Ex Parte Fahey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 201812648805 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/648,805 12/29/2009 78537 7590 05/24/2018 Cantor Colburn LLP - Fox Entertainment Group 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Christopher Fahey 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. CA08/3778 (FEG0442US2) 4476 EXAMINER BADAWI, ANGIE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2172 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2018 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): usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER F AREY, CHRISTOPHER HARRINGTON, RYAN HANAU, JEFF PIAZZA, CHRIS GEISER, and SETH BARRET COPPOCK Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 1 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify NGC Network, LLC, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 BACKGROUND THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to "methods, systems, and computer program products for interactively displaying data on a user interface." Spec. i-f 2. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. An interactive user interface, comprising: non-transitory computer-readable medium in communication with one or more processors and having one or more computer programs stored thereon including a set of instructions that when executed by said one or more processors that causes the one or more processes to perform operations for presentation of said interactive user interface; an interactive display window that displays data according to a tabular format including one or more rows and one or more columns, and wherein the displayed data is dynamically displayed within the interactive display window based on a drag and drop user action performed within the display window; and a frame that surrounds the display window and that dynamically displays a first range of first axis data corresponding to the one or more rows and a second range of second axis data corresponding to the one or more columns; wherein the interactive user interface is operatively associated with a user display and user input, the user input configured to interface with a displayed interactive user interface and selectively drag and drop portions thereof, wherein said dragging and dropping performed within the display window scrolls, shifts or slides the entire tabular format of said one or more rows and one or more columns of data across the display window, with vertical axis aligned dragging and dropping changing said first range of first axis data, with horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping changing said second range of second axis data and with out of vertical and horizontal axis 2 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 aligned dragging and dropping changing both of said first range of first axis data and said second range of second axis data. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5-6. 2. Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act. 6-7. 3. Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. Final Act. 7-9. 4. Claims 15-20 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for not disclosing sufficient structure to support means-plus-function limitations. Final Act. 9-10. 5. Claims 1-9, 11-15, 18-19, and 22-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramachandran (US 2003/0066032 Al, published Apr. 3, 2003), Matsushima (US 2009/0271723 Al, published Oct. 29, 2009), Oksanen (US 2005/0108234 Al, published May 19, 2005), and Meier (US 6,331,863 B 1, issued Dec. 18, 2001 ). Final Act. 11-27. 6. Claims 10, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramachandran, Matsushima, Oksanen, and McKenna (US 2003/0018971 Al, published Jan. 23, 2003). Final Act. 27- 29. 3 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 DISCUSSION Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112 f 1 for Failing to Comply with Written Description Requirement Claim 1 recites "and with out of vertical and horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping changing both of said first range of first axis data and said second range of second axis data," meaning both the first range and second range first and second axis data are changed as a result of dragging and dropping that is not aligned with either the vertical axis or the horizontal axis. The Examiner finds "[t]he specification does not teach changing the first range of data and the second range of data with out [sic, "of' omitted] vertical and horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping." Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner interprets the claim language to require "negating a vertical and a horizontal axis aligned dragging and resulting in a[] change in the first and second ranges of data." Final Act. 5. The Examiner, however, does not find support for such negating vertical and horizontal axis aligned dragging in the Specification. Final Act. 5. According to the Examiner "the [claim] language can be interpreted as eliminating both forms of dragging and dropping [i.e., vertical and horizontal] and does not specify if another form of dragging and dropping is used or if a different method altogether is used to change both first range an second rage of axis data." Final Act. 6. Appellants refer to the following portion of the Specification as providing support for the claim limitation: When the data to be displayed is greater than the amount of data that can be displayed within a user's screen, the user must select a vertical slide scroll bar or a horizontal side scroll bar to scroll through the data either horizontally or vertically. The vertical and horizontal scroll bars cannot be used simultaneously. Thus 4 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 to access data near the end of the file, the user must first scroll to the bottom of the page and then scroll to the far right of the page. App. Br. 8-9 (quoting Spec. i-f 4). Appellants also point to the Specification as indicating that the system allows for dragging and dropping of the window relative to both horizontal and vertical axes concurrently and therefore provides support for "with out of vertical and horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping." App. Br. 9-10 (citing i-fi-118, 41, and Fig. 4). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has erred. The written description requirement is satisfied where the disclosure "reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane). Initially, we note that the claim language recites "with out Q[ vertical and horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping" not "with out vertical and horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping" as the Examiner states. See Final Act. 5. The surrounding claim language first recites "with vertical axis aligned dragging and dropping." The claim then recites "with horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping." Finally, the claim recites "with out of vertical and horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping." In other words, the claim requires (1) vertical dragging and dropping, (2) horizontal dragging and dropping, and finally (3) out of vertical and horizontal aligned dragging and dropping. We take this last clause to indicate a diagonal direction of dragging and dropping with both vertical and horizontal axes being changed. Thus, the Examiner's interpretation of the claim as negating a vertical and a horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping is not consistent with the claim language. 5 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 Under this interpretation of the claim, we look to see if the Specification provides the requisite support for diagonally dragging and dropping the tabular format display window. In this regard, the Specification states that "[w]hen the schedule display window 36 is dragged and dropped, the schedule information appears to scroll, shift, or slide from side to side, from top to bottom, and/or diagonally in accordance with the directional movement of the drag and drop." Spec. i-f 20 (emphasis added). Because diagonal dragging and dropping is disclosed in the Specification, we find the Specification provides the requisite support indicating that the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1- 23 as failing the written description requirement. Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112 f 1 for Lack of Enablement Claim 1 recites "wherein said dragging and dropping performed within the display window scrolls, shifts or slides the entire tabular format of said one or more rows and one or more columns of data across the display window." The Examiner finds "[t]he claim language claims scrolling, shifting or sliding an entirety of a tabular format in both columns and rows when the movement itself would only allow the change of rows or columns depending on the direction of movement." Final Act. 7. Appellants argue the scrolling/shifting of the entirety of the tabular format "is precisely the invention that distinguishes over the prior art described in the Background section of the Applicant's specification at paragraph [0004]." Appellants also argue given the tabular format of FIG. 2, the description of a drag and drop according to a directional movement, criticism of the prior art for the inability to adjust the horizontal and vertical 6 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 simultaneously, as well as the description of the processing of FIG. 4, with adjustment of vertical and horizontal with determination of position according to "rows and/or columns" as per paragraph [0041], it is clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the nature of (e.g., a mouse) drag and drop of items in a tabular format (which doesn't rearrange the format), but moves the "entire" format in a manner that is not constrained ONLY to vertical or ONLY to horizontal. Reply Br. 3--4. In other words, Appellants argue one of skill in the art could make or use the invention based on a description of the problem to be solved, along with a depiction of the tabular format itself, a description of the desired result of adjustment of both rows and columns of the tabular format, and information known in the art. In this instance, we agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art could have made or used the invention, as claimed, without undue experimentation given contemporaneous knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of user interfaces. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1- 23 as failing the enablement requirement. Re} ection under 3 5 U.S. C. § 112 f 2 as Indefinite Claim 1 recites "wherein said dragging and dropping performed within the display window scrolls, shifts or slides the entire tabular format of said one or more rows and one or more columns of data across the display window." Final Act. Br. 8. The Examiner finds that the subsequent limitations of the claim define vertical aligned dragging and dropping and horizontal aligned dragging and dropping. Neither of these would require the scrolling or sliding of the entire tabular format according to the Examiner. Final Act. 8. Instead, only one of either the rows or columns 7 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 would need to be changed. Thus, the Examiner finds "[t]t is unclear how movements in different directions would render an entire tabular format in its rows and columns scrolled shifted or slid." Final Act. 8. Appellants argue "[t]he Examiner believes that the term indicating movement of the 'entire tabular format' with the drag and drop action is unclear. However ... a single click moves the tabular ... horizontally and/or vertically (i.e., possibly both horizontally and vertically ... )." App. Br. 12. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner notes that the claims require vertical dragging and dropping and horizontal dragging and dropping, but does not take into account that the claim also requires "out of vertical and horizontal ... dragging and dropping." Taking this limitation into account, moving the entire tabular format in a diagonal direction would indicate to one of skill in the art to change the values on both the rows and columns of the table. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1- 23 as indefinite. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 f 2 for Failing to Disclose Sufficient Corresponding Structure Claims 15-20 and 23 recites various "modules." The Examiner interprets these claim limitations as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre AIA) sixth paragraph. Final Act. 10. The Examiner finds, however, that the written description fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed modules. Final Act. 10. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's interpretation of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Appellants, however, 8 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 identify Figure 1 's Interactive Display System within a server having a processor and data storage device, which stores instructions as structure for the various modules recited in claim 15. App. Br. 13. Appellants point out that the interactive display system generates an interactive user interface that is displayed by the display of the computer. App. Br. 13. Appellants also identify Figure 4 and paragraph 34 of the Specification as describing a "range of possible structures ... for the (plural) modules." App. Br. 13. Paragraph 34 of the Specification states: Turning now to FIG. 4, the interactive display system 32 is shown in more detail in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. The interactive display system 32 includes one or more modules and datastores. As can be appreciated, the modules can be implemented as software, hardware, firmware and/or other suitable components that provide the described functionality. As can be appreciated, the modules shown in FIG. 4 can be combined and/or further partitioned to similarly generate the display data for the interactive user interface 34 (FIG. 1 ). In this example, the interactive display system 32 includes a display window manager module 80, a frame manager module 82, a range manager module 84, a details manager module 86, and a highlight manager module 88. We are unpersuaded that these disclosures provide sufficient structure for the claimed modules. "[A] means-plus-function claim element for which the only disclosed structure is a general purpose computer is invalid if the specification fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function." Net Moneyin, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Appellants have cited a processor and data storage device storing instructions along with Figure 4 and associated description as structure for the claimed modules. A processor alone is insufficient as disclosing the required corresponding structure without a disclosure of an 9 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 associated algorithm implementing the claimed modules. Here, we find Figure 4 and its associated description do not disclose algorithms for implementing the modules on the processor. Instead, Figure 4 depicts a block diagram of the modules with indications of data flowing into and out of the modules. Other than generally describing the input and output of the modules, however, Appellants have not identified more in the Specification that would constitute an algorithm implementing the claimed modules. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification contains inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure for the modules of claims 15-20, and 23, and therefore fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 112 i-f 2. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claim 1 Appellants argue the independent claims together. App. Br. 13. We take claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). The Examiner rejects claim 1 over a combination of Ramachandran, Matsushima, Oksanen, and Meier. See Final Act. 11-17. The Examiner finds Ramachandran discloses dragging a selected activity over to a time slot in a chart applet and dropping that activity into the time slot. Final Act. 12. The Examiner finds this teaches or suggests dynamically displaying data within an interactive display window based on a drag and drop user action. Final Act. 12. The Examiner relies on Matsushima, which discloses scrolling through a line of icons, as teaching or suggesting scrolling, shifting, or sliding data across a display window. Final Act. 13. The Examiner finds Oksanen teaches or suggests that the display window scrolls, shifts, or slides the entire tabular format across the display window, both 10 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 vertically and horizontally. Final Act. 14 (citing Oksanen Figs. 1, 2, i-fi-1 34, 53). Finally, the Examiner finds Meier teaches or suggests scrolling, shifting, or sliding displayed data "out of vertical and horizontal axis aligned dragging" by disclosing that screen may be scrolled in a diagonal direction when an item is dragged to a comer of the screen. Final Act. 16 (citing Meier Figs. 5b-c, 8:66-9:8, 9:25--47, 56-60). Appellants generally contend that claims require "multi-directional dragging and dropping etc., of the entire tabular format left, right, up, down and in other directions" and that the cited references individually and as a combination do not teach or suggest such a feature. App. Br. 13-16. In particular, Appellants argue Ramachandran does not teach or suggest "the type of drag and drop that is claimed." App. Br. 14. Instead, Appellants contend, "[i]n Ramachandran, this term means that a piece of content (an object) located in one part of a document (e.g. a webpage) may be moved from one position to a different position such that it is associated with that other position (part) of the document." App Br. 14. Appellants further argue "Matsushima ... simply allows horizontal scrolling of a single row of icons objects .... In no instances does Matsushima allow for the type of drag and drop action claimed herein." App. Br. 15. Regarding Meier, Appellants argue it "describes movement of only selected items across a screen (i.e., not the entire list/tabular format). In this light, Meier fails for the same reasons as Ramachandran." App. Br. 16. Finally, Appellants argue "Osakanen [sic] teaches a media diary that is scrollable horizontally OR vertically, but not off axis." App. Br. 16. According to Appellants, no reference teaches or suggests "and with out of vertical and horizontal axis 11 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 aligned dragging and dropping." App. Br. 16 ("This limitation is wholly lacking from any of the cited prior art."). We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree that Ramachandran discloses dragging and dropping one object rather than an entire tabular format, however, the Examiner relies on Oksanen, not Ramachandran, for teaching dragging and dropping the entire tabular format. Final Act. 14 (citing Oksanen Figs. 1, 2, i-fi-134, 53); Ans. 39. Similarly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Matsushima or Meier do not teach multi-directional dragging and dropping of the entire tabular format, because, again, the Examiner relies on Oksanen for this teaching, not Matsushima or Meier. Final Act. 14 (citing Oksanen Figs. 1, 2, i-fi-134, 53); Ans. 37, 39. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that none of the cited references, including Oksanen, teach off-axis dragging and dropping. The Examiner relies on Meier, not Oksanen, as teaching "with out of vertical and horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping." Final Act. 16 (citing Meier Figs. 5b-c, 8:66-9:8, 9:25--47, 56-60). We agree with the Examiner. Meier discloses that when an item is dragged to another portion of a window that is not currently viewable, the viewable portion of the window will scroll so that the non-viewable portion of the window comes into view in its place. Meier 5:4--31. Thus, if an item is dragged vertically or horizontally to either the top, bottom, right, or left edge of a window, the data in the window will scroll down, up, left, or right, respectively, to make room for non-viewable data to become visible in the window. Id. Meier makes clear that the same behavior will manifest itself in the diagonal, or "out of vertical and horizontal" direction when an item is moved to a comer of the window. 12 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 Meier 8:66-9:8. Note that it is the data in the window that is scrolling, not just the item being dragged. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Meier and Oksanen (along with Ramachandran and Matsushima) teach or suggest "with out of vertical and horizontal axis aligned dragging and dropping." Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 7 and 15 which were argued together as a group. See App. Br. 13-16. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, and 22 for which Appellants present no arguments for separate patentability. See App. Br. 13-16. Claim 3 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites "[ t ]he user interface of claim 1 wherein the first axis data and the second axis data are dynamically displayed based on the drag and drop user action performed within the display window." The Examiner finds Ramachandran teaches this limitation by disclosing that an "unscheduled activity may be assigned and scheduled by selecting the activity in list applet 260, dragging the selected activity over to a particular employee and for a particular time slot in chart applet 230, and dropping the activity on the target employee and time slot." Final Act. 17 (quoting Ramachandran i-f 52). Appellants argue "[t]he Examiner relies upon paragraph [0052] of Ramachandran; however this reference only relates to dragging a single item into a scheduling list rather than dynamic display of the data of both axes due to a drag and drop action, which moves the entire tabular format, thereby adjusting the data on both axes." App. Br. 16. 13 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because, as before, the Examiner relies on Oksanen, not Ramachandran, as teaching dragging and dropping the entire tabular format. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3, and of claim 11, which was argued together with claim 3. App. Br. 16-17. Claim 21 Claim 21 recites "[t ]he user interface of claim 1, wherein frame display data surrounding the data in the display window is dynamically updated corresponding to the visible data content within the display window at any given time during or after a drag and drop operation." The Examiner finds the combination of Ramachandran, Matsushima, and Oksanen teaches or suggests this limitation. Final Act. 26. In particular, the Examiner finds Oksanen teaches that when the calendar view and media view scroll to the left, more future dates will be displayed in response to such scrolling. Final Act. 26. Appellants argue With regard to Oksanen, this is just manipulation of a slider with resultant left or right movement of the display. The only updated data portion outside of the TV schedule sliding left or right, is the date superimposed on the slider. Further, the TV schedule itself is not manipulated at all (i.e., no dragging and dropping), but rather the slider (termed "speed browser"), which indicates the date, is the item that is manipulated by the mouse to drag it left or right to effect horizontal scrolling of the schedule. App. Br. 17 We are unpersuaded. Figures 1 and 2 of Oksanen make clear that when the calendar view is scrolled either horizontally (as in Figure 1) or vertically (as in Figure 2) more dates and times will become viewable (i.e. "dynamically updated"). See Oksanen i-f 53 ("if the user moves the media 14 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 handle/ speed browser to the left, the calendar view and media view will scroll to the right, such that, more past dates in the media view will be displayed."). These dates appear on more than just the speed browser. See Oksanen Fig. 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as well as claim 23, which was argued together with claim 21. See App. Br. 17. Claim 4 Claim 4 recites "[t]he user interface of claim 1 further comprising a highlight selection item that reformats a subset of the displayed data to visually distinguish the subset from the displayed data." The Examiner finds Ramachandran teaches this limitation by disclosing that when a selected object is dragged over a series of target object, the display window is highlighted to assist in the drag and drop operation. Final Act. 18 (citing Ramachandran Fig. 2C, i-f 71 ). Appellants argue "the prior art does not teach a highlight selection item that reformats a subset of displayed data ... but rather only highlights objects as an individually dragged object moves over them. The Examiner relies upon paragraph [0071] of Ramachandran; however again this reference doesn't teach reformatting a subset for highlighting." App. Br. 17. We disagree. Claim 4 requires only that a subset of displayed data be visually distinguished, or highlighted, from other displayed data. Ramachandran teaches that objects are highlighted as other objects are dragged over them to assist in the drag and drop operation. Ramachandran i-f 71. We agree that this highlighting visually distinguishes the objects from other displayed objects. 15 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and of claims 12 and 18, all of which were argued together as a group. App. Br. 17. Claim 17 Claim 1 7 depends from claim 15 and recites " [ t] he system of claim 15 further comprising a range manager module configured to selectively determine a range of the frame display data for the at least one of the first frame axis and the second frame axis, wherein the frame manager module is configured to selectively generate the frame display data based on the range, and wherein the display window manager is configured to selectively generate window display data based on the range." The Examiner finds McKenna, along with Ramachandran, Matsushima, and Oksanen teach or suggest this limitation. Final Act. 28-29 (citing McKenna i-fi-195, 96, Figs. 6, 10). Appellants argue the cited portions of McKenna "simply describe an interactive remote control (PIO) that provides rich data (and recording options) relative to a particular showing (Fig. 6, paragraph [0095]) or an internet link that can provide an updated start time (e.g., for a sporting event) downloaded from a server. The latter is more for recording via set top boxes where sporting event overtimes affect a scheduled recording by a set top box. This does not at all relate to the currently pending claims." We are unpersuaded. The Examiner has already found Ramachandran and Oksanen teach the claimed frame and also the claimed first and second axis data. See Final Act. 12-13 (Ramachandran teaches a "frame that surrounds the display window"); Final Act. 14 (Oksanen teaches scrolling entire tabular format where first axis data and second axis data are changed). 16 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 The Examiner relies on McKenna as teaching the claimed "range manager module" and "frame manager module" by showing that McKenna accounts for the date/time range of a program and that this data is displayed in a frame. Ans. 43; see also McKenna Figs. 6, 10, i-fi-195, 96. Thus, we agree that the combination of references teach or suggest a "range manager module configured to selectively determine a range of the frame display data for the at least one of the first frame axis and the second frame axis, wherein the frame manager module is configured to selectively generate the frame display data based on the range." Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 10, 16, and 20 Appellants rely on the same arguments made with respect to claim 1, except that they add that McKenna fails to remedy the deficiencies of Ramachandran, Matsushima, Oksanen, and Meier. App. Br. 18. As discussed above, we do not agree that Ramachandran, Matsushima, Oksanen, and Meier are deficient with respect to claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 16, and 20 for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for lack of enablement is reversed. 17 Appeal2017-002915 Application 12/648,805 The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 15-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite for failing to disclose sufficient corresponding structure is affirmed. The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l). 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 18 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation