooper to provide Stucke’s
interconnection board 10 with cooling holes located adjacent to at least some
of connectors 14 and 20 and to provide some means (e.g., a fan) to direct the
air toward interconnection board 10. For the reasons given above in the
discussion of the rejection based on Guenthner, we agree that Stucke’s
connectors 14 and 20 will “direct” air flow to and through the cooling holes.
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that each of Stucke’s
connectors “appear[s] to comprise a flat solid structure that would block any
airflow” (Br. 10) and that “connectors 14 and 20 may direct airflow along
boards 24 of 28, but the connectors 14 and 20 are not projections configured
to direct air flow through the structure 10.” (Id.)
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
connectors 14 and 20 in Stucke as modified to include Cooper’s cooling
holes will “direct” air flow in the manner recited in the independent claims.

C. Conclusion of law
For the above reasons, we will sustain the rejection of claim 28 for
obviousness over Stucke in view of Cooper and also the rejection on that
Appeal 2009-004126
Application 11/039,156

27
ground of dependent claim 31, which is not separately argued. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 28, 29, 31, 40-48, 50-58, 60, and
62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over the cited prior art are
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2009).
AFFIRMED

tkl

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528