Ex Parte Fraser et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

13950488 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/950,488 07/25/2013
53609 7590 04/02/2019
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bruce A. Fraser
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.
509174 2141
EXAMINER
FREAY,CHARLESGRANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE A. FRASER and JAMES WILLIAM BUSH
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488 1
Technology Center 3700
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
3 decision rejecting claims 1-19 and 21-26. 2 Claim 20 is cancelled. We have
4 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
5 We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-13 and 25 under§ 112,
6 second paragraph, as being indefinite (see Final Office Action, mailed Mar.
1 The Appellants identify Bitzer Kuehlmaschinenbau GmbH, as the real
party in interest. (See Appeal Brief, dated Aug. 17, 2016, at 2).
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 18, 2016 ("Final Act."), at 5). 3 Neither do we sustain the rejection of claims
2 1-19 and 21-26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of
3 written description (see Final Act. 4 ).
4 In addition, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13 under
5 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Amata (US 5,094,598,
6 issued Mar. 10, 1992) (see Final Act. 7); the rejection of claims 2--4 and 7
7 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amata and
8 Shaw (US 4,179,248, issued Dec. 18, 1979) (see Final Act. 8); the rejection
9 of claims 6 and 8-10 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amata,
10 Shaw and De Bernardi (US 6,983,622 B2, issued Jan. 10, 2006) (see id.); the
11 rejection of claim 11 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amata,
12 Shaw and Lindahl (US 4,551,989, issued Nov. 12, 1985) (see Final Act. 9);
13 or the rejection of claims 12 and 25 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable
14 over Amata, Shaw, de Bernardi and Y osuke (JP 2605498 B2, issued Apr. 30,
15 1997) (see id.).
16 We sustain the rejection of claims 14--19, 21-24 and 26 underpre-
17 AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Based on the latter
18 holding, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14--16,4 18, 19 and 21-24
19 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over Amata, Shaw and de Bernardi; or
20 the rejection of claim 26 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amata,
21 Shaw, de Bernardi and Y osuke, because the rejections necessarily are based
3 On page 15 of the Examiner's Answer, mailed October 24, 2016, the
Examiner withdrew a separate rejection of dependent claim 13 as indefinite
under the second paragraph of§ 112.
2
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 on speculative assumption as to the meaning of the claims. See In re Steele,
2 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCP A 1962).
3
4 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
5 The Specification teaches a method in which oil flows "between oil
6 sumps of ... at least three compressors and along ... separate connections
7 to tend to equalize the oil levels among the oils sumps of the at least three
8 compressors." (Specification, dated July 25, 2013, and as corrected
9 February 15, 2016 ("Spec."), para. 5). Claims 1 and 14 are independent:
10 1. A method of operating a refrigeration system
11 having at least three compressors, each compressor having an oil
12 sump with oil at an oil level, the method comprising:
13 supplying oil to all of the at least three compressors in any
14 operating mode;
15 separately connecting the oil sumps of the at least three
16 compressors, wherein each separate connection allows oil flow
1 7 only between the oil sumps of two of said compressors thereby
18 preventing flow from bypassing any of the at least three
19 compressors; and
20 flowing oil between oil sumps of the at least three
21 compressors and along the separate connections so as to equalize
22 the oil levels among the oil sumps of the at least three
23 compressors.
24 (Appellants' Appeal Brief, dated Aug. 17, 2016 ("App. Br."), at 20 (Claims
25 App'x)).
26 14. A refrigeration system comprising:
2 7 at least three compressors connected in a fluid circuit, each
28 compressor having an oil sump in a lower portion thereof, the oil
29 sump adapted to contain oil that defines an oil level when in a
30 fully filled oil state;
3
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 a supply line which supplies oil to each of the at least three
2 compressors in any operating mode of the at least three
3 compressors,
4 wherein the oil sump of each compressor of the at least
5 three compressors has at least one oil port in the lower portion,
6 each oil port disposed at an elevation that is equal to or higher
7 than the oil level of oil to thereby promote equalization of oil
8 levels among the oil sumps;
9 a plurality of separate conduits, each oil port connected to
10 one of the conduits, each conduit connecting respective oil sumps
11 of a pair of compressors, wherein the separate conduits are not
12 connected to other conduits and only being fluidically connected
13 through the oil sumps of separate compressors of the at least
14 three compressors;
15 wherein one of the at least three compressors includes an
16 oil sump extension having connections for at least one of the
1 7 plurality of conduits, the oil sump extension configured to permit
18 oil flow between oil sumps of compressors connected to the oil
19 sump extension to promote equalization of the oil sump levels,
20 and to prevent a flow of oil from bypassing any of the at least
21 three compressors.
