Ex Parte Ewers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

13216010 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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.
13/216,010 08/23/2011 Ronald Lee Ewers 508599 3334
53609 7590 02/17/2017
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
VALVIS, ALEXANDER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD LEE EWERS,
BRADLEY LYLE BUSCH, and
BRADLEY ALAN EWERS
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a non-
final rejection of claims 1—11 and 20. App. Br. 2.1 Claims 12—19 have been
withdrawn. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants do not number the pages in their Appeal Brief. We assign page
numbers thereto for reference purposes, starting with the Title Page bearing
page number 1.
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to fire control systems, and more
particularly to a fire control system that adds compressed air into a water and
foam fire suppressant mixture, commonly known as a Compressed Air Foam
System (CAFS).” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 20 are independent claims.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A Compressed Air Foam System (CAFS), comprising:
a water tank;
a water pump fluidly connected to the water tank;
a foam concentrate chamber;
a first mix chamber fluidly connected to the foam
concentrate chamber and fluidly connected to the water pump;
wherein the water pump injects water from the water tank into
the first mix chamber to create a foam;
a second mix chamber; wherein the first mix chamber is
fluidly connected to the second mix chamber;
an air compressor fluidly connected to the second mix
chamber;
wherein foam from the first mix chamber is injected into
the second mix chamber and mixed with compressed air from
the air compressor;
a discharge valve fluidly connected to the second mix
chamber and configured to discharge a foam and compressed
air solution;
a diagnostic system that takes device parameters from the
CAFS; and
a controller that operates the CAFS based on the device
parameters from the diagnostic system.
2
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Boegli US 3,977,474 Aug. 31, 1976
Laskaris2 US 5,427,181 June 27, 1995
(hereinafter “Laskaris ’181”)
Laskaris3 US 6,357,532 B1 Mar. 19, 2002
(hereinafter “Laskaris ’532”)
Crawley US 6,733,004 B2 May 11,2004
Laskaris4 US 6,991,041 B2 Jan. 31, 2006
(hereinafter “Laskaris ’041”)
Shafique US 7,445,025 B2 Nov. 4, 2008
Vetesnik US 2010/0236799 A1 Sept. 23,2010
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by
Vetesnik.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Laskaris ’041 andLaskaris ’181.5
2 The Examiner identifies this reference as “Laskaris B” (Non-Final Act. 3)
while Appellants identify this reference as “Laskaris ’181” (App. Br. 7, 10).
We employ the more identifiable label of “Laskaris ’181.”
3 The Examiner identifies this reference as “Laskaris C” (Non-Final Act. 10)
while Appellants identify this reference as “Laskaris ’532” (App. Br. 7, 19).
We employ the more identifiable label of “Laskaris ’532.”
4 The Examiner identifies this reference as “Laskaris A” (Non-Final Act. 3)
while Appellants identify this reference as “Laskaris ’041” (App. Br. 7, 10).
We employ the more identifiable label of “Laskaris ’041.”
5 The Examiner incorrectly identifies this reference as US 5,427,281 in the
rejection. Non-Final Act. 3. However, Appellants correctly understand the
rejection to refer to US 5,427,181. App. Br. 7.
3
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Crawley.
Claims 2—5, 7, 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable overLaskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, and Shafique.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, and Crawley.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, Shafique, and Boegli.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, Shafique, and Laskaris ’532.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1 and 6 as anticipated by Vetesnik
The pertinent figure of Vetesnik is provided below.
T -r-x [ ri.: i y;
1—“T AGENT i
_____ 1_____ fA T | SJFfLy i j I SJPPCf
!f?pr i [
___ Y ... - . j *** "i
The above Figure 2 of Vetesnik illustrates injector 19 and mixer 15.
4
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
Both independent claims 1 and 6 include the limitation of first and
second mix chambers where water is injected “into the first mix chamber to
create a foam,” and further that “foam from the first mix chamber is injected
into the second mix chamber.” The Examiner finds that Vetesnik item 19
correlates to the claimed “first mix chamber,” and Vetesnik item 15
correlates to the claimed “second mix chamber.” Non-Final Act. 3; see also
Vetesnik Fig. 2. The Examiner also identifies foam concentrate chambers
12 A and 12B of Vetesnik stating that they connect to the corresponding first
mix chamber 19 (where water is also received) “to create a foam (mixing
chamber having injection of foam concentrate and water would result in a
foam).”6 Non-Final Act. 3.
Appellants dispute that foaming occurs at Vetesnik’s first mix
chamber 19 as claimed. App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 7—9. Appellants instead
contend, “[fjoam is not created in Vetesnik until its solution of water and
concentrate enters its mixer 15.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 7. In other words,
item 19 is simply an injector and that “Vetesnik does not teach that the
concentrate and water create foam in the Vetesnik injector 19 as opposed to
merely a solution of water and concentrate.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 8.
Appellants reiterate that it is in “mixer 15 wherein foam is generated” and
that “injector 19 is a structure that does not make foam.” App. Br. 9; see
also Reply Br. 8. Appellants buttress this assertion by identifying where
6 We note that Vetesnik does not disclose an air supply to this first mix
chamber 19, only the receipt of water and a foaming agent. See Vetesnik
Fig. 2. This is consistent with the teachings of Vetesnik which describe item
19 as an “injector” and that this “injector 19 is responsive to the water flow
and adds the quantity of foaming agent necessary to match that water flow at
the required ratio which is constant for all water flow rates.” Vetesnik | 87.
5
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
Vetesnik expressly teaches that the foaming agent from one or more tanks
12 A and 12B “supplies a surfactant of known characteristics to a mixing
system 15_ for mixing the water, the compressed air and the foaming agent to
generate a flame retardant foam.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 8 (italics added)
(referencing Vetesnik 168).
The Examiner, in turn, provides two consistent definitions of the
claim term “foam” from two different sources. Ans. 9—10. These
definitions employ “bubbles” or a “gas” dispersed in a liquid as defining
“foam.” Ans. 9-10. As indicated supra, however, a supply of air is not
shown (or described) as being provided to Vetesnik’s injector 19, but
instead, air is supplied to Vetesnik’s downstream mixer/mixing system 15
for the generation of foam. See Vetesnik || 68, 83, Fig. 2. Nevertheless,
“[t]he Examiner asserts that the system of Vetesnik would produce foam at
the cited junction 19 since water flowing would receive foam concentrate
(from 12 A/B).” Ans. 10. This is because, as per the Examiner, “by
injecting foam concentrate into flowing water [at injector 19, this] would
create turbulence and thus some foam would be created.” Ans. 10. There is
no support in Vetesnik for this statement by the Examiner. Instead, as
indicated supra, Vetesnik teaches that injector 19 is employed to achieve
“the required ratio” of water and foaming agent desired. Vetesnik | 87. In
other words, we understand Vetesnik’s injector 19 to simply inject the
proper amount of a foaming agent into the water to achieve the desired
concentration or ratio of water/foaming agent. There is no indication in
Vetesnik that foaming actually occurs at injector 19; instead, we are
informed that the foaming agent from tanks 12 A/B is diluted with water to
6
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
the desired concentration and that actual foaming occurs downstream at
mixer 15, after a supply of air is provided. See supra.
The Examiner also appears to rely on “inherent knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art” that agitation of “a mixture of a fluid and foam
concentrate would cause foam.” Ans. 10. Such a finding of inherency does
not take into account the Appellants’ contention that injector 19 merely
achieves “a solution of water and concentrate,” not foam. App. Br. 9; Reply
Br. 8. Thus, there is doubt as to the Examiner’s statements regarding
foaming at injector 19, and it is not otherwise self-evident from the record
that foaming occurs there. As such, “[t]he familiar rule that any doubt which
exists should be resolved in favor of the applicant is here applicable.” In re
Kirschbraun, 44 F.2d 675, 677 (CCPA 1930). We are likewise instructed by
our reviewing court, “[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., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.,
814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). That does not appear to be the case
here.
In view of the above, we conclude that the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Vetesnik anticipates the
claimed apparatus. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 1 and 6, nor those that depend therefrom, as being
anticipated by Vetesnik.
The rejection of claim 1
as unpatentable over Laskaris ’041 and Laskaris ’181
The Examiner relies primarily on Laskaris ’041 for disclosing the
limitations of claim 1, including the teaching of first mix chamber 27 and
second mix chamber 40 illustrated in Figure 1. Non-Final Act. 4. However,
7
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
the Examiner acknowledges that Laskaris ’041 “does not explicitly disclose”
that first mix chamber 27 “is capable of creating foam,” but instead, that
item 27 “discloses that water and foam concentrate would come together in
this injector.” Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Laskaris ’181 for
teaching a “substantially similar” system, except that Laskaris ’181 discloses
that the “fluid flowing into inlet 15 through conduit 24 is a ‘foam solution
flow.’” Non-Final Act. 4 (referencing Laskaris ’181 Fig. 5, 9:33—64, 10:27—
48). In other words, the Examiner finds that this “foam solution flow” into
inlet 15 “would indicate that the injector would mix the water and foam
concentrate to create a foam.” Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner thereafter
provides a reason to combine the teachings of Laskaris ’041 and Laskaris
’181. Non-Final Act. 4.
The pertinent figures of Laskaris ’041 and Laskaris ’181 are provided
below.
8
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
The above is Figure 1 of Laskaris ’041 illustrating foam injector 27
and mixer 40.
9
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
The above is Figure 5 of Laskaris 181 illustrating “foam solution
flow” entering inlet 15 of conduit 24.
Employing a similar logic used previously, Appellants contend,
“Laskaris ’041 character reference 27 is not a mixing chamber that creates
foam.” App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 10-11. Appellants further state “it
is foam concentrate and not foam” that is identified in Figure 5 of Laskaris
’181 (“FIG. 5 of Laskaris ’181 labels the water and foam concentrate not as
foam but as foam solution.”). App. Br. 11. Appellants buttress this
understanding of the make-up of the “foam solution flow” identified by the
Examiner in Figure 5 of Laskaris ’181 by referencing text from Laskaris
’181. App. Br. 11 ; see also Reply Br. 10—11. In particular, Appellants
identify Laskaris 181 as teaching that “[f]oam is not created in Laskaris ’181
until the foam concentrate passes into mixer 40['].” App. Br. 11; Reply Br.
11 (referencing Laskaris ’181 4:64-5:1). Appellants also identify where
Laskaris ’181 states, “[t]he purpose of the mixer is to create a mixing action
to produce a foam as the mixture offoam solution and air flow from the
venturi to the upstream end of the fire delivery means.” App. Br. 12; Reply
10
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
Br. 11 (referencing Laskaris ’181 1:27—29) (emphasis added). In other
words, as understood from the teachings of Laskaris ’ 181, the “foam
solution flow” is not foamed until mixed with air in mixer 40, or,
alternatively, the asserted “foam solution flow” is simply a mixture of
concentrate and water that is subsequently foamed downstream after the
injection of air.
Appellants’ contention as to the unfoamed nature of the “foam
solution flow” is compelling in view of the teachings of Laskaris ’181
above. The Examiner again relies on the definition of “foam” but does not
explain how Laskaris ’041 teaches the delivery of air to the asserted first mix
chamber 27 in order to create “bubbles” or supply a “gas” as such definitions
require. Instead, the Examiner states that the “foam solution” disclosed
(whether in Laskaris ’041 or Laskaris ’181) “teaches that the solution would
contain foam.” Ans. 11 (i.e., the cited art “does not teach that the injection
of foam concentrate into flowing water would not [create] some foam.”).
The Examiner fails to provide any indication from the teachings of
either reference that the solution identified is anything other than a more
dilute blend of a foam concentrate. Furthermore, there is no indication that
this dilute solution is foamed in Laskaris ’041 ’s first mix chamber 27 as
stated by the Examiner (and which is claimed). Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 11.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded Appellants misunderstand the teachings
of either reference, and are in agreement with Appellants that Laskaris ’041
in view of Laskaris ’181 “does not disclose, teach, or suggest all the
limitations of claim 1.” App. Br. 12.
The Examiner also provides an alternate rationale stating,
“[additionally, Laskaris [’181] teaches an alternate embodiment wherein a
11
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
plurality of mixing chambers 40' and 40A to a discharge valve nozzle
system 19A.” Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner continues by stating that it
would have been obvious “to have [added] plural mixing chambers as taught
by Laskaris [’181] to the structure of Laskaris [’041] because adding mixing
action can produce smaller and more effective bubbles.” Non-Final Act. 5
(referencing Laskaris ’181 11:11—35). Appellants contend, however, that
even under this construction, the cited combination fails to satisfy the claim
1 limitation of “an air compressor fluidly connected to the second mix
chamber.”7 App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 12. The Examiner does not address this
additional limitation or explain how it is taught or suggested by this alternate
construction.
In view of the record presented, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over Laskaris 041 and Laskaris 181 in
accordance with either alternative.
7 Appellants explain, “Laskaris ’181 discloses mixers 40' and 40A but only
first mixer 40' receives compressed air while mixer 40A does not receive
any compressed air.” App. Br. 12 (referencing Laskaris ’181 11:6—10).
12
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
The rejection of claims 1 and 6
as unpatentable over Crawley
The pertinent figure of Crawley is provided below (which is
similiar to Figure 2 of Vetesnik discussed supra).
V-tu-f ,-nT’ IB
e
m 29
530,
Aria
tei
^ b £ 4 l
i
\
; imWs i 3 ,w-i asb<«t \ I,™ „
\ '■ \ V
2B
WKaM (•>
The above Figure 1 of Crawley illustrates injector 19 and mixer 15.
The Examiner again, as with the rejection under Vetesnik, correlates
injector 19 as the claimed first mix chamber and mixer 15 as the claimed
second mix chamber.8 Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner proffers similar
reasons as above, and Appellants counter with similar arguments thereto.
Non-Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 12; App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 13—14. We rely on
similar analysis to the effect that “Crawley’s injector 19 is not a first mixing
chamber wherein foam is generated” (App. Br. 14) and, as above, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 6, or their
dependent claims, as being obvious over Crawley.
8 We note that Crawley employs the exact same description of item 19 as is
also found in Vetesnik. Compare Crawley 3:30—38 with Vetesnik | 87.
13
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
The rejection of claims 2—5, 7, 10, 11, and 20
as unpatentable over Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, and Shafique
Appellants present separate arguments for claim 2 (App. Br. 15),
claim 7 (App. Br. 15—17), and claim 20 (App. Br. 17). We address each
separately.
Claim 2
Independent claim 2 includes language found in claim 1, i.e.,
water is injected “into the first mix chamber to create a foam” and further
that “foam from the first mix chamber is injected into the second mix
chamber.” It is understood that the Examiner relies on Laskaris ’041 and
Laskaris ’181 for disclosing such limitations and that the additional
reference to Shafique is employed to teach the further limitation found in
claim 2 of “a second flow meter” that is specifically located (this latter “flow
meter” limitation is not recited in either claim 1 or claim 6). Non-Linal Act.
6. Whether or not Shafique teaches this “flow meter” limitation, we do not
agree that the combination of Laskaris ’041 and Laskaris ’181 teaches or
suggests the “foam” limitations previously discussed. We do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, and dependent claims 3—5, 10, and 11, as
being obvious over Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, and Shafique.
Claim 7-
Claim 7 depends from claim 2. Shafique is not relied on to cure the
deficiencies of Laskaris ’041 and Laskaris ’181. Non-Linal Act. 6—7.
9 Claim 7 is the subject of a “Claim Objection” by the Examiner due to the
duplicative recitation of “the air compressor.” Non-Linal Act. 2. Appellants
state that an amendment was filed “on August 23, 2014, to amend claim 7 to
delete the duplicative phrase ‘the air compressor,”’ but that this amendment
14
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
Accordingly, because we reverse the rejection of parent claim 2, we likewise
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as being obvious over
Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, and Shafique for similar reasons.
Claim 20
Independent claim 20 does not include the “foam” limitations found in
independent claims 1, 2, and 6 addressed above. Claim 20, however,
includes the limitation of “a second flow sensor fluidly disposed between the
first mix chamber and the second mix chamber.” The Examiner explains
that Laskaris ’041 discloses “second flow meter 200” disposed as recited and
further clarifies that Laskaris ’041 actually states that this device 200 “can
be a ball valve.” Non-Final Act. 6; see also Laskaris ’041 12:18—19 (“in one
such possible construction the variable restriction device 200 may be a ball
valve”). Shafique is cited by the Examiner for teaching “[bjalancing and
flow measurement can be accomplished in several ways by using a
calibrated ball valve, venturi, flow meter, or other similar device.” Shafique
1:24—27; Non-Final Act. 6. As a consequence of this teaching in Shafique,
the Examiner states, “[tjhis teaching shows that for the purposes of flow
measurement a ball valve and flow meter are art recognized equivalents.”
Non-Final Act. 6. Hence, “the [Ejxaminer takes Official Notice of the
equivalence of ball valves an[d] flow meters for their use in [the] fluid
monitoring art” and that the “selection of any of these known equivalents to
meter flow would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Non-Final
Act. 6.
has “not been entered.” App. Br. 2. We note the Examiner does not
replicate that Claim Objection in the Examiner’s Answer, but we also have
yet to locate where such amendment was either entered or denied entry.
15
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
Appellants initially contend that simply finding “art recognized
equivalent” or “structural similarity” “without providing an explanation of
its applicability to the facts of the case” is “not sufficient.” App. Br. 16.
However, in the present matter, the Examiner referenced a second
embodiment found in Laskaris ’041 that positions “water flow meter 126”
(illustrated in Laskaris ’041 Fig. 5) in a similar location as “variable water
restriction device 200” (illustrated in Laskaris ’041 Fig. 2) is located. Non-
Final Act. 6; Ans. 13; Laskaris ’041 12:2, 12:32. Hence, Laskaris ’041
provides separate embodiments, one employing restriction device/bail valve
200 (Figure 2) and the other employing flow meter 126 (Figure 5), in the
same location between first and second mix chambers. See Ans. 13.
Appellants do not explain how this overt disclosure of the use of both
devices in the cited location fails to provide sufficient explanation as to their
equivalence or to their applicability to the facts of this case.
Appellants further address the actual arrangement disclosed in
Shafique for balancing flow, indicating that multiple components are
required (i.e., “and includes a flow meter and throttling/isolation valve” and
“[t]he Shafique valve assembly 100 includes a check valve 120, a venturi
140, and a shutoff valve 160 in the form of a ball valve all contained
therein”). App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 16. We need not address Appellants’
attempt to incorporate additional structure from the specification into the
claim language because Appellants do not indicate how the Examiner erred
in finding Official Notice based on Shafique’s express disclosure of
balancing flow via “a calibrated ball valve, venturi, flow meter, or other
similar device” (i.e., any one of them). Shafique 1:24—27 (emphasis added).
Appellants further do not address how the Examiner erred in pointing out
16
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
that different embodiments of Laskaris ’041 employ a ball valve or a flow
meter in the recited location, as if to underscore their equivalence in this
matter. See Ans. 13.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 as being obvious over Laskaris ’041,
Laskaris ’181, and Shafique.
The rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over
Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, and Crawley
In response to the rejection of claim 6 (see Non-Linal Act. 9),
Appellants address the limitations found therein directed to water being
injected “into the first mix chamber to create a foam” and further that “foam
from the first mix chamber is injected into the second mix chamber.”
Appellants repeat the contention that “Laskaris ’041 in view of Laskaris
’181 fails to disclose, teach or suggest” this limitation and that Crawley
“fails to correct the deficiencies of Laskaris ’041 in view of Laskaris ’181.”
App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 18.
As indicated supra, we are in agreement with Appellants that Laskaris
’041, Laskaris ’181, and Crawley are deficient in this regard. We do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as being obvious over Laskaris
’041, Laskaris ’181, and Crawley.
The rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over
Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, Shafique, and Boegli
Claim 8 depends from claim 2. Boegli is not relied on to cure the
deficiencies of Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, and Shafique. Non-Linal Act.
9. Accordingly, because we reverse the rejection of parent claim 2, we
likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as being obvious
over Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, Shafique, and Boegli for similar reasons.
17
Appeal 2015-002638
Application 13/216,010
The rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over
Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, Shafique, andLaskaris ’532
Claim 9 depends from claim 2. Laskaris ’532 is not relied on to cure
the deficiencies of Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, and Shafique. Non-Final
Act. 10. Accordingly, because we reverse the rejection of parent claim 2, we
likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as being obvious
over Laskaris ’041, Laskaris ’181, Shafique, and Boegli for similar reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—11 are reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18