Ex Parte CHEN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 31, 2019

14455208 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/455,208 08/08/2014 Jrjyan Jerry CHEN
44257 7590 06/04/2019
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- -Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
016166USAC02/DISPLAY/AKT/ 7167
EXAMINER
BODNAR, JOHN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2893
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JRJYAN JERRY CHEN and SOO YOUNG CHOI
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208 1
Technology Center 2800
Before CARLL. SILVERMAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 9, 14, and 21-31, which constitute all pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was
held May 9, 2019.
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Applied Materials, Inc. App. Br.
3.
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to encapsulating organic light emitting diode
(OLED) structures disposed on a substrate using a hybrid layer of material in
which the processing parameters used during deposition of the hybrid layer
of material allow control of the characteristics of the deposited hybrid layer.
The hybrid layer may be deposited such that the layer has characteristics of
an inorganic material in some sub layers of the hybrid layer and
characteristics of an organic material in other sub layers of the hybrid layer.
Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 17, 21-24, 32 Figs. 3A-3C. Claim 9, reproduced below,
is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal (with emphasis added):
9. A method for forming an encapsulating structure
on an organic light emitting diode (OLED) substrate,
compnsmg:
forming a first inorganic layer on a region of a substrate
having an OLED structure disposed thereon, the region being
defined by a mask;
forming a hybrid layer on the first inorganic layer in the
region defined by the mask, wherein the hybrid layer is formed
by supplying a processing gas comprising a HMDSO
(hexamethyldisiloxane) gas throughout the formation of the
hybrid layer, and the hybrid layer comprises:
a first sublayer having a majority of inorganic
materials and a minority of organic materials, wherein
the first sublayer is formed by providing an oxygen-
containing gas to the HMDSO gas at a flow ratio of
about 1 0 or greater;
a second sublayer having a majority of organic
materials and a minority of inorganic materials, wherein
the second sublayer is formed by providing the oxygen-
containing gas to the HMDSO gas at a flow ratio of less
than 2; and
a third sublayer having a majority of inorganic
materials and a minority of organic materials, wherein
2
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
the third sublayer is formed by providing the oxygen-
containing gas to the HMDSO gas at a flow ratio of
about 10 or greater, and the second sublayer is disposed
between the first sublayer and the third sublayer; and
forming a second inorganic layer on the hybrid layer in the
region defined by the mask, wherein the hybrid layer is in
physical contact with the first inorganic layer and the second
inorganic layer.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 9, 14, 21, and 23-31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Schaepkens et al. (US 2009/0202743
Al; pub. Aug. 13, 2009) ("Schaepkens"), Kim et al. (US 2006/0001040 Al;
pub. Jan. 5, 2006) ("Kim"), Pichler et al. (US 2003/0205845 Al; pub. Nov.
6, 2003) ("Pichler"), Fukuda et al. (US 2008/0085418 Al; pub. Apr. 10,
2008) ("Fukuda"), and Mandlik et al. (US 2011/0114994 Al; pub. May 19,
2011) ("Mandlik"). Final Act. 3-15.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Schaepkens, Kim, Pichler, Fukuda, and Lee (US 5,009,920; iss. Apr.
23, 1991). Final Act. 15.
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
Examiner's Final Action Findings
Regarding independent claims 9 and 14, the Examiner finds that
Schaepkens teaches forming an encapsulating structure on an organic light
emitting diode substrate. Final Act. 3 ( citing Schaepkens ,r,r 16, 18, Fig. 1 ).
The Examiner finds that Schaepkens teaches forming a first inorganic layer
3
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
(122) on a region of the substrate having an OLED structure disposed
thereon (140); forming an organic layer (124) on the first inorganic layer,
and a second inorganic layer (122) on the organic layer (124). Id. at 3--4
( citing Schaepkens ,r 18). The Examiner finds that Kim teaches forming a
hybrid layer (10) by supplying a processing gas (HMDSO) throughout the
formation of the hybrid layer. Id. at 4--5 ( citing Kim ,r 42). The Examiner
finds hybrid layer (10) is formed of zones, as shown in Kim "FIG. 2 [which]
shows schematically a substantially organic zone 12, a substantially
inorganic zone 14 and an organic-inorganic interface zone 16. The term
'substantially organic' means the composition is over 90% organic. The term
'substantially inorganic' means the composition is over 90% inorganic." Id.
at 5 ( quoting Kim ,r 30). The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of this application to substitute
the hybrid layer of Kim for the organic layer of Schaepkens because the
hybrid layer allows transitions from inorganic to organic and back without
an abrupt interface which reduces the light transmissibility. Id. ( citing Kim
,r 32). The Examiner finds Mandlik additionally supports the modification
by teaching that it is desirable to transition from inorganic to organic
gradually to reduce stress at the layer interfaces. Id. ( citing Mandlik ,r 97).
The Examiner finds that Fukuda teaches forming a multi-layer hybrid
organic gas barrier by modifying the ratio of the decomposition gas, in a
chamber, of oxygen to the carbon source gas (HDMSO) to form high and
low carbon density layers. Id. at 6 (citing Fukuda ,r,r 59, 81, 89, 196-204).
The Examiner finds that Kim also teaches that the first layer, the hybrid
layer, and the second layer are formed in the same chamber. Id. ( citing Kim
,r,r 38, 42). The Examiner concludes that
4
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
Id.
[i]t would be obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the
gas flow ratios of one gas set to form a multi-layer hybrid layer
because the method allows all the hybrid layers to be formed in
one chamber, reducing cost and manufacturing time and the risk
of contamination during transfer between chambers.
The Examiner finds
Schaepkens in view of Fukuda does not specify a ratio of
oxygen flow to HMDSO flow of less than 2 for the second
sublayer, but it has been held that where the general conditions
of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum
or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re
Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The ratio of oxygen-containing gas flow
to HMDSO is known in the art for forming a protective organic-
silicon layer. See Mandlik, table 1 examples 1 and 2, which
discloses a substantially inorganic layer (93% inorganic) with an
oxygen to HMDSO ratio of 300 : 0.4, and a substantially organic
layer (94% organic) with a ratio of 1.3 : 1. Mandlik [0072].
Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner finds Pichler teaches using a mask to define regions of
encapsulated LEDs. Id. at 7 ( citing Pichler, Fig. 4a, ,r 55). The Examiner
concludes that it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of this
application to combine Pichler with Kim because one skilled in the art
would be motivated to use a mask defined region for creating a barrier layer
as it provides an inexpensive method for allowing the contact pads for the
LED to remain exposed. Id. ( citing Pichler ,r 9).
In the Advisory Action, the Examiner finds "one skilled [in the art]
would have looked to Kim, ( despite the difference in intended use in Kim) to
provide a simple solution to forming a hybrid layer, which is ramping on and
off a gas flow which [the E]xaminer feels is within the skills of a
semiconductor process engineer." Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner finds that
5
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
adjusting ratios is within the skill of one skilled in the art and reference to
both high and low oxygen ratios were provided in the office action and
would be no more inventive than adjusting a dimmer switch to brighten the
lights in a room. Id. The Examiner explains that a dimmer switch can be
switched on and off or can be gradually adjusted, and that ramping gasses in
a chamber is no more complicated to one skilled in developing
semiconductor process recipes. Id.
Appellants' Appeal Brief Contentions
Appellants note that the Examiner acknowledges that Schaepkens
does not teach that the organic layer 124 is a hybrid layer, wherein the
hybrid layer is formed by supplying a processing gas comprising a HMDSO
gas throughout the formation of the hybrid layer, and the hybrid layer
comprises a first sublayer having a majority of inorganic materials and a
minority of organic materials, a second sublayer having a majority of
organic materials and a minority of inorganic materials, and a third sublayer
having a majority of inorganic materials and a minority of organic materials,
and Appellants note that the Examiner relies on Kim to cure the deficiencies.
App. Br. 8-9.
Appellants argue that Kim does not teach disposing a barrier coating
10 (alleged hybrid layer) between two inorganic layers as Kim only teaches
that the barrier coating 10 is disposed on at least one surface of an element
or substrate 20. App. Br. 10 (citing Kim ,r 34). According to Appellants,
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to replace a
pure organic layer 124 of Schaepkens with the hybrid barrier coating 10 of
Kim as proposed by the Examiner because the organic layer 124 of
6
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
Schaepkens is never taught or suggested to be inorganic or have mixed
properties of organic and inorganic. Id. Appellants argue the Examiner is
using impermissible hindsight.
Appellants argue, even if one of ordinary skill in the art were
motivated to substitute the barrier coating 10 of Kim for the organic layer
124 of Schaepkens, Kim does not teach forming the barrier coating 10 using
HMDSO throughout the formation of the hybrid layer because only the
substantially organic layer 12 is formed from HMDSO. Id. at 10 (citing Kim
,r,r 42, 43). According to Appellants, there is no teaching or suggestion that
the substantially inorganic layers 14 (i.e., alleged first and third sublayers)
are formed from HMDSO. Id.
Appellants argue that Fukuda teaches the transparent gas barrier film
of Fukuda includes a low density layer, a high density layer, and one or
more intermediate density layers sandwiched between the low density layer
and the high density layer, and the transparent gas barrier film of Fukuda is
taught to be preferably inorganic oxides with ratios of25:1 to 50:1. Id. at 11
(citing Fukuda ,r,r 102, 196,198,203,211). According to Appellants,
"[ w ]ithout a clear teaching or suggestion, [ one of] ordinary skill in the art
would only have been motivated to use a high 02/HMDSO ratio (25: 1 to 50:
1) during the entire formation of the barrier coating 10 of Kim, rather than
making only the intermediate density layer with a low 02/HMDSO ratio (2: 1
or less) that is not even taught or suggested by Fukuda." Id. at 12.
Appellants argue "[s]ince "the second sublayer is formed by providing
the oxygen-containing gas to the HMDSO gas at a flow ratio of less than 2,"
as recited in claim 9 is never disclosed or suggested by Fukuda, Schaepkens
and Kim, it would not have been obvious or even possible for a skilled
7
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
artisan to modify or optimize the gas flow ratio as alleged by the Examiner.
Id. at 12 (quoting MPEP § 2144.05, "a particular parameter must first be
recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a
recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable
ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine
experimentation.").
Appellants argue that "[ n Jone of the cited references teaches or
suggests forming the hybrid layer in a high(l 0) /low(2) /high(l 0)
02/HMDSO ratio order." Id. at 12. Appellants argue Mandlik's
substantially inorganic layer with a ratio of 300:0.4, and a substantially
organic layer with a ratio of 1.3: 1, and the other cited references do not teach
the claimed high (10)/low (2)/high (10) ratio order.
Regarding Pichler, Appellants reiterate arguments presented for the
other disputed limitations without specifically disputing the Examiner's
reliance upon Pichler for teaching use of a mask. Id. at 14.
Examiner's Final Action Findings
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that the combination of Kim and
Schaepkens replaces a pure organic layer with a hybrid layer that transitions
from inorganic to organic and back, would improve the light transmission of
the layer by eliminating organic-inorganic interfaces. Ans. 2 ( citing Final
Act. 5). The Examiner finds additional motivation provided by Mandlik,
that a gradual transition between an inorganic and organic layer would
reduce stress at the interfaces. Id. ( citing Mandlik ,r 97).
According to the Examiner:
[the] Examiner substituted the hybrid membrane from Kim for
the organic layer the multi-layer structure of Schaepkens, and
8
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
used the process of Kim to build the hybrid layer. Kim teaches
that HMDSO can be used as a process gas, and teaches that
varying ratios of chamber gases to achieve a mixed composition
is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Kim
specifically teaches that the hybrid layer can be made from
HMDSO in paragraph 0042, but does not specify the
combination of oxygen and HMDSO to achieve the
organic/inorganic composition. Examiner used Fukuda ... in the
office action (page 6) to show that it was known in the art that
gas flow ratios of oxygen to HMDSO could be used to produce
an inorganic sublayer.
Ans. 3.
Regarding Appellants' argument that Fukuda only teaches forming an
inorganic layer using HMDSO and oxygen, so there is no motivation to
apply the gases of Fukuda to the hybrid layer of Kim, the Examiner
disagrees because Fukuda is used only to teach that an inorganic portion can
be made from HMDSO and oxygen. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Kim
already teaches using HMDSO as a gas for the organic portion, and teaches
varying between organic and inorganic by varying the gas combination and
the only question left unanswered by Kim is which gas in addition to
HMDSO could have been used by one skilled to form the entire hybrid
layer, and this question is answered by Fukuda (the gas is oxygen). Id.
finds:
Regarding the specific claimed ratios of 10, 2, and 10, the Examiner
Once one skilled in the art understood that a hybrid layer could
be made from oxygen and HMDSO in a single chamber, it would
have been a matter of routine experimentation to discover
appropriate values. Examiner provided prior art Mandlik (U.S.
2011/0114994) to show that ratios in the ranges claimed
(appellant claimed <2:1 for an organic layer and >10:1 for an
inorganic layer) were known in the art. Table 1 ofMandlik shows
oxygen:HMDSO ratios of 1.3: 1 for an organic layer and 300:0.4
9
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
for an inorganic layer. Because the art of record teaches the
ranges recited, it would have been within the skill of one skilled
in the art to adjust the ranges of Kim in view of Fukuda to create
the hybrid layer claimed.
. . . . Kim explicitly teaches adjusting gas flow in a
chamber to form the hybrid layer and Fukuda and Mandlik teach
that various ratios of oxygen and HMDSO can produce organic
and inorganic layer. Examiner provided a motivation to combine
the art, that is, a less expensive, simpler and cleaner process on
page 6 of the final rejection.
Ans. 4.
Appellants' Reply Brief Contentions
In the Reply Brief, Appellants reiterate previous arguments and argue
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to perform the
alleged replacement of the single pure organic layer 124 of Schaepkens with
an organic-inorganic barrier coating 10 of Kim because Schaepkens
specifically teaches that the organic layer 124 is an adhesion layer, a stress
relief layer, a conformal layer, a chemically resistant layer, an abrasion
resistant layer, or combinations thereof. Reply Br. 2 ( citing Schaepkens
,r 26). According to Appellants, if one were motivated to replace the organic
layer 124 of Schaepkens, he/she would look for a layer that can be disposed
between two inorganic layers and offers improved properties of adhesion,
stress relief, chemical resistant or abrasion resistant. Id. Appellants argue:
In contrast, the barrier coating 10 of Kim is an organic-inorganic
composition taught to be disposed directly on or around the
organic electroluminescent element 20 as discussed above. The
barrier coating 10 of Kim provides improved light transmission
by matching refractive indices of inorganic zones and organic
zones in the coating (See paragraph [0027]). However, the light
10
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
transmission was not an issue mentioned in Schaepkens because
Schaepkens clearly states the multilayer coating set 120 (which
includes an organic layer 124 sandwiched between inorganic
layers 122 as shown in Fig. 1) is transparent to visible light (See
paragraph [0016]). Without a clear teaching or suggestion, one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
replace a pure single organic 124 that is already transparent to
visible light with organic-inorganic barrier coating 10 of Kim that
is desired to improve transmission efficiency.
Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants argue that HMDSO is never taught or suggested by Kim to
be used during the formation of inorganic layers 14 and "[t]herefore, the
Examiner's assertion about Kim using HMDSO during the entire formation
of the hybrid layer is incorrect." Id. at 3 (citing Kim ,r,r 32, 43). Appellants
argue that
[e]ven if a skilled artisan were to consider Mandlik for varying
the stoichiometric ratios of the chemical elements to change the
properties in the deposited hybrid layer, Mandlik alone, or in any
combination with Fukuda, Kim, and Schaepkens, does not offer
a clear teaching or suggestion of forming the hybrid layer in a
high(l 0) /low(2) /high (10) 02/HMDSO ratio order. Routine
experimentation may lead to discovery of optimum or working
ranges, but optimum or workable ranges does not suggest a
specific high /low/ high 02/HMDSO ratio order as alleged by the
Examiner.
Id. at 4.
Analysis
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the findings and conclusions of the Examiner. The Examiner's findings
are reasonable, and Appellants' arguments are conclusory and based on an
11
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
unreasonably narrow teaching of the references that would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art.
