Ex Parte Belokin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

11544675 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

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.
11/544,675 10/10/2006 Paul Belokin 7390.136/P 8927
41254 7590 03/01/2016
JACK A. KANZ
502 SOUTH COTTONWOOD DRIVE
RICHARDSON, TX 75080
EXAMINER
STERLING, AMY JO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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 PAUL BELOKIN
____________

Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Paul Belokin (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1‒4 and 6‒16, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “suction cups with non-
circular peripheral edges which uniformly adhere to the mounting surface.”
Spec. 4, para. 6. Claims 1, 7, 10, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

2
1. A suction cup having:
(a) a substantially disc-shaped body defined by a
relatively convex outer surface and a relatively concave inner
surface joined at the lateral periphery of the body to define a non-
circular peripheral edge wherein the thickness of said body at
said non-circular edge is substantially constant along the entire
periphery of said body; and
(b) a mounting device substantially centrally located
and extending from said convex outer surface.
REJECTIONS
Appellant appeals from the Final Action, dated February 27, 2013,
which contained the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6‒8, 10, and 13‒15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kampmier (US 3,675,886, issued July 11, 1972).
2. Claims 1‒4, 7‒13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Henderson (US 2003/0161991 A1, published
August 28, 2003) and Sheffield (US 5,714,215, issued February 3,
1998).
3. Claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Henderson, Sheffield, and Kampmier.
PRIOR APPEALS
The application before us on appeal has been the subject of two prior
appeals to this Board. In the first appeal, the Board reversed the Examiner’s
decision rejecting then-pending claims 1‒3 and 5‒9 as being anticipated by
Belokin (US 5,964,437, issued October 12, 1999) and claim 4 as
unpatentable over Belokin. First Appeal Decision in Appeal No. 2009-
001628, dated September 18, 2009 (“First Dec.”). In the second appeal, the
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

3
Board reversed the Examiner’s decision rejecting then-pending claims 1‒3,
5, and 7‒9 as anticipated by Henderson, claim 4 as unpatentable over
Henderson, and claim 6 as unpatentable over Kalb (US 2003/0230694 A1,
published December 18, 2003) and Romei (US 2,974,820, published March
14, 1961). Second Appeal Decision in Appeal No. 2011-005901, dated
September 26, 2012 (“Second Dec.”).
After issuance of the Second Appeal Decision, the Examiner, under
authorization of a Technology Center Director, reopened prosecution, which
led to the Final Action that is now before us on appeal. Appellant requests
that the Board summarily dismiss the Final Action because the Office failed
to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.198 by failing to show or allege “sufficient
cause” for reopening prosecution. Appeal Brief, filed July 17, 2013
(“Appeal Br.”), 25‒26. Appellant further requests that the Board remand the
application to the Examiner with instructions to promptly issue a notice of
allowance.1 We take this opportunity to direct the Appellant’s attention to
MPEP § 1201, which states:
The line of demarcation between appealable matters for
the Board and petitionable matters for the Director of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (Director) should be carefully

1 In an ex parte appeal, the Board’s primary role is to review adverse
decisions of examiners, including the findings and conclusions made by the
Examiner. 35 U.S.C. § 6. The Board does not allow claims of an
application, and the Board cannot direct an examiner to pass an application
to issue. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1077 (BPAI Feb. 26, 2010)
(precedential); cf. In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812, 816 n.11 (CCPA 1977)
(“reversal is not a mandate to the PTO to issue a patent and does not
preclude the PTO from reopening prosecution.”).
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

4
observed. The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that
should be decided by the Director on petition, and the Director
will not ordinarily entertain a petition where the question
presented is a matter appealable to the Board.
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 1201, 9th ed., rev. July
2015. The Technology Center Director’s decision to reopen prosecution
after the Second Board Decision is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.181, and is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. MPEP § 1002.02(b)
(item 17); see also Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1077‒78 (discussing distinction
between matters reviewed by petition to the Director and matters reviewed
on appeal to the Board). As such, we review the adverse decision of the
Examiner as set forth in the Final Action.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Kampmier
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).2 To establish anticipation, every element and

