Ex Parte Binder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2017

12358551 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2017)

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.
12/358,551 01/23/2009 Yehuda Binder BINDER-004-US5 2732
131926 7590 02/02/2017
May Patents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov
P.O.B 7230
Ramat-Gan, 5217102
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
WOO, STELLA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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 YEHUDA BINDER
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 9-138, 140-162, and 164—168, constituting
all claims currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to an information device, and in
particular to obtaining information from a remote location to an information
device. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A device for obtaining, storing and displaying information
from a data unit via a LAN (Local Area Network) cable, the LAN
cable being connected in a building for concurrently carrying a
digital data signal and a power signal, the device comprising:
a LAN connector for connecting to the LAN cable;
a LAN transceiver coupled to said LAN connector for
transmitting digital data to, and receiving digital data from, the
data unit via the LAN cable;
a first memory coupled to said LAN transceiver for storing
digital data received from the data unit;
a display coupled to said first memory for displaying
information based on data stored in said first memory; and
a single enclosure housing said LAN connector, said LAN
transceiver, said first memory and said display,
wherein: said device is addressable in a Local Area
Network (LAN) and is operative for communicating with the
data unit through the LAN cable for receiving information from
the data unit and for storing and displaying the received
information;
and said device is at least in part powered by the power
signal carried over the LAN cable.
2
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—6, 9-138, 140-162, and 164—168 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
Claims 1—4, 7—67, and 73—106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Scanned, Jr. (US 2006/0123053 Al; published
June 8, 2006) (“Scanned”).
Claims 5, 6, 107—138, 140—162, and 164—168 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Scanned and
Schwager et al. (US 2005/0035850 Al; published Feb. 17, 2005)
(“Schwager”).
Claims 68—72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Scanned and Chandhok et al. (US 7,263,382 B2; issued Aug. 28, 2007)
(“Chandhok”).
ANALYSIS
Written Description Rejections
Claim 1
The Examiner finds a “device for obtaining, storing and displaying
information from a data unit via a LAN (Local Area Network) cable,” as
recited in claim 1, lacks written description. Final Act. 2. The Examiner
further finds “the specification does not describe in any detail the device
communicating with a server over a LAN cable, using a LAN transceiver,
and being at least in part powered by the power signal carried over the LAN
cable, as recited in [the] claim.” Ans. 11.
3
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
Appellant contends “it is submitted that ANY ONE of the terms
‘Ethernet’, ‘Structured wiring’, ‘IEEE 802.3’, and ‘Local Area Network’
expressly, inherently, or implicitly, supports the substitution of the telephone
wire pair described in the beginning of the disclosure with a LAN cable as
claimed.” App. Br. 13; see e.g., Spec. 24. Appellant further argues the
Specification describes “[s]uch information may be obtained in various ways
using many types of media and communication means. Such
communication . . . [including] using networking such as landline telephony,
cellular telephony.” App. Br. 11—12 (citing Spec. 1,11. 12—15) (emphasis
omitted). Appellant also points to portions of the Specification which state
“it will be appreciated that any other type of connection can be used” and
“[o]ther telephony connections or any other medium may also be
employed.” App. Br. 12 (citing Spec. 8,11. 28—30; 2,11. 13—16) (emphasis
omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. To satisfy the
written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the
claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can
reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Auto., Inc., 325 F.3d 1306,
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 1563
(Fed. Cir. 1991). “[TJhe test requires an objective inquiry into the four
comers of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
in the art,” where “the specification must describe an invention
understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually
invented the invention claimed.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598
F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The exact level of detail
4
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
required depends upon “the nature and scope of the claims and on the
complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. Factors for
“evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure” may include “‘the existing
knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the
maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at
issue.’” Id. (quoting Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
Initially, we find the broad, catch-all provisions describing “[o]ther
telephony connections or any other medium may also be employed” (Spec.
2,11. 15—16 (emphasis added)) or “any other type of connection can be used”
(Spec. 8,11. 28—29) do not persuasively indicate that Appellant was in
possession of an invention covering communication between the device and
a data unit over a LAN cable, where the device included a LAN connector
for connecting to the LAN cable, a LAN transceiver coupled to the LAN
connector, and the LAN cable being concurrently connected in a building for
concurrently carrying a digital data signal and a power signal.
Aside from such catch-all provisions, Appellant’s disclosure is
generally directed to communications via PSTN (public switched telephone
network) by a dial up modem or cellular network, where the device may be
connected to a telephone outlet, and may be powered by regular AC power,
batteries, or by extracting power from the telephone connection. Spec. 2—3,
Summary of the Invention; see e.g., Fig. 1; Spec. 6,11. 21—23 (“[t]he
information device 10 shown comprises a dial-up modem 15 for connecting
the information device 10 to a remote location over the PSTN . . .[, t]he dial­
up modem 15 connects to a telephone outlet 24 by telephone plug 22 via
cable 21 . . . [t]he information device 10 is powered by the local AC power”;
5
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
Fig. 3; Spec. 7,1. 30 — 8,1. 2 “[e]ach such information device, such as device
10a, connects to the PSTN 31 (via its dial up modem 15, cable 21 and
telephone connector 22 shown in Figure 1”); Fig. 4; Spec. 8,11. 19-21
(“information device 10b (for example) communicates via the PSTN
network 31 with the dial up modem 15a, thus creating a communication link
41”); Fig. 5; Spec. 8,11. 22—25 (“the information device 10 directly connects
to multiple providers . . . [dedicated information servers 32b, 32c and 32d
are connected to the PSTN 31 via respectively dial up modems 15b, 15c and
15d”).
The sole place in the original Specification where a Local area
network (LAN) is mentioned occurs on page 24, lines 13—28:
While the invention has been so far described with respect
to modem embedded within the information device 10 which
connects directly to the remote server 32, it will be appreciated
that such external connection (either narrow or broad-band,
Local- or Wide area network) may be shared with other
networked appliances over a home network. As known in the
art, in such a configuration a single device, commonly known as
Residential Gateway connects to the external connection,
whereby multiple in-home appliances share this external pipe by
means of an in-home network. Home networks may use
dedicated wiring commonly known as ‘structured wiring’ and
employing Ethernet IEEE 802.3 protocols. Other
implementations involve wireless RF based network such as
standardized in IEEE802.11x or BlueTooth. Other alternatives
involve using existing wiring structure such as telephone wiring
(e.g. HomePNA technology), powerlines (e.g. HomePlug) and
CATV wiring. Adapting the information device 10 to support a
home network basically requires substituting the dial-up modem
15 with a modem appropriate for the home network media, such
as Ethernet transceiver for wired Ethernet network, IEEE802.1 lx
wireless transceiver or HomePlug compliant transceiver.
6
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
We agree with the Examiner that this passage describes sharing an external
connection with other networked appliances over a local network using a
Residential Gateway. Ans. 11. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that
this disclosure does not persuasively indicate that Appellant was in
possession of an invention covering communication between the device and
a data unit over a LAN cable, where the device included a LAN connector
for connecting to the LAN cable, a LAN transceiver coupled to the LAN
connector, and the LAN cable being concurrently connected in a building for
concurrently carrying a digital data signal and a power signal, as recited in
claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, 1 rejection of independent claim 1. Lor the same reasons, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims
2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13-15, 18, 20-64, 66, 67, 69, 71-73, 75-78, and 168, which
were not separately argued.
Claim 4
The Examiner additionally finds “the data unit is a personal
computer,” as recited in claim 4, lacks written description, final Act. 2.
Appellant points to page 7, lines 28—30 of the Specification (App. Br.
14), which states “[information server 32 is any apparatus (e.g. computer)
storing information and connectable to an information device 10 for
transmitting the information thereto.” Spec. 7,11. 28—30 (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellant that such disclosure sufficiently indicates
Appellant was in possession of a “personal computer,” as claimed.
7
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s additional 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, rejection of dependent claim 4.
Claims 11 and 12
The Examiner additionally finds “wherein said display is a digital
display” and “wherein said display is an HDTV display,” as recited in claims
11 and 12 respectively, lacks written description. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner explains “there is no description of the display within the
information device as being digital or HDTV.” (Final Act. 3).
Appellant points to page 6, lines 16—22 of the Specification (App. Br.
15), which states:
The display means 13 may be alpha-numeric only or analog
video display, and may use technologies such as LCD (Liquid
Crystal Display), FED (Field Emission Display[)], or CRT
(Cathode Ray Tube).... In many cases, an adaptor (not shown)
is required in order to connect the analog display to digital data
device. For example, the adaptor may convert to composite
video (PAL, NTSC) or S-Video or HDTV signal.
Appellant further argues the Specification “does not limit the display
to a specific type of display,” “is not limiting to an analog display,”
and further contend “LCD displays are only digital.” App. Br. 16—17
(emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 5—6.1
Claim 1 recites “the device comprising ... a single enclosure
housing said LAN connector, said LAN transceiver, said first memory
and said display.” As described in the Specification:
1 There are no page numbers in Appellant’s Reply Brief. We therefore
designate the cover page of the Reply Brief as “page 1” and subsequent
pages seriatim.
8
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
The information device may be housed within a self-
contained stand-alone enclosure, or may be integrated with
another appliance. In such integration additional functionalities
may be integrated added to the shared housing. For example, the
communication means may be shared, the display, the control
and the information memory or any combination of the above.
As such, the information device may be integrated within a
telephone set (either landline or cellular), a PDA or a television
set.
Spec. 3,11. 6—12. The display device integration is further described at page
18, lines 12—14 of the Specification, and states “[t]he information device 110
shown in the figure does not comprise any display means 13, but rather only
employ a video adapter 111, connectable to any external video monitor.”
With respect to claim 11, we agree with Appellant that page 6, lines
16—19 of the Specification sufficiently indicates Appellant was in possession
of a “digital display.”
However, with respect to claim 12, we agree with the Examiner. See
Ans. 13—14. The only mention of HDTV in the Specification is with respect
to use of an adaptor to convert to an HDTV signal. Spec. 6,11. 21—22. We
agree with the Examiner that the adaptors described in the Specification
(Spec. 6,11. 21—22, 18,11. 12—14, 23,11. 27—28) refer to connecting the
device to an external display. However, claim 1 recites a device with a
single enclosure that includes a display, not connection to an external
display.
Appellant also argues that the claims were previously rejected on the
basis that “it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to use a
television device or an HDTV display as the display device.” App. Br. 18
(emphasis omitted). However, such rejection is not before us; further, it is
well settled that a description that merely renders the invention obvious does
9
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
not satisfy the written description requirement. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352;
see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir.
1997).2
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s additional 35U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, rejection of dependent claim 12. We do not sustain the
Examiner’s additional 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of
dependent claim 11.
Claim 16
The Examiner finds “wherein said display is coupled to said first
memory via a composite video interface, and the composite video interface
is one of a PAL and an NTSC interface,” as recited in claim 16, lacks written
description. Final Act. 3.
Appellant points to page 7, lines 8 and 9 of the Specification (App. Br.
18), which states “[t]he control unit 14 couples to most or all device
components either for getting data and status information, or for controlling /
activating the sub-systems.”
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the
Examiner. See Ans. 14—15. Specifically, the portion of the Specification
Appellant relies on describes that the control unit of the information device
couples to most or all device components, and describes that the internal
display is coupled to memory via the control unit. We are not persuaded
2 Appellant repeats essentially this same argument with respect to claims 19,
68, 74, 79, and 80. See App. Br. 20, 22, 24, 26, 28; see also Reply Br. 6—8
(claims 11, 17).
10
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
Appellant has sufficiently shown possession of “the display is coupled to
said first memory via a composite video interface . . . . ”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of dependent claim 16.
Claim 17
The Examiner finds “a battery, wherein said device is operative to be
at least in part powered from said battery, and wherein said battery is a
primary or rechargeable battery,” as recited in claim 17, lacks written
description. Final Act. 3.
Appellant points to several portions of the Specification, which recite
“in one or more embodiments the information device 10 is powered by
batteries,” “[t]he information device may be powered from a regular AC
power, batteries,” and “such powering apparatuses and methods are
applicable to other types of devices.” App. Br. 19 (citing Spec. 3,11. 4—5,
15,11. 26—28, 17,11. 3—5) (emphasis omitted).
Although the Specification generally describes a device powered by
batteries, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16—17) that the Specification
does not sufficiently show possession of the embodiment which uses a
rechargeable battery with a LAN cable, rather than a telephone line. (See
Spec. 16 (describing power extracted from the telephone line during an off-
hook condition in order to charge the rechargeable battery)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of dependent claim 17.
11
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
Claim 19
The Examiner finds “firmware,” as recited in claim 19, lacks written
description. Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues “[t]he term ‘firmware’ is known in the art for a
software that is not frequently or easily updated (‘firm’), and is typically
stored in a non-volatile memory to be used as part of an embedded computer
system. The specifications explicitly discloses that non-volatile memory
may be used (page 6 line 19).” App. Br. 20.
The Specification generally describes that “[t]he memory may be
volatile or non-volatile type, such as Flash, DRAM and RAM.” Spec. 6,11.
18—19. We are not persuaded the mere mention of non-volatile memory
sufficiently indicates Appellant was in possession of “firmware,” as claimed.
See Ans. 17—18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of dependent claim 19.
Claim 65
The Examiner finds “said device is further operative to store and play
digital audio data,” as recited in claim 65, lacks written description. Final
Act. 4.
Appellant points to page 15, line 7, which states “[i]n addition to the
full duplex audio / telephony carried between the device 85 and the base unit
. . . ” (App. Br. 21). Appellant also argues “video is known to include
audio,” and point to several other portions of the Specification describing
video content. Id. (citing Spec. 1,11. 17—23 (weather forecast) and Spec. 6,
11. 14—22 (describing an “analog video display”)).
12
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
We agree with the Examiner that the identified disclosure does not
sufficiently indicate possession of a device operative to store and play digital
audio data. See Ans. 18—19. We disagree with Appellant that video
necessarily includes audio. For example, the weather forecast Appellant
relies upon appears as text data. See Spec. Fig. 6a.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of dependent claim 65.
Claim 68
The Examiner finds “the communication with the unit via said
connector is based on a standard serial digital data bus,” as recited in claim
68, lacks written description. Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues “[t]he serial bus disclosed in the specification may
also be used to communicate with units external to the device.” App. Br. 22.
We agree with the Examiner that the serial bus described in the
Specification lacks any description that it may be used to communicate with
the data unit. See Ans. 20. The Specification merely describes the control
unit coupling to the other components in the information device, as
discussed above with respect to claim 16, may be serial or shared bus type.
Spec. 7,11. 10-12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of dependent claim 68.
Claim 70
The Examiner finds the device “adapted to mechanically dock, supply
power to, and communicate with the handheld unit,” as recited in claim 70,
13
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
lacks written description because “these embodiments (depicted in Figs. 13-
15b) do not include coupling to a LAN cable.” Final Act. 4.
Appellant contends “while the disclosure describes in detail a single
example, it should not exclude other variants as mentioned.” App. Br. 23.
In addition to the reasoning set forth above with respect to claim 1, we
agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not sufficiently indicate
Appellant was in possession of the claimed invention. See Ans. 21.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of dependent claim 70.
Claim 74
The Examiner finds “said device is further operative to periodically
retrieve and display information from said first memory,” as recited in claim
74, lacks written description. Final Act. 4.
Appellant points to page 11, lines 5—6 of the Specification (App. Br.
24), which states “[i]t will be understood that the operation sequence
described above results in a periodic automatic device operation to obtain
and display information.”
We agree with the Examiner that full reading of the referenced portion
of the Specification (see Spec. 10,1. 28 — 11,1. 9) indicates that the periodic
operation to obtain and display information is from the remote server, not
from said first memory, as claimed. See Ans. 21—22.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of dependent claim 74.
14
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
Claim 79
The Examiner finds “a digital to analog converter coupled to said first
memory for converting digital data stored in said first memory to an analog
signal,” as recited in claim 79, lacks written description. Final Act. 4.
Appellant points to page 24, line 11, which refers to a “set top box,”
and 29, line 27, which also refers to a “set top box.” App. Br. 25. Appellant
also points to page 6, lines 19-22, which states “the adaptor may convert to
composite video (PAL, NTSC) or S-Video or HDTV signal”. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that the Specification at page 6 refers to
an analog to digital converter, not the claimed digital to analog converter.
See Ans. 23. In addition, the references to the “set top box” in the
Specification describe embodiments where a television set is used for
displaying the video, which as discussed above with respect to claims 11 and
12, does not describe the embodiment recited in claim 1 (from which claim
79 depends). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification
does not sufficiently indicate Appellant was in possession of the claimed
“digital to analog converter.” See Ans. 23.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, of dependent claim 79.
Claims 80—81
The Examiner finds “an analog video signal,” as recited in claims 80
and 81, lacks written description because, in the Specification, “the
information received by Applicant’s information device 10 is not a video
signal, but rather information content of a limited size.” Final Act. 5
(emphasis added); see also Fig. 6A; Spec. 12,11. 12—16.
15
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
Appellant points to page 31, lines 27—28 of the Specification, which
states “the information transported as part of the present invention may be of
any type.” App. Br. 27 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further contends
video content is not excluded, and points to the description of a weather
forecast at page 1, lines 17—23. Id. Appellant also cites to page 6, lines 14—
22 of the Specification, which states the display means may be “analog
video display.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant points to page 24, lines
5—6, which describes “[t]he splitter/combiner 114 combines the video signal
from the information device 170.” Id. at 28 (emphasis omitted). Appellant
also argues an “image” is disclosed at page 2, line 1, page 32, line 5, and
page 31, line 23, and “video is essentially a sequence of images.” Id.
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner
that Appellant has not sufficiently shown possession of an “analog video
signal,” as recited in the claims. See Ans. 23—27. That the display may be
an “analog video display” does not necessarily mean an “analog video
signal” is received. In addition, we agree with the Examiner that the list of
information provided at page 12 of the Specification does not refer to any
video content.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of dependent claims 80 and 81.
Claim 82
The Examiner finds a “device for communicating with a data unit
over a point-to-point cable connected to simultaneously carry a DC power
signal and a half-duplex serial digital data signal” and “wherein said first
transceiver and said first non-volatile memory are coupled to said first
16
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
connector to be powered from the DC power signal,” as recited in claim 82,
lacks written description. Final Act. 5.
Appellant points to page 2, lines 18—19 of the Specification, which
states “[t]he communication may be direct point-to-point connection (such
as in telephony) or via the Internet,” and also relies on the similar catch-all
statements as with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 29.
For the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1, as
well as the reasons set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 27—28), we agree with
the Examiner that this disclosure does not persuasively indicate that
Appellant was in possession of an invention covering communication
between the device and a data unit over a point-to-point cable connected to
simultaneously carry a DC power signal and a half-duplex serial digital data
signal and where a first transceiver and a first non-volatile memory are
coupled to a first connector to be powered from the DC power signal, as
recited in claim 82.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of independent claim 82. For the same reasons, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of
dependent claims 83—138, and 140—162, and 164—167, which were not
separately argued.
Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections
Appellant contends “this application is entitled to the priority date of
January 13, 2004 because the present claims are supported by the disclosure
of that priority application.” App. Br. 8. Appellant argues “upon reversal of
the [written description rejection], the prior art rejection must also be
17
Appeal 2016-000622
Application 12/358,551
reversed” because the “references [have] prior art dates later than the priority
date of the parent foreign application.” Id.
Because all claims remain subject to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, we need not reach this issue. Accordingly, we summarily
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1—4, 7—67, and
73—106 and summarily sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 5, 6, 68—72, 107—138, 140—162, and 164—168.
DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims
1-6, 9-138, 140-162, and 16^U168 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s additional and separate 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejections of claims 4 and 11 are reversed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1—4, 7—67, and
73—106 is summarily affirmed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 6, 68—72,
107—138, 140-162, and 164—168 are summarily 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
18