Ex Parte Ferren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

12228151 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/228,151 08/07/2008 Bran Ferren SE1-0631-US 4018
80118 7590 08/29/2016
Constellation Law Group, PLLC
P.O. Box 580
Tracyton, WA 98393
EXAMINER
WEARE, MEREDITH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRAN FERREN, JEFFREY JOHN HAGEN,
RODERICK A. HYDE, MURIEL Y. ISHIKAWA,
ERIC C. LEUTHARDT, DENNIS J. RIVET,
LOWELL L. WOOD, JR., and VICTORIA Y. H. WOOD
____________

Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bran Ferren et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–19, 24, 29, 33, 39, 47–50, and
52–55. Claims 1, 20–23, 25–28, 30–32, 34–38, 40–46, and 511 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Although not listed as canceled in the Claims Appendix (Br. 52–58), claim
51 was canceled by Amendment dated February 19, 2013.
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a method of “obtaining an
indication of an apparent movement of an abnormal structure within a
vasculature.” Spec. 2, ll. 1–2. Claims 10, 18, and 29 are independent.
Claim 10 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
10. A medical or veterinary monitoring system comprising:
circuitry configured for obtaining an indication of an
apparent movement of an abnormal structure within a
vasculature;
circuitry configured for transmitting a notification partly
based on a direction of the apparent movement and partly based
on an additional indication of the abnormal structure, wherein the
notification is an alarm notification selected based at least partly
upon an indication that the abnormal structure exceeds a speed
threshold.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 3 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for lack of written description.
II. Claims 6, 10, 11, 18, 50, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
III. Claims 4–7, 9–11, 13, 18, 24, 29, 33, 39, 48–50, 53, and 54 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishida (WO
2005/046482 A1; pub. May 26, 2005),2 Moehring (US 6,547,736 B1; iss.
Apr. 15, 2003), and Julia L. Smith et al., A Comparison of Four Methods for
Distinguishing Doppler Signals From Gaseous and Particulate Emboli,
Stroke 1133–1138 (1998) (hereinafter “Smith ’98”).

2 The Examiner and Appellants acknowledge that any reference to the text of
Ishida is to the US Patent Application Publication (US 2007/0213613 A1;
pub. Sept. 13, 2007). Final Act. 6; Br. 7, 12, 15.
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

3
IV. Claims 2 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ishida, Moehring, Smith ’98, Abend (US 2004/0019278
A1; pub. Jan. 29, 2004), and Robert S. Dieter et al., Prosthetic Heart Valve
Thrombosis: An Overview, Wisconsin Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 7, 67–69
(2002) (hereinafter “Dieter”).
V. Claims 3 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ishida, Moehring, Smith ’98, Brucher (US 6,425,866 B1;
iss. July 30, 2002), and Njemanze (US 6,468,219 B1; iss. Oct. 22, 2002).
VI. Claims 8, 14, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ishida, Moehring, Smith ’98, and Abend.
VII. Claims 12 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ishida, Moehring, Smith ’98, and Kliot (US
2006/0100530 A1; pub. May 11, 2006).
VIII. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ishida, Moehring, Smith ’98, and Sullivan (US 7,666,151
B2; iss. Feb. 23, 2010).
IX. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ishida, Moehring, Smith ’98, and Klefstad-Sillonville
(US 2005/0034485 A1; pub. Feb. 17, 2005).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Written Description
Claims 3 and 47
Claim 3 recites, in relevant part, “circuitry, including at least an
implantable stationary sensor, configured for determining whether the
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

4
abnormal structure was grown upstream.” Br. 52, Claims App. Claim 47
substitutes the term “circuitry” with the phrase “means for.” Br. 57, Claims
App. The Examiner finds that:
it appears [Appellants’] disclosure describes obtaining images of
a thrombus growing generally upstream (it is undisclosed how it
is known/determined the thrombus is growing in a particular
direction), and then detecting indications of extent of growth in
the obtained images. Additionally, there is no indication that the
images are obtained from and/or analyzed with an implantable
stationary sensor.
Final Act. 3 (citing Spec. 83, ll. 25–28).
Appellants argue at page 48 of the Brief that the claimed circuitry and
means for of claims 3 and 47 are disclosed in numerous locations in
Appellants’ originally filed specification and provide a list of such locations.
Appellants particularly call out a passage at page 84, lines 2–4 of the
Specification as allegedly supporting the claimed recitations. Br. 48.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must
convey with reasonable clarity to skilled artisans that Appellants were in
possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date. Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Whether a
Specification complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is a question of fact. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli
Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997), citing Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
We have reviewed the locations in the Specification offered by
Appellants as allegedly providing support for the claimed recitations of
claims 3 and 47 and agree with the Examiner. That is, the proffered
locations consist mostly of lists of prior patents and patent publications with
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

5
no disclosure of the claimed recitations. See Ans. 11. Further, page 84,
lines 2–4 of the Specification describes that module 8282 may be configured
to perform or permit a detection of whether an apparent size of a vessel wall
injury “follows an indication of a blood clot or other vessel occlusion.”
(Emphasis added). See Br. 48. In other words, module 8282 may be
configured to perform/permit a detection of whether an apparent size of a
vessel wall injury is indicative of a blood clot or other vessel occlusion.
There is no disclosure at page 84, lines 2–4 of the Specification of a sensor,
“for determining whether the abnormal structure was grown upstream,” as
claimed. See Br. 52, 57 Claims App. (emphasis added)
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3 and 47 for lack of written description.
Rejection II
Indefiniteness
Claims 10 and 18
With regard to claims 10 and 18, the Examiner determines that: “it is
unclear how an ‘abnormal structure’ can exceed a speed threshold.” Final
Act. 4; see also Ans. 12. However, Appellants’ Specification specifically
states, in relevant part, “in which detection logic 180, 9150 detects the
abnormal structure moving through the vasculature, and in which module
8312 indicates that the abnormal structure apparently exceeds a threshold
8343 indicative of growth or other movement speed.” Spec. 87, ll. 17–20.
This disclosure provides specific support for the recitation in claims 10 and
18 of “an indication that the abnormal structure exceeds a speed threshold.”
Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand from the
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

6
Specification at page 87, lines 17–20, and claims 10 and 18 that an abnormal
structure may exceed a speed threshold when moving though a vasculature.
Further with regard to claims 10 and 18, the Examiner finds:
It is additionally unclear if the indication that the speed of
the apparent movement exceeds a speed threshold is intended to
be indicative of the “additional indication of the abnormal
structure” on which transmission of a notification is partly based,
or additional indication on which a separate notification is based.
In light of this indefiniteness, it is unclear on how many
parameters the transmission/selection of the alarm notification is
based (i.e., direction and speed of apparent movement, or
alternatively, direction of movement, speed of movement, and an
additional indication). Based on [Appellants’] disclosure, it is
further unclear what conditions (for either the two or three
parameters) may trigger an alarm notification.
Final Act. 4.
Appellants do not address these additional findings in the Brief. See
Br. 49. However, claims 10 and 18 are clear in that the indication that the
abnormal structure exceeds a speed threshold is part of the alarm notification
selection step and not intended to be indicative of the “additional indication
of the abnormal structure” on which transmission of a notification is partly
based. See, e.g., Spec. 87, ll. 17–21. As to the Examiner’s alleged lack of
clarity respecting how many parameters the transmission/selection of the
alarm notification is based (i.e., direction and speed of apparent movement,
or alternatively, direction of movement, speed of movement, and an
additional indication), claims 10 and 18 are clear in that the alarm
notification is triggered based on direction of movement, speed of
movement, and an additional indication. See Spec. 2, ll. 12–15; see also id.
at 87, ll. 17–21.
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

7
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 10 and 18 for indefiniteness.
Claims 6 and 50
As for claims 6 and 50, the Examiner determines that:
it is unclear if one of the “indication of hemodynamic instability”
or the “apparent position of the abnormal structure relative to an
anatomical feature” is the additional indication of the abnormal
structure, or causes a separate, additional “notification mode” to
be selected in addition to the “alarm notification” of their
respective parent claims.
Final Act. 4.
The Specification states that a notification mode is selected “partly
based on an indication of hemodynamic instability, partly based on the
direction of the apparent movement, and partly based on an apparent
position of the abnormal structure relative to an anatomical feature.” Spec.
84, ll. 27–30. The Specification further states that hemodynamic instability
may be an additional indication of the abnormal structure.
Operation 10683 describes obtaining another local symptom of
vascular occlusion as the additional indication of hemodynamic
instability (e.g. module 8571 of response logic 8580 and/or
module 8424 of device 8420 obtaining one or more indications
8516 of the hemodynamic status of one or more subject regions
8591). This can occur, for example, in a context in which module
8574 of response logic 8580 and/or device 8420 perform
operation 10580, such as by transmitting the first notification to
a care provider, an expert system, or other such
contemporaneously available resource. In some contexts, for
example, module 8571 may obtain the additional indication of
hemodynamic instability via infrared or other optical sensors
2525 providing a signal 8540 indicative of heart rate and blood
oxygenation levels from one or more such regions.
Spec. 91, ll. 1–10.
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

8
Based on Appellants’ disclosure, we agree with Appellants that the
“indication of hemodynamic instability” or the “apparent position of the
abnormal structure relative to an anatomical feature” may serve either of two
functions when dependent claims 6 and 50 are respectively read in light of
independent claims 10 and 18. See Br. 50. In other words, they may be an
additional indication of the abnormal structure as recited in claims 10 and 18
or they may cause a separate, additional “notification mode” (claims 6 and
50) to be selected in addition to the “alarm notification” (claims 10 and 18).
Id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6
and 50 for indefiniteness.
Claims 11 and 54
As for claims 11 and 54, the Examiner determines that: “it is unclear
if the ‘abnormal structure being larger than a size threshold’ is the additional
indication of the abnormal structure, or causes a separate, additional
‘warning’ to be selected in addition to the ‘alarm notification’ of their
respective parent claims.” Final Act. 5.
The Specification states that the abnormal structure being larger than
a size threshold causes a selection of a warning. Spec. 87, ll. 22–23
(“Operation 10365 describes causing a selection of a warning responsive to
an object larger than a size threshold traveling in a downstream direction. . .
.”). The Specification further states that size is an additional indication of an
abnormal structure.
Operation 10219 describes detecting one or more
reflective properties of an apparent clot in the vasculature (e.g.
module 8741 of detection logic 8750 obtaining one or more
reflection-indicative values 8712 from an ultrasound module
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

9
8791, a computed tomography logic 8790, or an infrared
reflectivity module 8792). This can occur, for example, in a
context in which one or more reflectance sensors 2511 and
detection logic 8795 each perform operation 10110 and in which
reflected energy gives an indication of the existence, size, and/or
location of one or more objects 10005 in blood vessel 10009.
Spec. 84, ll. 15–21.
Based on Appellants’ disclosure, we agree with Appellants that: “the
‘abnormal structure being larger than a size threshold’ can be the additional
indication of the abnormal structure, or cause[] a separate, additional
‘warning’ to be selected in addition to the ‘alarm notification’ of [the]
respective parent claims.” Br. 50.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11
and 54 for indefiniteness.
Rejection III
Obviousness over Ishida, Moehring, and Smith ’98
Claims 4–7, 9–11, 13, 18, 24, 29, 33, 39, 48–50, 53, and 54
Regarding independent claim 10, the Examiner finds that Ishida
discloses a medical or veterinary monitoring system comprising:
circuitry configured/means for obtaining an indication of
an apparent movement of an abnormal structure within a
vasculature . . . ; and
circuitry/means for transmitting a notification partly based
on a direction of the apparent movement and partly based on an
additional indication of the abnormal structure . . . .
Final Act. 6 (citing Ishida Abstract and ¶ 12); see also Ans. 4.
Appellants contend that Ishida discloses “nothing relating to
‘obtaining an indication of an apparent movement of an abnormal structure
within a vasculature,’ as claimed but rather only ‘detecting the thrombus in
the blood vessel[’”] without regard to “‘an indication of an apparent
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

10
movement of an abnormal structure within a vasculature,’ as claimed.” Br.
18 (citing Ishida, ¶ 2); see also id. at 19.
Figure 4 of Ishida and its accompanying written description at
paragraph 37 together disclose circuitry configured/means for obtaining an
indication of an apparent movement of an abnormal structure within a
vasculature, as well as a direction of the apparent movement and a size (or
additional indication) of the abnormal structure. In particular, Ishida states:
In FIG. 4, “ultrasonic wave” at the upper column, a waveform of
echo signals detected by the thrombus detecting apparatus 1 as
shown in FIG. 1, “living body light” at the lower column, a
waveform of electrical signals detected by the thrombus
detecting apparatus 2 as shown in FIG. 2, “normal” at the left
side column, exemplary signals of a normal blood vessel when
no thrombus 61 exists and “thrombus exist” at the right side
column, exemplary signals when a thrombus 61 has passed
through the blood vessel 61 are respectively shown. As will be
apparent from the drawing, in a case of a normal blood vessel in
which no thrombus exists, the echo signals show a waveform in
which the echo signals are reflected at positions of the respective
inner wall portions of the blood vessel 6 and the electrical signals
of the penetrating living body light show a flat waveform with
no amplitude variation. On the contrary, in a case when a
thrombus 61 is passing through a blood vessel 6, in association
with the thrombus 61 passing, the echo signals show another
waveform depending on the size occupied by the thrombus 61
between the two waves in addition to the waveform (normal
waveform) in which the echo signals are reflected at positions of
the respective inner walls of the blood vessel and the electrical
signals of the penetrating living body light show a waveform of
which amplitude temporarily decreases due to partial absorption
of the penetrating living body inspection light by the thrombus.
Ishida ¶ 37 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner that “the electrical signals obtained by
the thrombus detecting apparatus [of Ishida] are an indication of thrombus
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

11
movement within the blood vessel being monitored.” Ans. 4. We further
agree with the Examiner that “Ishida discloses circuitry (thrombus
detecting apparatus) for obtaining an indication of movement (e.g.,
passage) of an abnormal structure within a vasculature (e.g., thrombus
through a blood vessel), and Ishida “discloses circuitry and/or means for
evaluating the obtained indication (e.g., electrical signals) to provide the
determination of whether or a not a thrombus exists, or is passing by the
transducer/probe,” as claimed. Id. Appellants do not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s findings.
Appellants further contend that Moehring fails to disclose “‘an
indication of an apparent movement of an abnormal structure within a
vasculature,’ as claimed.” See Br. 19–21.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds that “like
Ishida, [Moehring] discloses evaluating obtained signals to determine the
passage of an abnormal structure, such as an embolus, within the
vasculature.” Ans. 5 (citing Moehring 2:54 – 3:3). The Examiner further
finds that “the circuitry that performs this disclosed function reads on the
claim limitation of [circuitry configured for obtaining an indication of an
apparent movement of an abnormal structure within a vasculature].” Id.
The Examiner concludes that “[i]f said obtained signals can be evaluated to
provide a determination of an apparent movement of an abnormal structure
within the vasculature, as disclosed by both Ishida and [Moehring], then
said signals are, or provide, ‘an indication’ of apparent movement of an
abnormal structure within the vasculature as claimed.” Id. Appellants do
not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.

Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

12
Appellants argue that if the teachings of Ishida, Moehring, and Smith
were combined, such a modification and/or combination would (1) “require
an impermissible change in the principle operation of Ishida, Moehring, and
Smith ’98”; and (2) “render Ishida, Moehring, and Smith ’98 unsatisfactory
for one or more of its intended purposes.” Br. 21–22. More particularly,
Appellants argue that if Ishida were modified to disclose the notification is
an alarm notification selected based at least partly upon an indication that
the abnormal structure exceeds a speed threshold, then Ishida
would no longer principally operate in the manner of “when a
passing of a thrombus having a larger size more than a
predetermined size is detected by the detection unit or when a
number of detections of thrombi having a larger size more than
a predetermined size is exceeded over a predetermined number,
an alarm device alarms the fact by making use of such as sound
and image display,” as disclosed in Ishida ¶ [0012].
Id. at 22.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds:
[t]he proposed modification includes an alarm notification based
on three measured parameters (direction of movement, an
additional indication of the abnormal structure, and speed of the
movement), all of which are determined from an obtained
electrical signal from an appropriately positioned probe or
transducer (e.g., targeting a specific blood vessel, such as the
carotid artery leading to the brain to monitor/warn for impending
stroke).

Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner that “[s]uch a modification does not
inherently preclude the apparatus of Ishida from issuing other
alarms/notifications based on less and/or different parameters determined
from said signals, such as the alarms/notifications Ishida expressly
describes.” Id. Further, like the Examiner, we fail to see, and Appellants
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

13
fail to explain, “how modification of Ishida to consider an additional
parameter in transmitting an alarm notification,” as the Examiner proposes,
would change the principle of operation of Ishida or render Ishida
unsatisfactory its intended purpose. Ans. 6; see also Br. 21–22.
In addition, Appellants argue that if Smith ’98 were modified to
disclose the notification is an alarm notification selected based at least partly
upon an indication that the abnormal structure exceeds a speed threshold,
then Smith ’98 “would no longer principally operate in the manner of
‘differentiating between gaseous and particulate emboli.’” Br. 22–23.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because the Examiner is
modifying Ishida with Smith ’98 not Smith ’98 with Ishida. See Ans. 6.
Further, to the extent that Appellants are arguing the references must be
capable of bodily incorporation in order to combine their teachings, the test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” Id. The Examiner relies on Smith ’98 merely for disclosing an
indication that a speed of the apparent movement of the detected embolus
“exceeds a speed threshold.” See Final Act. 7–8.
Appellants contend that “none of [the] examples [cited by the
Examiner at page 25 of the Final Office Action] disclose ‘wherein the
notification is an alarm notification selected based at least partly upon an
indication that the abnormal structure exceeds a speed threshold,’ as
claimed.” Br. 23.

Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

14
In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds:
Ishida as modified (by [Moehring] and Smith ’98) discloses a
notification is selected based at least partly upon an indication
that the abnormal structure exceeds a speed threshold. As noted
in the final Office action, it is well-known in the art to utilize
alarm notifications in the field of medical monitoring to alert a
user or medical profession that assistance/intervention is
required. The references cited in support of this well-known
concept (Ishida, Kliot, Abend, Njemanze, see final Office action,
pg. 25) all disclose issuing audible and/or visual alarms when
measured parameters exceed predetermined thresholds. The
rejection of record proposes further modifying the system of
Ishida to utilize an alarm notification as the type of notification
transmitted based on this knowledge generally available to one
of ordinary skill in the art.

Ans. 7–8. Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings
or conclusions. Moreover, Appellants do not provide any evidence or
argument sufficient to show that the proposed modification would have been
beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. Neither do Appellants provide
any persuasive evidence or argument sufficient to show that the proposed
modification would have been more than a predictable use of the prior art
elements according to their established functions. “The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement
a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417.
Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner failed to articulate a convincing
technical rationale to combine the total of nine cited references in any
asserted combination to result in the subject matter of [the] claims.” Br. 46.

Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

15
At the outset, reliance on an allegedly large number of references in a
rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the
claimed invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Further, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning to
combine the references. Moreover, it is well established that the reason to
modify the reference may often prompt a person of ordinary skill in the art
to do what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a
different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggests the
combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by an
applicant. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987–88 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the
Examiner articulates adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings to
explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine
the teachings of the references. See Final Act. 5–23.
Lastly, we note that throughout the Brief, Appellants repeat the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions and state that the cited references do
not disclose the claimed limitations. See e.g., Br. 15–23. Merely reciting
the language of a claim and asserting that the cited prior art references do
not disclose that limitation is insufficient. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted
Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); see also Ans. 3–4.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 10 as unpatentable over Ishida, Moehring,
and Smith ’98. Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims 4–7, 9, 11, and 13. See Br. 24. Accordingly, we likewise
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

16
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–7, 9, 11, and 13 as unpatentable
over Ishida, Moehring, and Smith ’98. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2015).
Regarding independent claims 18 and 29, Appellants’ arguments are
similar to those presented for claim 10 and are not persuasive for the same
reasons discussed above for claim 10. See Br. 24–47. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 18 and 29 as
unpatentable over Ishida, Moehring, and Smith ’98. Appellants do not
separately argue the patentability of dependent claims 24, 33, 39, 48–50, 53,
and 54. See Br. 35, 46. Accordingly, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 24, 33, 39, 48–50, 53, and 54 as unpatentable over Ishida,
Moehring, and Smith ’98. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015).

Rejections IV–IX
Obviousness over Ishida, Moehring, Smith ’98 and any of Abend, Dieter,
Brucher, Njemanze, Kliot, Sullivan, or Klefstad-Sillonville
Claims 2, 3, 8, 12, 14–17, 19, 47, 52, and 55
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of dependent
claims 2, 3, 8, 12, 14–17, 19, 47, 52, and 55. See Br. 24, 35, 46–47.
Accordingly, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015).

DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3 and 47
for lack of written description.
Appeal 2014-007084
Application 12/228,151

17
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6, 10, 11,
18, 50, and 54 for indefiniteness.
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2–19, 24,
29, 33, 39, 47–50, and 52–55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

.