2 Appellant asserts that to support an anticipation rejection, “the elements
must perform substantially the same work in the same way in both the prior
art reference and the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 9-10 (citing
McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc., 343 F.2d 381 (10th Cir. 1965));
see also Reply Br. 6 (additionally citing Crown Operations Int’l, Ltd. v.
Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We disagree with Appellant’s
statement of the law. As stated by the court in Crown, “A patent is invalid
for anticipation when the same device or method, having all of the elements
contained in the claim limitations, is described in a single prior art
reference.” 289 F.3d at 1375.
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

5
limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art
reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf
Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The Examiner found that Kampmier discloses the suction cup of
independent claims 1 and 10 having a substantially disc-shaped body 16
defined by a relatively convex outer surface and a relatively concave inner
surface.3 Final Act. 3 (citing Kampmier, col. 2, l. 28). In particular, the
Examiner explained that during use, in response to an applied force, the
outer surface bulges outwardly in the shape of a cupped pad for a suction
cup effect. Ans. 3‒4. Thus, the Examiner found that Kampmier discloses
the claimed relatively convex outer surface and relatively concave inner
surface during use of the device.
Appellant argues that Kampmier does not anticipate claims 1 and 10
because “the mounting pad of Kampmier is flat in its relaxed state.” Appeal
Br. 10. Appellant and the Examiner agree that Kampmier is flat in its
relaxed state. Id.; Ans. 3. Further, Appellant does not contest the
Examiner’s finding that the mounting pad of Kampmier assumes the claimed
relatively convex outer surface and relatively concave inner surface during
use of the device. The issue raised by Appellant turns on construction of
independent claims 1 and 10.
As noted by the Examiner, independent claims 1 and 10 do not
specify that the claimed suction cup has a relatively convex outer surface

3 Independent claims 7 and 15 do not recite this limitation. Appeal Br.,
Claims App. 2, 4.
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

6
and a relatively concave inner surface “in a relaxed state.” Ans. 5.
Limitations not appearing the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability.
See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). We agree with the
Examiner’s findings that when force is applied by lever 27, the mounting
pad of Kampmier assumes the claimed shape to create the suction effect.
Ans. 3‒4; Kampmier, col. 1, ll. 25‒33; id., col. 2, ll. 9‒21; id., Figs. 1, 2.
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
independent claims, and does not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
rejection based on anticipation by Kampmier.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 7, the Examiner further
found that Kampmier discloses “a mounting device (24) substantially
centrally located and extending from said convex outer surface.” Final
Act. 3.4,5 Appellant asserts that “Kampmier has no convex outer surface and
the only mounting devices disclosed are ‘L-shaped corner projections 31
provided on top of the four corner portions’ of the flat pad 16 (see Col. 2,
lines 34‒35) for mounting the base 10 on the flat rubber pad 16.” Appeal
Br. 12. The Examiner explained that “Kampmier’s mounting device 24,
holds lever 27, and therefor can be considered a mounting device and is
clearly located on the outer surface of the pad and at the center.” Ans. 7.

4 Appellant erroneously asserts in the Reply Brief that the Examiner
belatedly found that element 24 is a mounting device for the first time in the
Answer. Reply Br. 9. This is not the case. The Examiner clearly made this
finding on page 3 of the Final Action.
5 Independent claims 10 and 15 do not recite a mounting device. Appeal Br.,
Claims App. 3, 4.
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

7
As to Appellant’s argument that Kampmier has no convex outer
surface, we disagree based on the analysis of the claim language discussed
supra. We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kampmier’s
element 24 corresponds to the claimed mounting device. The Specification
describes that “suction cup body 11 supports a mounting device in the form
of a T-shaped stem having a post 12 with an expanded head 13 substantially
centrally located on the outer surface 15.” Spec. 5, para. 13. Kampmier
discloses T-shaped yoke 24 extending upwardly from rectangular plate 23.
Kampmier, col. 2, ll. 15‒16. Plate 23 is fixed as an insert into central
portion 22 of rubber pad 16 during the molding operation. Id., col. 2, ll. 22‒
26. As such, yoke 24 is centrally located and extends upwardly from a
convex outer surface of pad 16. Id., Fig. 2.
Appellant argues that “[n]othing in Kampmier can support a finding
that yoke 24 performs any function remotely related to the function of the
‘mounting device’ specifically defined by Appellant’s claim 1.” Reply Br.
10. We do not see in the language of claim 1 any specifically recited
function for the mounting device. To the extent Appellant is arguing that
yoke 24 is not used for mounting another structure, we disagree. Yoke 24 is
mounted to base 10 via lever 27 and crank 26, and yoke 24 is mounted to
pad 16 via plate 23. Kampmier, Figs 1, 2. Appellant has failed to
demonstrate why yoke 24 is not a mounting device, as called for in claims 1
and 7.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 8 and independent claims 10
and 15, the Examiner further found that Kampmier discloses “wherein the
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