Schaepkens teaches a multilayer structure of at least one inorganic
layer and at least one organic layer, and may include a plurality of such
layers alternatively arranged. Schaepkens ,r 18. Kim teaches forming a
hybrid layer employing HMDSO to form organic portions and varying the
organic-inorganic composition such that "[a] mixed composition of the
coating is obtained by changing the compositions of the reactants fed into
the reactor chamber during the deposition of reaction products to form the
coating." Kim ,r 42, Fig. 2. Kim's use of HMDSO is done when needed and
there is no persuasive basis to support Appellants' assertion that Kim does
not teach supplying HMDSO throughout the formation of the hybrid layer.
"A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton" (KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)), who
is not "compelled to adopt every single aspect of [ a reference's] teaching
without the exercise of independent judgment" (Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Further, the claim does not recite using HMDSO throughout the entire
formation of the hybrid layer, and we find the limitation is met even if
Appellants' assertion regarding Kim's layers 14 were accepted. Moreover,
as Kim's hybrid layers, whether organic or inorganic, are referred to as
"substantially" organic or inorganic, it is understood that the hybrid organic
layers include inorganic composition and the inorganic layer includes
organic composition. Fukuda teaches varying ratios of oxygen to HMDSO
to produce a hybrid inorganic layer. Fukuda ,r,r 59, 81, 89, 196-204.
Mandlik teaches ratios less than 2 ( 1 :3) for organic, and greater than 10
12
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
(300: .04) for inorganic. Mandlik ,r,r 72, 97. We agree it would be within
the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratios of Kim and
Fukuda to create the claimed hybrid layer. Additionally, we note no
persuasive evidence in the record that the claimed ratios offer any unique
characteristics or unexpected results.
Regarding Appellants' argument that the recited high/low/high
oxygen to HMDSO ratio order is not taught by the references, we note that
the references, as discussed supra, teach or suggest the use of a hybrid layer
which corresponds to Schaepkens, and, additionally, also corresponds to the
"PRIOR ART" described in the Specification. Spec. ,r 4, Figs. 1 A-1 C.
Regarding the combination of Schaepkens and Kim, one of ordinary
skill would use Kim's hybrid layer for replacing Schaepkens's organic layer
because the hybrid layer allows transitions from inorganic to organic and
back without an abrupt interface which reduces the light transmissibility, and
Mandlik teaches that it is desirable to transition from inorganic to organic
gradually to reduce stress at the layer interfaces. Kim ,r 32, Mandlik ,r 97.
Regarding Kim and Fukuda, Fukuda teaches multi-layer hybrid inorganic
high and low carbon density layers formed by varying the ratio of oxygen to
HMDSO and Kim teaches the layers are formed in the same chamber. Kim
,r,r 38, 42. We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that
[it] would be obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the
gas flow ratios of one gas set to form a multi-layer hybrid layer
because the method allows all the hybrid layers to be formed in
one chamber, reducing cost and manufacturing time and the risk
of contamination during transfer between chambers.
Final Act. 12.
We note much of Appellants' arguments are unsupported by factual
evidence. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are
13
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, Appeal 2009-004693, 2009 WL
2477843, at *3--4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
Appellants argue the references individually, although the rejection is
based on the combination of the teachings of the cited references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references" (citations omitted)); In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants also argue an unreasonably narrow teaching of the cited
references and an overly demanding standard of obviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Here, the Examiner provides sufficient evidence as required for
obviousness. As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness
rejection must be based on:
[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness .... [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
14
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because, in this case, the
skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
Based upon the teachings of the references and the fact that each
claimed element was well known in the art, we agree with the Examiner that
the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
obvious, as it does no more than yield predictable results. Id. at 415-16.
We note Appellants present no persuasive arguments that the results are
unpredictable. Moreover, as discussed supra, the Examiner additionally
provided reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine each of
the references in the manner suggested.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 9, and
independent claims 21 and 28 as these claims are similar to claim 9 and are
not argued separately. See App. Br. 14--16. We sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 14, 22-27, and 29-31 as these claims are not argued
separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9, 14, 21, and
23-31.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
15
Appeal2018-001407
Application 14/455,208
AFFIRMED
16