Ex Parte Gopalan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2018

14176446 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/176,446 02/10/2014 Prem K. Gopalan
87555 7590 05/23/2018
Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVFD
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 Fifth Street
Davis, CA 95618
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.
RIV-0760-CONl 6994
EXAMINER
PATEL, HITESHKUMARR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2018 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):
j eannie@parklegal.com
wendy@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PREM K. GOP ALAN and BRYAN THOMAS EL VERSON 1
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/17 6,446
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, STACEY G. WHITE, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge PINKERTON.
Opinion Dissenting-in-part filed by Administrative Patent Judge BUSCH.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Riverbed Technology,
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention "relates to systems, methods, and techniques to
detect anomalies in network traffic." Spec. 1. In particular, the system and
method compare observed network traffic to a prediction interval, identify
an outlier if the observed network traffic is outside the prediction interval,
and identify an anomaly if the number of detected outliers within a certain
time period exceeds a threshold. Id. at 2, 5. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are
independent claims. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying, by computer, an outlier for a network traffic
metric if observed network traffic is outside of a prediction
interval during a time period; and
identifying an anomaly for the network traffic metric only
when a count of outliers for the network traffic metric identified
during the time period is greater than or equal to two, and exceeds
an anomaly threshold for the network traffic metric.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gopalan (US 2003/0208523 Al; Nov. 6, 2003)
and Ho (US 6,597,777 Bl; July 22, 2003). Final Act. 4--11.
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gopalan, in view of Ho, and further in view of Yun
(US 2009/0126023 Al; May 14, 2009). Final Act. 11-12.
2
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
ANALYSIS
CONSTRUCTION OF METHOD CLAIM 1
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner considers all of the
limitations of claim 1, and finds they are taught or suggested, and rendered
obvious, by the combined teachings of Gopalan and Ho. Final Act. 5---6. In
the Answer, the Examiner takes a different approach. The Examiner finds
that if, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim, one
or more conditional method steps would not be invoked, the Examiner need
not find the conditional method steps in the prior art to render the claimed
method obvious. Ans. 4--5 (citing Ex parte Katz, No. 2010-006083, 2011
WL 514314, at *4--5 (BPAI 2011)). The Examiner concludes that the two
steps of claim !-"identifying ... an outlier" and "identifying an
anomaly"-need not be found in the prior art because they are both
conditional limitations. Id. at 5 (citing Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration
Forum, Inc., 243 F. App'x 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) and
Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 F. App'x 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(unpublished)).
Appellants argue the Examiner essentially concludes "that the claim
elements in the independent claims should not be given patentable weight
merely because the claim elements include the words 'if and 'when."'
Reply Br. 6. Appellants contend Cybersettle and Applera do not directly
address how conditional claim language is to be interpreted under the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard, but Ex parte Schulhauser,
Appeal 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016)
(precedential) is directly on point. Reply Br. 6-7. Appellants argue
3
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
Schulhauser applies only to method claims and, therefore, all the limitations
of the computer-readable storage medium claims (claims 8-14) and the
apparatus claims (claims 15-20) should be given patentable weight because
those claims still require the structure for performing the recited conditional
functions. Id. at 7 (citing Schulhauser). Appellants also argue Schulhauser
does not apply to method claims 1-7 because failing to give patentable
weight to the steps of claim 1, as the Examiner proposes, would result in the
claimed method "not requir[ ing] any step at all, which would render the
entire claim meaningless." Id. at 7-8 (citing Ex parte Hehenberger, Appeal
No. 2015-007421, 2017 WL 588626 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2017) (concurring
opinion)).
Initially, unlike Appellants, we do not understand the Examiner's
conclusion with respect to whether the conditional limitations of the claims
are to be given patentable weight to apply to all the independent claims.
Instead, we interpret the Examiner's conclusion in this regard to apply only
to method claim 1. Regardless, we agree with Appellants that Schulhauser
applies only to method claims and, like the "system" claim in Schulhauser,
the conditional functional limitations of claim 8 (directed to "a computer-
readable storage medium") and claim 15 (directed to "an apparatus") should
be given patentable weight because the broadest reasonable interpretation of
these claims "requires structure for performing the function should the
condition occur." See Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *7.
Regarding method claim 1, we are persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner errs by failing to give patentable weight to the
limitations of claim 1. Reply Br. 8. First, we agree with Appellants'
argument that the Examiner's construction would result in the claimed
4
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
method "not requir[ing] any step at all, which would render the entire claim
meaningless." Id. at 7-8 (citing Ex parte Hehenberger, Appeal No. 2015-
007421 (Jan. 27, 2017) (concurring opinion)). We also agree with
Appellants that the Examiner's construction is overly broad and
unreasonable because a person of ordinary skill in the art, considering the
claim in the context of the Specification as a whole, would interpret the
claim to be limited to the method described in which the recited conditions
occur. Id. at 8.
Second, we find Schulhauser is not controlling because it is factually
distinguishable. The method claim in Schulhauser was directed to
monitoring cardiac conditions and recited, inter alia, (1) collecting
electrocardiac signal data, (2) comparing the data with a threshold
electrocardiac criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event,
(3) "triggering an alarm state if the ... data is not within the threshold," and
(4) "determining the current activity level of the subject ... if the
electrocardiac signal data is within the threshold." Schulhauser, 2016 WL
6277792, at * 1-2 (emphases added). The Board found the "triggering" and
"determining" steps are "mutually exclusive" and that the claim "as written
covers at least two methods"-"one in which the prerequisite condition for
the triggering step is met and one in which the prerequisite condition for the
determining step is met." Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3--4. Thus,
the Board concluded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
method claim encompasses a method where only the steps of "collecting,"
"comparing," and "triggering an alarm state if the electrocardiac signal data
is not within the threshold" are performed. Id. at *4. The Board further
found that the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness
5
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
of the remaining method steps that are not required to be performed under
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Id.
Unlike the method claim in Schulhauser, the steps of method claim 1
are not mutually exclusive and the claim, as written, covers only one
method. The steps of "identifying ... an outlier" and "identifying an
anomaly" are not dependent on the happening of a condition precedent that
would result in the claim operating in two separate methods as in
Schulhauser. Instead, these steps work together, and both must be used, to
accomplish the goal of reducing false positives. As explained in the
Specification: "A single outlier is not necessarily enough [to] cause an
anomaly. Using a threshold number of outliers to identify an anomaly can
provide the advantage of reducing the number of false positives." Spec.
13:22-25. In other words, outliers are first identified "if observed network
traffic is outside of a prediction interval during a time period," and
anomalies are then identified based on the count of outliers-"only when a
count of outliers for the network traffic metric identified during the time
period is greater than or equal to two, and exceeds an anomaly threshold for
the network traffic metric." Claims App'x 17. Although each of these steps
is conditional, they are integrated into one method or path and do not cause
the claim to diverge into two methods or paths, as in Schulhauser. Thus, we
conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 requires the
performance of both steps of "identifying ... an outlier" and "identifying an
anomaly."
Third, neither Schulhauser, nor other precedent, requires that all
conditional claim limitations are not to be give patentable weight. In fact,
Schulhauser gave patentable weight to the conditional "triggering" step--
6
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
"triggering an alarm state if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the
threshold electrocardiac criteria." Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *4.
In Ex parte Fleming, Appeal 2014-002849, 2014 WL 7146104, at *2 (PTAB
Dec. 12, 2014) (expanded panel decision on rehearing), which is cited in
Schulhauser, at * 10, fn 4, the Board stated "we did not and do not hold that
every conditional step recitation in a method claim is not entitled to
patentable weight."
Fourth, the other cases cited in Schulhauser, and by the Examiner, are
also distinguishable. Ex parte Urbanet, Appeal 2011-002606, 2012 WL
4460637 (BPAI Sept. 19, 2012), cited in Schulhauser, at *10, fn 4, is
factually distinguishable because the Board found the claim at issue
alternatively covers at least two methods because of a conditional "wherein"
clause. See Urbanet, at *2. For the reasons explained above, that is not the
situation here because claim 1 recites one method. In Katz, as cited by the
Examiner, the Board held "[a]s under the broadest scenario, the steps
dependent on the 'if' conditional would not be invoked, the Examiner was
not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the
claims obvious." Katz, at *4. Katz is not controlling because, as discussed
above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 1 here
requires the performance of both steps of "identifying ... an outlier" and
"identifying an anomaly." Regarding the cases cited by the Examiner, we
agree with Appellants that Cybersettle and Applera do not address "the issue
at hand," namely how conditional claim language is interpreted under the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Reply 6-7. In particular,
Cybersettle concerns the issue of infringement of a method claim. See
Cybersettle, 243 F. App'x at 607. And, Applera concerns whether a
7
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
sequence of steps recited in the method claim was required to be repeated
multiple times. See Applera, 375 F. App'x at 21.
Because the Examiner erred in construing claim 1, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 on the ground that the claim
limitations are not to be given patentable weight. Thus, we proceed to
consider the Examiner's substantive rejections of claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 in view of Appellants' arguments.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-20 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14--20 as obvious in view
of Gopalan and Ho and claims 6 and 13 as obvious in view of Gopalan, Ho,
and Yun. Final Act. 4--12. Of particular relevance to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner finds Ho teaches the identifying an anomaly step
recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Final Act. 5---6 (citing Ho 3:25-35); Ans. 3--4
(citing Ho 5:11-14, 11:1-20, Figs. 8-9).
Appellants argue Ho fails to teach or suggest the identifying an
anomaly step because the Examiner's rejection depends on an improper
implicit construction of at least one of "outlier" and "only when," as recited
in the independent claims. App. Br. 13-15. In particular, Appellants assert
Ho triggers an alert upon the first occurrence of an outlier. Id. at 14.
Appellants further explain "that each occurrence of the anomaly in Ho
corresponds to the term 'outlier' in the claims of the instant application,"
such that Ho triggers an alert in response to detecting a single outlier. Id.
Appellants contend Ho, therefore, does not reduce false positives, whereas
the claims reduce false positives because the claims identify an anomaly
"only when" the count of outliers detected is greater than one during a time
period. Id.
8
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
Ho is directed to detecting network anomalies using traffic data to
determine traffic intensity. Ho 3:10-23, 5:11-14, Abstract. For each service
class, Ho determines "historical data, predicted baseline, and upper and
lower time-dependent traffic intensity thresholds." Id. at 3:23-27. Ho
measures the real-time traffic intensity and compares that measurement to
the upper and lower thresholds to determine whether the measured traffic
intensity is within (or outside of) the determined upper and lower thresholds
for longer than a time period. Id. at 3:27-32. Ho further teaches detecting
and acting upon "an anomalous condition" in response to determining
whether the currently detected traffic intensity is outside the determined
thresholds and, if so, for how long and by what degree. Id. at 7:5-32. More
specifically, Ho describes that "deviations (in both magnitude and duration,
as defined by a set of fault criteria)" outside the thresholds indicate service
anomalies. Id. at 9:10-13 (emphasis added). One embodiment of Ho
teaches identifying an anomaly when the traffic intensity persistently falls
outside the thresholds. Id. at 9: 14--43; see also id. at 10:20-23 ("Detector
processor 604, upon determining that the current traffic intensity in any
service class falls above the upper threshold or below the lower threshold for
a duration of 15 or more minutes, generates an alarm." (Emphasis added)),
11: 12-15 ("The present invention, however, detects the fact that the traffic
intensity persistently exceeds the upper threshold within the first 15 minutes
of the onset of the server failure" (emphasis added)).
We agree with Appellants that Ho's determination of whether the real-
time traffic intensity falls within the determined thresholds is not equivalent
to Appellants' recited detecting an anomaly because Ho's thresholds are
analogous to Appellants' recited prediction interval, which is used to
9
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
determine whether a particular measurement is an "outlier." See App. Br. 14
(arguing that "each occurrence of the anomaly in Ho corresponds to the term
'outlier' in the claims of the instant application"). We disagree, however,
with Appellants' assertion that Ho, therefore, "triggers an alert as soon as it
identifies a single outlier." See id. Ho's determination that traffic intensity
is outside its determined thresholds is similar to Appellants' recited
identifying step. However, contrary to Appellants' alleged distinction that
Ho triggers an alert upon identification of a single outlier, id., Ho discloses
generating an alarm when the detected traffic intensity is persistently outside
of Ho's determined thresholds. See Ho 9:14--43, 10:20-23, 11:12-15.
Appellants' claims recite a "count of outliers," which is compared to
an anomaly threshold, and Appellants explain that this disputed aspects of
the claim reduces false positives. App. Br. 14. Ho suggests reducing false
positives by detecting an anomaly only when the traffic intensity is
persistently outside the determined thresholds. Thus, both Appellants'
claims and Ho's disclosure address the statistical significance of detected
outliers.
Nevertheless, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Ho's
anomaly detection would have taught or suggested the claimed count of
outliers or "identifying an anomaly ... only when a count of outliers ... is
greater than or equal to two, and exceeds an anomaly threshold." Nor has
the Examiner provided a rationale for modifying Ho's disclosed method of
ensuring the statistical significance of its outliers.
Therefore, constrained by this record, we are persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, and 15. For similar reasons, we
are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-
10
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
20, which ultimately depend from and incorporate the limitations of one of
claims 1, 8, and 15. Similarly, because the Examiner does not rely on Yun
to cure the identified deficiency in the rejection of claims 6 and 13, we also
are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 13 for the same
reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PREM K. GOP ALAN and BRYAN THOMAS ELVERSON
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/17 6,446
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, STACEY G. WHITE, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge, DISSENTING-IN-PART.
I agree with, and join, the majority decision with respect to its
treatment of claims 8-20. I write separately, however, because I respectfully
disagree with the majority's claim construction of claim 1 and, therefore, the
majority's ultimate conclusion that claims 1-7 would not have been obvious.
As discussed in the majority opinion, the Examiner concludes that the
two steps of claim 1-"identifying ... an outlier" and "identifying an
anomaly"-need not be found in the prior art because they are both
conditional limitations. Ans. 5 (citing Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration
Forum, Inc., 243 F. App'x 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished); Applera
Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 F. App'x 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished)).
Appellants contend Cybersettle and Applera do not directly address how
conditional claim language is to be interpreted under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard, arguing that Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) "is directly
on point." Reply Br. 6-7.
I agree with Appellants that Schulhauser is the most relevant case
regarding interpreting conditional claim language under the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard. See Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at
*3-5 (holding that in a method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent
does not need to be performed if the condition precedent is not met); see
also Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat'! Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 F. App'x 603,
607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps
may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not
satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order
for the claimed method to be performed."). For the reasons below, I
disagree with the majority's conclusion that Schulhauser is not controlling in
this case. See Maj. Op. 5---6.
Claim 1 's first step recites, in part, "identifying ... an outlier ... if
observed network traffic is outside of a prediction interval." I agree with the
majority that both of claim l's steps are conditional limitations, and that
claim 1 's first and second steps are not mutually exclusive alternatives to
each other. Maj. Op. 6 (explaining that each of claim l's steps are
conditional and that the two steps work together to reduce false positives).
Put another way, claim 1 identifies an outlier if the recited condition of
observed network traffic occurs and claim 1 further identifies an anomaly
when the count of identified outliers is greater than one. 2 Thus, claim 1 's
2 For this opinion, I assume the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent
with Appellants' Specification, of claim l's recited "count of outliers" is
simply the number of times the condition precedent in the first step occurs.
2
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
second identifying step will not occur until and unless claim 1 's first
identifying step is performed at least twice.
It is undisputed that Schulhauser 's particular method recited a pair of
conditional limitations, wherein if one condition was evaluated as true, the
other condition would be evaluated as false within the same iteration.
Another way to describe Schulhauser 's claim is that evaluation of the first
pair of conditional limitations led to executing one of two mutually
exclusive alternative "branches" (one of which included further branching),
wherein one "branch" was executed if a condition was evaluated as true and
the other "branch" was executed if the same condition was evaluated as
false.
The majority determines Schulhauser is not controlling in this case
and the cases cited therein are distinguishable from this case, the Examiner's
construction is overly broad and unreasonable, and our precedent does not
require giving all conditional limitations no patentable weight. My view
diverges from the majority's view because I believe Schulhauser, as
suggested by the cases cited therein, is controlling in this case and, therefore,
Schulhauser governs the proper construction and analysis of whether or not
the prior art must perform the conditional limitations in order to render the
claim obvious.
Therefore, the condition precedent of the second step would be met when the
first condition precedent occurs at least twice within a specified time interval
(and therefore the first identifying step is performed at least twice). I do not
consider whether the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 1,
which uses the transitional phrase "comprises," encompasses incrementing
the count of outliers through other outlier detection steps not explicitly
recited.
3
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
In particular, contrary to the majority, I do not believe Schulhauser 's
analysis and conclusions are limited to situations involving mutually
exclusive alternative branches because, other than the requirement that one
could practice the recited method without performing the conditional step
when the condition precedent does not occur, I see no caveats for applying
Schulhauser to conditional statements.
Schulhauser found "[ t ]he Board previously has construed similar
method steps in this same manner," citing cases indicating Schulhauser 's
holding is not limited to conditional limitations creating mutually exclusive
alternative branches. Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *4 n.4 (citing Ex
parte Fleming, Appeal 2014-002849, 2014 WL 7146104 (PTAB Dec. 12,
2014) (expanded panel decision on rehearing); Ex parte Urbanet, Appeal
2011-002606, 2012 WL 4460637 (PTAB Sept. 19, 2012); Ex parte Katz,
Appeal 2010-006083, 2011WL514314 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011)). In Fleming,
2014 WL 7146104 at *1-3, the Board concluded the claimed method was
satisfied when the recited condition precedent was not met and, therefore,
the conditional limitation ("generating an alert ... if' a position condition is
met), which was not part of a set of mutually exclusive alternatives, was not
performed. Similarly, in Urbanet, 2012 WL 4460637 at *2, the Board
concluded the conditional limitation need not be performed to satisfy the
claim, stating the claimed method covered a method "without the conditional
steps and prerequisite condition in the wherein clause." Finally, in Katz,
2011 WL 514314 at *4, the Board concluded "the 'if condition' as employed
in the method claim 1 is not a limitation against which prior art must be
found because the step of deducting ... is conditioned on" a particular
scenario and, because "under the broadest scenario, the steps dependent on
4
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
the 'if' conditional would not be invoked, the Examiner was not required to
find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claims obvious."
None of the cases Schulhauser cited in support of its conclusion involved
claims with mutually exclusive alternative conditions. Accordingly, it
follows that Schulhauser 's analysis and conclusions are not limited to only
mutually exclusive alternative conditions.
To the majority's point that the Examiner's construction is
unreasonable because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the method to be limited to a method in which the recited
conditions occur, I see no distinction between the claims here and the claims
in Schulhauser and, therefore, would follow Schulhauser in this case.
Finally, I believe the majority's point that not requiring any steps
would render the claim meaningless goes to the definiteness of the claim. In
order to give patentable weight to every word in a claim, including the
recited conditions, following Schulhauser results in a determination that a
conditional limitation does not need to be performed if the condition
precedent is not satisfied. Applying Schulhauser to conditional limitations
only in claims that also recite non-conditional limitations would produce an
odd result here (and in other cases }-namely, the conditional limitations in
claim 1 would need to be performed, but those same limitations would not
need to be performed in, for example, claim 4, which depends from claim 1
and recites additional, non-conditional, limitations. 3
3 The majority references Appellants' citation of Ex parte Hehenberger,
Appeal No. 2015-007421, 2017 WL 588626 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2017)
(Delmendo, A.P.J., concurring) in support of Appellants' position that the
Examiner's construction would render the claim meaningless. Maj. Op. 4
5
Appeal2017-007009
Application 14/176,446
For the above reasons, I agree with the Examiner's construction of
claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the Examiner, I disagree
with the majority that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7 as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(citing Reply Br. 7-8). I note we are not bound by a concurrence to a non-
precedential Board decision.
6