8
cup body defines a nominal center having a first thickness which is greater
than the thickness of the body at the non-circular edge.” Final Act. 3.
Appellant contends that this finding is in error because “Kampmier
repeatedly and consistently describes and illustrates rubber pad 16 as ‘of
uniform thickness.’” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Kampmier, col. 1, l. 10, col. 2, l.
26, Figs. 1‒2).
Appellant misconstrues the disclosure of Kampmier. Kampmier
discloses that rubber pad 16 comprises two parts, viz, a “generally
rectangular thicker central portion 22” and a “marginal portion 30.”
Kampmier, col. 2, ll. 13‒14 and 28. Kampmier discloses:
[T]he entire marginal portion 30 of the pad is of substantially
uniform thickness throughout and there is, therefore, nothing to
interfere with the upward displacement of the central portion 22
relative to the marginal portion 30 in the cupping upwardly of
the pad for the suction cup action.
Id., col. 2, ll. 28‒33; see also id., col. 1, ll. 13‒14 (describing that the pad “is
of uniform thickness in the peripherally exposed portion”) (emphasis added)
and col. 4, ll. 31‒32 (reciting “the entire marginal portion of said pad outside
of the central portion being of substantially uniform thickness throughout”).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kampmier discloses pad 16 has a
thickness at the nominal center (central portion 22) which is greater than the
thickness of the body of pad 16 at the non-circular edge (marginal portion
30). Final Act. 2‒3; Ans. 6; Kampmier, Figs. 1, 2, 4.
Appellant further argues that pocket 29 of central portion 22
“surrounds (but does not define) the ‘nominal center’ of the pad 16.” Reply
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

9
Br. 8. Appellant’s Specification describes that “[a]s illustrated in Fig.s [sic]
2 and 3, the body of the cup is thickest at the nominal center 17 and thinnest
at the edge 20.” Figures 2 and 3 are reproduced below.

Figures 2 and 3 depict section views of the suction cup and show the lead
line for reference numeral 17 pointing at a portion of the cup between
peripheral edge 20 and the point of the cup from which post 12 extends. We
find that the Examiner’s interpretation of “nominal” as meaning “of or
related to” the center as reasonable in light of the Specification.
An annotated Figure 2 of Kampmier is reproduced below.

Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

10
Figure 2 of Kampmier is annotated with arrows to denote a portion of
the cup having a greater thickness at the nominal center. Appellant has not
demonstrated error in the Examiner’s finding that central portion 22, which
is located at the nominal center of the cup, has a thickness greater than the
thickness at the peripheral edge 30.
With respect to dependent claim 13,6 the Examiner found that
Kampmier “teaches a support means (35) located on the outer surface at the
nominal center.” Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that this finding is in error.
Appeal Br. 12. Appellant does not provide an explanation of the support
means in the Summary of the Invention section of the Appeal Brief, and the
Specification does not use the term “support means.” The structure
disclosed in the Specification located on the outer surface at the nominal
center is the mounting device. Spec., Figs. 1‒4. The Specification describes
the mounting device as comprised of post 12 with expanded head 13. Spec.
5, para. 13. We construe the support means of dependent claim 13 to
encompass the mounting device disclosed in the Specification. As noted
supra, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kampmier’s yoke 24
corresponds to the claimed mounting device. For the same reasons, we find
that yoke 24 corresponds to the claimed support means. As shown in Figure
2 of Kampmier, yoke 24 is located on the outer surface of the pad at the

6 Claim 13 recites, “A suction cup as defined in Claim 10 including support
means located on said outer surface at said nominal center.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App. 3.
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

11
nominal center. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 13 as anticipated
by Kampmier.
Appellant does not present any additional arguments for patentability
of dependent claims 6 and 14. For these reasons, Appellant has not
demonstrated error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. As such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6‒8, 10, and 13‒15 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kampmier.
Unpatentability over Henderson and Sheffield
Independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 15
The Examiner found that Henderson discloses the suction cup as
called for in each of the independent claims but “does not specifically teach
wherein the thickness of the peripheral edge is relatively constant regardless
of the radial distance of the non-circular peripheral edge from the central
portion along the entire periphery of the body.” Final Act. 3‒4. The
Examiner found that Sheffield teaches a suction cup with a uniform
thickness on the peripheral edge, which is disclosed in Sheffield as forming
a seal which harnesses vacuum force and minimizes the untimely release of
the vacuum force. Id. at 4‒5 (citing Sheffield, col. 3, ll. 17‒22). The
Examiner determined it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art “to have used a constant peripheral edge thickness, in order to have a
constant seal and to limit the untimely release of the vacuum force.” Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that Sheffield’s presentation board is not a suction
cup. Appeal Br. 17; id. at 18 (arguing Sheffield’s presentation board “has no
support device such as a stem or the like and the wall of the body is of
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

12
uniform thickness”). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Sheffield
discloses a suction cup. Sheffield’s presentation board uses a resilient
concave cup shaped device to create a vacuum by suction. Ans. 8 (citing
Sheffield, col. 2, l. 20). Sheffield discloses that the board is under
considerable tension when in a flattened, depressed shape (such as shown in
Figure 6), and the viscoelastic nature of the board’s distorted walls causes it
to flex in an effort to return to its relaxed, convex shape (such as shown in
Figure 5). Sheffield, col. 2, ll. 54‒58. Sheffield discloses that this flexing
behavior “causes upward vacuum force 6 to be exerted.” Id., col. 2, ll. 58‒
59. Sheffield further discloses the periphery 4 of the interior concave side of
the board is beveled, and that the angle of the bevel will enable the periphery
to rest flat upon a substrate when the board is depressed, so that the
periphery 4 serves as a seal which harnesses vacuum force 6 by minimizing
the untimely release of the force. Id., col. 3, ll. 11‒20, Fig. 6. Sheffield
describes that attachment of the board “can be achieved by placing the
interior concave side of said board snugly against a substrate and depressing
said board once again.” Id., col. 4, ll. 7‒10. As noted by the Examiner
(Ans. 8), a central stem is not recited in the claims. As such, Sheffield’s
device is a suction cup. Even if one were to disagree that Sheffield’s device
is a suction cup, we further find that Sheffield’s device produces a suction
effect through the use of a vacuum force, akin to a suction cup. Ans. 8.
Henderson’s suction cup operates in a manner similar to Sheffield’s
device. In particular, by pressing on the central region of the suction cup of
Henderson, the convex outer surface is depressed, and an upward vacuum
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

13
force is created by the resilient walls of the suction cup flexing in an effort to
return the outer surface to the convex, relaxed shape. Henderson, paras. 37‒
39, Fig. 4.
Appellant argues that “the outer edge [of Sheffield] is beveled so that
the outer beveled edge (not the underside of the board) forms a sealing
engagement with the substrate when the presentation board is contracted
(not expanded) radially.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant asserts that “[s]ince the
beveled edge of the Sheffield . . . device operates in a totally different
manner than the peripheral edge of the claimed device, there is nothing to
suggest that the beveled edge of Sheffield . . . could be substituted for the
non-uniform periphery7 of Henderson to form the claimed invention.” Id. at
18‒19. As noted by the Examiner, the function of the claimed device is not
the relevant inquiry as to a reason to combine the teachings of Henderson
and Sheffield. Ans. 10 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007)). As noted supra, the devices of Henderson and Sheffield function in
a similar manner. Thus, Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate error in
the Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
Appellant further asserts that there is “no suggestion in either
reference to alter the structure of the suction cup of Henderson by beveling
the edges thereof as in Sheffield” and that “the Examiner has provided no

7 In the Second Appeal Decision, we found that Henderson did not disclose
by a preponderance of the evidence that the peripheral edge is of uniform
thickness. Second Dec. 5–6. This Decision did not hold, however, that
Henderson discloses a periphery of non-uniform thickness. Rather,
Henderson is silent as to the thickness of the peripheral edge.
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