22 (App. Br. 22 (Claims App'x)).
23
24 ISSUES
25 This appeal turns on five issues:
26 First, is the step of "supplying oil to all of the at least three
2 7 compressors in any operating mode," as recited in claim 1, or the limitation
28 whereby a refrigeration system includes "a supply line which supplies oil to
29 each of the at least three compressors in any operating mode of the at least
30 three compressors," as recited in claim 14, indefinite?
31 Second, does the step of "supplying oil to all of the at least three
3 2 compressors in any operating mode," as recited in claim 1, or the limitation
4
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 whereby a refrigeration system includes "a supply line which supplies oil to
2 each of the at least three compressors in any operating mode of the at least
3 three compressors," as recited in claim 14, lack written description in the
4 Specification?
5 Third, is the step of "separately connecting the oil sumps of the at
6 least three compressors, wherein each separate connection allows oil flow
7 only between the oil sumps of two of said compressors thereby preventing
8 flow from bypassing any of the at least three compressors," as recited in
9 claim 1, indefinite because it "does not [ read on] the embodiments including
10 an oil sump extension since[,] with the oil sump extension[,] oil from at least
11 two adjacent compressors is mixed by the two separate connections directing
12 oil to the sump extension" (see Final Act. 5 & 6)?
13 Fourth, are the limitations "wherein the oil sump of each compressor
14 of the at least three compressors has at least one oil port in the lower
15 portion," as recited in claim 14; and by which the recited refrigeration
16 system includes "a plurality of separate conduits, each oil port connected to
1 7 one of the conduits, each conduit connecting respective oil sumps of a pair
18 of compressors ... ; wherein one of the at least three compressors includes
19 an oil sump extension having connections for at least one of the plurality of
20 conduits," as recited in claim 14, indefinite because they contradict one
21 another?
22 Fifth, does Amata anticipate claim 1?
5
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 DISCUSSION
2 First and Second Issues
3 Claim 1 recites a method including the step of "supplying oil to all of
4 the at least three compressors in any operating mode." Claim 14 similarly
5 recites a refrigeration system including "a supply line which supplies oil to
6 each of the at least three compressors in any operating mode of the at least
7 three compressors." The Examiner rejects claims 1-19 and 21-26 as
8 indefinite under the second paragraph of§ 112, as indefinite, and under the
9 first paragraph of§ 112, as lacking written description, finding that "no
10 description of various operating modes has been set forth in the claims and
11 no mention of operating modes has been provided in the specification or
12 original description." (Final Act. 5). Taking the position that the term
13 "operating mode" is broader than whether a compressor is, or is not, running
14 (see Examiner's Answer, mailed Oct. 24, 2016 ("Answer" or Ans."), at 3),
15 the Examiner concludes that "[i]t is unclear what is being referred to [by]
16 operating modes." (Id.at 5)
17 We agree with the named inventor, Bruce Fraser, that "the phrase,
18 'any operating mode,' includes those instances when the compressor is not
19 operating as well as those instances when the compressor is operating."
20 (Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, executed by Bruce A. Fraser and
21 dated May 16, 2016 ("Fraser Deel."), para. 4). If the term "operating mode"
22 is interpreted as being limited to whether a compressor is, or is not, running,
23 at least paragraph 58 of the Specification provides written description
24 support for including the step of "supplying oil to all of the at least three
25 compressors in any operating mode," as recited in claim 1, as well as the
26 limitation, "a supply line which supplies oil to each of the at least three
6
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 compressors in any operating mode of the at least three compressors," as
2 recited in claim 14. (See App. Br. 6).
3 Claim 14 recites that oil must be supplied to each of the recited
4 compressors "in any operating mode of the at least three compressors." The
5 parallel recitation on claim 1 likewise indicates that the recited "operating
6 mode" is an operating mode of the compressors. Thus, the Examiner's
7 examples describing operating modes of a refrigeration system, as a whole,
8 or of a system controller 15, in particular, in which oil does not flow to all of
9 the compressors (see Ans. 3) does not persuade us either that the quoted
10 limitations are indefinite; or that the Specification fails to describe those
11 limitations adequately. (See Appellants' Reply Brief, dated Dec. 23, 2016
12 ("Reply Br."), at 6).
13 Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-19 and 21-26
14 under§ 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description. Neither do we
15 conclude that the quoted limitations are indefinite under the second
16 paragraph of§ 112.
17
18 Third Issue
19 Claim 1 recites a method including the step of "separately connecting
20 the oil sumps of the at least three compressors, wherein each separate
21 connection allows oil flow only between the oil sumps of two of said
22 compressors thereby preventing flow from bypassing any of the at least three
23 compressors." The Examiner concludes that this limitation is indefinite,
24 since it "does not [ read on] the embodiments including an oil sump
25 extension since[,] with the oil sump extension[,] oil from at least two
26 adjacent compressors is mixed by the two separate connections directing oil
7
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 to the sump extension." (See Final Act. 5 & 6). Claim 6, which depends
2 from claim 1, explains this apparent contradiction.
3 According to claim 6, in a case where a compressor has an oil sump
4 extension, the oil sump extension divides the oil sump of that compressor
5 into "an internal oil sump, contained within a housing shell of the at least
6 one of the compressors of the first group, and an external oil sump [ within
7 the extension] situated outside of the housing shell." In such a case, the
8 claim provides, "the oil sump extension has at least two separate connection
9 ports to provide for said at least two separate connections." Oil flow into the
10 two separate connections does not bypass the oil sump of the compressor
11 having the oil sump extension; instead, oil flows through each of the
12 connections into the external oil sump of the compressor. (See Reply Br. 9).
13 This configuration is described in more detail in paragraphs 7, 60 and 62 of
14 the Specification; and depicted particularly at reference numeral 219 in
15 Figure 12. Therefore, the quoted limitation is not indefinite. We do not
16 sustain the rejection of claims 1-13 and 25 under§ 112, second paragraph,
1 7 as indefinite.
18
19 Fourth Issue
20 Claim 14 recites a refrigeration system "wherein the oil sump of each
21 compressor of the at least three compressors has at least one oil port in the
22 lower portion." In addition, the refrigeration system includes "a plurality of
23 separate conduits, each oil port connected to one of the conduits, each
24 conduit connecting respective oil sumps of a pair of compressors ... ;
25 wherein one of the at least three compressors includes an oil sump extension
26 having connections for at least one of the plurality of conduits." The
8
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 Examiner concludes that "[t]hese limitations contradict one another. If the
2 sump extension is connected to an oil port then the port is not directly
3 connected to one conduit. If an indirect connection is being implied or
4 claimed then the extension is designed to have multiple connections to
5 conduits, not just one." (Final Act. 6).
6 The Appellants argue that:
7 a connection to the oil sump extension is the same as a
8 connection to the internal sump of the compressor. Thus,
9 multiple connections to the oil sump extension should be treated
10 in the same way as multiple connections to the lower portion of
11 the compressor shell proximate the internal sump. When viewed
12 in this light, it can be seen that each connection to the oil sump
13 extension is a separate connection between the compressor
14 attached to the oil sump extension and the compressor at the
15 other end of the separate connection.
16 (App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 10). This argument does not respond fully to
17 the Examiner's reasoning.
18 The Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it does not
19 address the claim language that the Examiner concludes is indefinite. Claim
20 14 recites "wherein the oil sump of each compressor of the at least three
21 compressors has at least one oil port in the lower portion." The antecedent
22 basis of "the lower portion" is the limitation, "each compressor having a
23 compressor housing having an oil sump in a lower portion thereof." Hence,
24 the "lower portion" referred to in claim 14 is the lower portion of the
25 compressor housing. In other words, the recitation "wherein the oil sump of
26 each compressor of the at least three compressors has at least one oil port in
27 the lower portion" implies that each oil port is defines in a lower portion of
28 one of the compressor housings.
9
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 Claim 14 also recites "wherein one of the at least three compressors
2 includes an oil sump extension having connections for at least one of the
3 plurality of conduits." The "connections for at least one of the plurality of
4 conduits" cannot be "oil port[ s ]" because the connections are defined in the
5 oil sump extension. Regardless whether "each connection to the oil sump
6 extension is a separate connection between the compressor attached to the
7 oil sump extension and the compressor at the other end of the separate
8 connection" (App. Br. 9), conduits connected to the connections defined by
9 the oil sump extension are not connected to an oil port defined in a lower
10 portion of a compressor housing. A compressor having an oil sump
11 extension does not have an "oil port connected to one of the conduits," as
12 recited in claim 14.
13 Therefore, the Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
14 erred. We sustain the rejection of claims 14--19, 21-24 and 26 under§ 112,
15 second paragraph, as being indefinite.
16 Therejectionofclaims 14--16, 18, 19and21-24under§103(a)as
17 being unpatentable over Amata, Shaw and de Bernardi, as well as the
18 rejection of claim 26 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amata,
19 Shaw, de Bernardi and Y osuke, must fall, proforma, because they
20 necessarily are based on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the
21 claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCP A 1962). The
22 Examiner relies on de Bernardi as teaching the indefinite limitations (see
23 Final Act. 8; Non-Final Office Action, mailed Sept. 17, 2015 ("Non-Final
24 Act."), at 11 ); and the Appellants contest the Examiner's findings regarding
25 the teachings of de Bernardi (see App. Br. 14 & 15). Thus, the Appellants'
26 arguments cannot be considered fairly without addressing the scope of the
10
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 indefinite claim language. It should be understood, however, that our
2 decision in this regard is based solely on the indefiniteness of the claimed
3 subject matter and does not reflect on the adequacy of the prior art evidence
4 applied in support of the rejections.
5
6 Fifth Issue
7 Amata does not anticipate independent claim 1. Claim 1 recites the
8 method step, "flowing oil between oil sumps of the at least three
9 compressors and along the separate connections so as to equalize the oil
10 levels among the oil sumps of the at least three compressors." The
11 Examiner cites column 1, lines 21-28, of Amata as describing this feature.
12 (See Final Act. 7, citing Non-Final Office Action, mailed Sept. 17, 2015, at
13 7; Ans. 7). This passage describes (and criticizes) a prior art controllable
14 compressor apparatus depicted in Figure 20 of Amata.
15 Amata teaches that it is desirable to vary the capacity of controllable
16 compressor apparatus designed for application in an air conditioning system
17 in the event that the number of rooms to be cooled by the air conditioning
18 system changes. One technique for varying the capacity of such an
19 apparatus is to tum off, that is, render inoperative, one or more of the
20 compressors. (See Amata, col. 1, 11. 7-21 ). Column 1, lines 21-28 of Amata
21 describe a system in which "a plurality of parallel-connected compressors
22 with their oil sumps connected to each other by means of oil equalizing
23 pipes, so that the overall capacity thereof is controlled by making
24 inoperative some of the compressors or by varying the capacities of the
25 compressors." (Id.)
11
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 As depicted in Figure 20, the extant controllable compressor apparatus
2 included three compressors 1, 2, 3. Each compressor 1, 2, 3 includes an oil
3 sump lb, 2b, 3b containing lubricating oil having an oil level 25. Oil
4 equalizing pipes 15a, 15b connect the oil sumps lb, 2b, 3b. (Cf Amata, col.
5 3, 11. 54--59 & 63---68 ( describing the behavior of corresponding components
6 of a compressor apparatus depicted in Figure 1)). Discharge pipes 4, 5, 6
7 discharge a pressurized mixture of vaporous refrigerant and lubricating oil
8 from the compressors 1, 2, 3. (Cf Amata, col. 4, 11. 49-54 (describing the
9 behavior of corresponding components of a compressor apparatus depicted
10 in Figure 1) ). At least one suction pipe 7, 8, 9 supplies a mixture of
11 refrigerant and lubricating oil to a corresponding compressor 1, 2, 3. ( Cf
12 Amata, col. 4, 11. 5-10 & 54--64 (describing the behavior of corresponding
13 components of a compressor apparatus depicted in Figure 1 )).
14 Amata criticizes the apparatus depicted in Figure 20, explaining that:
15 In this type of compressor apparatus, when all the compressors
16 are operated, internal pressure in the chambers of all the
1 7 compressors are not substantially equalized with each other due
18 to the manufacturing vanat10n among the individual
19 compressors, pipes and the like. For this reason, the amount of
20 lubricating oil of each compressor is not uniform .... In addition,
21 [in the case where refrigerant within the compressor chamber
22 condenses and dissolves in the lubricating oil,] the internal
23 pressure in the chamber of the inoperative compressor becomes
24 slightly lower than the internal pressure in the chamber of the
25 compressor(s) in operation, so that there is a problem in this case
26 as well that the lubricating oil is distributed nonuniformly among
27 the compressors.
28 (Amata, col. 1, 11. 28-36 & 49-54). Thus, according to Amata, the apparatus
29 does not flow oil between the oil sumps 1 b, 2b, 3b of the compressors 1, 2, 3
30 "so as to equalize the oil levels [25] among the oil sumps of the at least three
12
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 compressors." As such, we agree with the Appellants that the apparatus
2 depicted in Figure 20 of Amata does not satisfy all of the limitations of
3 claim 1. (See Reply Br. 11 ).
4 On page 20 of the Answer, the Examiner cites embodiments depicted
5 in Figures 8-19 and in Figure 20 of Amata as further evidence supporting
6 the finding that claim 1 is anticipated. An inspection of Figures 8-19 of
7 Amata indicates that each apparatus depicted in those drawing figures has
8 only two compressors, and Figure 20 separately depicts prior art having
9 three compressors. The preamble of claim 1 recites a "method of operating
10 a refrigeration system having at least three compressors." Each of the three
11 method steps recited in the body of claim 1 includes a recitation of the "at
12 least three compressors." Because Figures 8-19 depict only apparatuses
13 having two compressors each, separate from Figure 20 's depiction of prior
14 art having three compressors, the Figures do not support a finding of
15 anticipation. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369
16 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that a claim is anticipated only if each limitation
17 of the claim is disclosed as arranged in the claim).
18 Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claim 13,
19 which is dependent upon claim 1 and not separately argued, under § 102(b)
20 as being anticipated by Amata.
21
22 With respect to claims 2--4 and 7, Shaw describes a compressed gas
23 distribution system including a compressor oil equalization scheme. (See
24 Shaw, col. 3, 11. 12-19 & Fig.). The Examiner cites Shaw as teaching:
25 connections between oil sumps of compressors located at
26 approximately the same vertical elevation (Col. 4, lines 60-62,
27 "equivalent vertical height"), and that the connections (at points
13
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 56 and 56') are equal to, or higher than, the oil level of oil to
2 thereby promote equalization of oil levels among the oil sumps
3 (Sol. 5, lines 1-10).
4 (Non-Final Act. 9; see also Final Act. 8). These teachings of Shaw do not
5 remedy the deficiencies in the disclosure of Amata as applied to independent
6 claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2--4 and 7
7 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over Amata and Shaw.
8 With respect to claims 6 and 8-10, De Bernardi describes an
9 arrangement of compressors including an oil level equalization tube 5
10 communicating with the oil sumps 6 of the compressors 2. (See De
11 Bernardi, col. 3, 11. 53---64 & Fig. 1 ). The Examiner cites De Bernardi as
12 teaching "extending the oil sump of at least one of the compressors 2 of [a]
13 first group with an oil sump extension 5 ( oil equalization tube acting as a
14 sump)." (Non-Final Act. 11; see also Final Act. 8). This teaching does not
15 remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Amata and Shaw.
16 Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 8-10 under
17 § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Amata, Shaw and De Bernardi.
18 With respect to claim 11, Lindahl describes a refrigeration system
19 including a pair of compressors, as well as a lubricant distribution and
20 equalization scheme. (See Lindahl, col. 3, 11. 29-37 & Fig. 1 ). The
21 Examiner cites Lindahl as teaching "a sight glass fitting 15/25 to provide a
22 visual indication of the oil level that is integral with the oil sump. (Col. 3,
23 lines 64---68)." (See Non-Final Act. 13; see also Final Act. 9). This teaching
24 does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Amata and
25 Shaw. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 under§ 103(a)
26 as being unpatentable over Amata, Shaw and Lindahl.
14
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 Finally, with respect to claims 12 and 25, the Examiner cites Yosuke
2 as teaching that "each compressor ( 15) of [a] first group hav[ e] a housing
3 shell 11, the housing shell having at least two separate oil sump ports (81
4 and 82) having separate fittings (Fig. 3) connected thereto to provide ... at
5 least two separate connections." (Non-Final Act. 13; see also Final Act. 9).
6 In addition, the Examiner cites Y osuke as disclosing a system including a
7 main compressor 15 and two subcompressors 25, 35, such that "the majority
8 of oil is concentrated or supplied to the main compressor 15." (Final Act.
9 10). Neither teaching remedies the deficiencies in the combined teachings
10 of Amata, Shaw and De Bernardi. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
11 of claims 12 and 25 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amata, Shaw,
12 De Bernardi and Yosuke.
13
14 DECISION
15 We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14--19, 21-24
16 and 26.
17 We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-13 and 25.
18 More specifically, we sustain the rejection of claims 14--19, 21-24
19 and 26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
20 We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-19 and 21-26 underpre-
21 AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description; the
22 rejection of claims 1-13 and 25 under§ 112, second paragraph, as being
23 indefinite; the rejection of claims 1 and 13 under § 102(b) as being
24 anticipated by Amata; the rejection of claims 2--4 and 7 under§ 103(a) as
25 being unpatentable over Amata and Shaw; the rejection of claims 6, 8-10,
26 14--16, 18, 19 and 21-24 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amata,
15
Appeal2017-003184
Application 13/950,488
1 Shaw and De Bernardi; the rejection of claim 11 under§ 103(a) as being
2 unpatentable over Amata, Shaw and Lindahl; or the rejection of claims 12,
3 25 and 26 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amata, Shaw, de
4 Bernardi and Y osuke.
5 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
6 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
7 § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16