14
logical reasoning or rationale” for the proposed modification. Id. at 19. On
the contrary, the Examiner provided reasoning based on an explicit
disclosure in Sheffield that the beveled edge would enhance suction cup
sealing. Final Act. 4‒5; Ans. 10. We find that this reasoning finds support
in the disclosure of Sheffield and is based on rational underpinning. Thus,
this argument does not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s determination of
obviousness.
Appellant also argues that the proposed modification would render
Henderson’s suction cup unsuitable for its intended purpose because when
“a cup with beveled edges is compressed, the beveled edge would rotate
away (not toward) the substrate, thus reducing sealing contact.” Id. at 19.
This argument does not comport with our understanding of the operation of
Henderson, based on our reading of the reference, and as set forth supra.
Rather, we find that were Henderson’s cup modified to include the beveled
peripheral edge of Sheffield, the beveled edge would fully engage and seal
against the substrate when the convex cup is depressed, akin to the operation
disclosed in Sheffield. Thus, this argument does not demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
Appellant further argues that “[c]laims 7-13 all require the inner and
outer surfaces to join at the peripheral edge to define a non-circular
geometry wherein the thickness of said peripheral edge is relatively constant
regardless of the radial distance of said peripheral edge from the central
portion” and that based on the arguments above, neither Henderson nor
Sheffield disclose or suggest any such structure. Appeal Br. 20; see also
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

15
Reply Br. 13‒14. First, we disagree with Appellant’s characterization of the
claim language. Only claims 7‒9, 15, and 16 recite the argued claim
limitation. Claims 10‒13 recite “the thickness of said body at said non-
circular edge is substantially constant along the entire periphery of the
body.” Appeal Br., Claims App. 3. Second, the argument is not persuasive
of error because it fails to address the structure of Henderson as modified by
Sheffield, as proposed by the Examiner, which would contain a non-circular
suction cup (both Henderson and Sheffield disclose non-circular, oval
suction cups) wherein the thickness of the peripheral edge (beveled as in
Sheffield) is relatively constant regardless of the radial distance of the
peripheral edge from the central portion. Henderson, Fig. 2 (oval suction
cup); Sheffield, Fig. 2 (oval suction cup); id., col. 3, ll. 20‒22 (disclosing
uniform thickness of beveled edge about the periphery).
Appellants do not provide any additional arguments for patentability
of dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 12, and 13. As such, for the reasons discussed
supra, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Henderson and Sheffield.
Appellant makes additional arguments for patentability of dependent claims
3, 9, 11, and 16, which we address infra.
Dependent claims 3, 9, 11, and 16
Each of these dependent claims recites that the thickness of the body
decreases at a relatively uniform or constant rate along the radial distance
from the nominal center or central portion to the non-circular or peripheral
edge. Appeal Br., Claims App. 1‒4. The Examiner found that Henderson
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

16
discloses an oval suction cup that meets these limitations. Final Act. 3‒4; see
also Ans. 11 (relying on Henderson, Figs. 4, 9). Appellant contests this
rejection, arguing that “[s]ince the beveled edges [of Sheffield] only appear
at the extreme periphery of a presentation board of otherwise ‘uniform
thickness,’ the thickness of the edges (not the walls) of the Sheffield . . .
device actually decrease at an extremely non-uniform rate – precisely the
opposite of the structure claimed.” Appeal Br. 18.
We agree. The suction cup of Henderson, as modified to include the
beveled peripheral edge of Sheffield, would no longer have a body with a
thickness that decreases at a relatively uniform or constant rate along the
radial distance from the nominal center or central portion to the non-circular
or peripheral edge. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
3, 9, 11, and 16 as unpatentable over Henderson and Sheffield.
Unpatentability over Henderson, Sheffield, and Kampmier
Appellant relies on the arguments presented against the combination
of Henderson and Sheffield to rebut the rejection of claims 6 and 14. Appeal
Br. 21 (arguing that “nothing in Kampmier can be combined with Henderson
or Sheffield . . . to overcome the deficiencies of the base references as
discussed above”). Claims 6 and 14 depend directly from claims 1 and 10,
respectively. We found no deficiency in the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Henderson and Sheffield as applied to claims 1 and 10. As
such, Appellant has not demonstrated error in the third ground of rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 14 as unpatentable
over Henderson, Sheffield, and Kampmier.
Appeal 2014-000657
Application 11/544,675

17
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 6‒8, 10, and 13‒15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kampmier is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13,
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Henderson and
Sheffield and claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Henderson, Sheffield, and Kampmier is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3, 9, 11, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Henderson and Sheffield is
REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART