Ex Parte Higgins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2017

14122282 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/122,282 11/26/2013 Stewart Anderson Higgins 2011P00553WOUS 3942
24737 7590 07/06/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue WANG, JIN CHENG
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEWART ANDERSON HIGGINS,
ALEXANDER ADRIANUS MARTINUS VERBEEK, and
ERIC CHRISTIAAN SLUITERS
Appeal 2017-003 0051
Application 14/122,282
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—8, 10, and 13—20. Claims 9,
11, and 12 have been canceled. Final Act. 1—2; App. Br. 21.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics, N.V. App. Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”), filed Nov. 26, 2013
(claiming benefit of PCT/IB2012/052548 filed May 22, 2012, andEPO
11168450.2 filed June 1, 2011); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Jan. 5,
2016; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Dec. 15, 2016. We also refer to
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
We affirm.
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention generally concerns data visualization systems (i.e.,
graphical user interfaces (GUIs)) for displaying data in timelines, and more
specifically, systems and methods for interacting with timelines utilizing a
computer. The system includes a unit for displaying a first timeline and a
second timeline, such that the first timeline and the second timeline are
displayed in the same time scale. The system further includes an interaction
unit enabling a user to indicate a change to the displayed time segments
(timelines) and a time segment updater that determines an updated first time
segment and an updated second time segment based on the indicated change,
keeping the time scale of the first timeline equal to the time scale of the
second timeline, and keeping a temporal offset between the first time
segment and the second time segment constant. Spec. pp. 1—5; Abstract.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A system for interacting with timelines, comprising
a computer configured to include:
a first timeline unit for displaying a first timeline showing
a first plurality of events within a first time segment bounded by
a first begin time and a first end time;
a second timeline unit for displaying a second timeline
showing a second plurality of events within a second time
segment bounded by a second begin time and a second end time,
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Oct. 21, 2016, and Final Office
Action (Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed Aug. 12, 2015.
2
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
wherein the first timeline and the second timeline are displayed
in the same time scale;
an interaction unit for enabling a user to indicate a change
to the displayed time segments;
a time segment updater for determining an updated first
time segment and an updated second time segment based on the
indicated change, keeping the time scale of the first timeline
equal to the time scale of the second timeline, and keeping a
temporal offset between the first time segment and the second
time segment constant; and
wherein the timeline units are configured to update their
respective displays according to the updated time segments.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1—8, 10, and 13—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathew et al. (US 2008/0235277 Al,
published Sept. 25, 2008) (“Mathew”), Hanrahan et al. (US 2006/0206512
Al, published Sept. 14, 2006) (“Hanrahan”), Hao et al. (US 2011/0298804
Al, published Dec. 8, 2011 (filed June 7, 2010)) (“Hao”), Khafizova (US
8,928,606 Bl, issued Jan. 6, 2015 (filed Apr. 24, 2012 claiming benefit of
US 13/033,798 filed Feb. 24, 2011)), Hafey et al. (US 7,890,498 Bl, issued
Feb. 15, 2011 (filed Nov. 25, 2002)), Poon et al. (US 8,391,161 Bl, issued
Mar. 5, 2013 (filed May 7, 2009)), and John (US 2008/0288023 Al,
published Nov. 20, 2008).
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants’ contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issues before us follow:
3
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mathew,
Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John collectively would have
taught or suggested that:
the first timeline and the second timeline are displayed in the
same time scale; [and]
a time segment updater for determining an updated first
time segment and an updated second time segment based on the
indicated change, keeping the time scale of the first timeline
equal to the time scale of the second timeline, and keeping a
temporal offset between the first time segment and the second
time segment constant
as recited in Appellants’ claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John collectively
would have taught or suggested:
a time point input unit for enabling the user to indicate a first time
point on the first timeline and a second time point on the second
timeline, and wherein the first timeline unit and the second
timeline unit are arranged for aligning the first time point on the
first timeline with the second time point on the second timeline,
and for keeping the time points aligned when the user makes a
change to the time segments such that a temporal offset between
the first time point and the second time point is kept constant
as recited in Appellants’ claim 2?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John collectively
would have taught or suggested:
independently moving the first time segment along the first
timeline and the second time segment independently adjusting
the first time scale and the second time scale;
4
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
receiving a selection of a first time point on the first
timeline . . .
receiving a selection of a second time point on the second
timeline from the user input device in response to an input to
enter a linked mode;
displaying the first and second timelines and time axes of
the first and second timelines parallel to each other with the first
and second time points aligned such that the first and second time
points define a line perpendicular to the time axes; and
adjusting at least one of the first and second time scales
such that the first timeline and the second timeline are displayed
with a common time scale;
within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 14 and the commensurate
limitations of claim 16?
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1 and 4—7
Appellants argue claims 1 and 4—7 together and do not separately
argue dependent claims 4—7. App. Br. 9—11. The Examiner rejects claim 1
as being obvious in view of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey,
Poon, and John. See Final Act. 2—3. Appellants contend that Mathew,
Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John do not teach the disputed
features of representative claim 1. See App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 2—5.
Specifically, Appellants contend that “the Examiner has failed to show
where the motivation in each of the six teaching references is found to
modify the base reference, Mathew. Nor does the Examiner explain in the
rejection of claim 1, just how Mathew is modified by each of the six
teaching references.” App. Br. 9. Appellants further contend that “even if
5
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
one were, by hindsight, to pick and choose and various pieces of the seven
references applied by the Examiner, the various pieces and parts would still
not combine to disclose” the disputed limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 10.
Also, Appellants make numerous arguments for the first time in the Reply
Brief with respect to Mathew, Poon, and Khafizova. Reply Br. 2—5.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—10) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—
31) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings
and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following for
emphasis.
Initially we note that Appellants make new arguments in their Reply
Brief. See Reply Br. 2—5; compare App. Br. 9—10. For example, in their
Reply Brief, for the first time, Appellants provide detailed arguments with
respect to the primary reference, Mathew. See Reply Br. 2—3. In particular,
Appellants contend that the “Examiner is reading into Mathew many
limitations, such as dates, how time segments are selected, temporal
alignment, temporal offsets, and other things which Mathew does not
address.” Reply Br 3. The Examiner explained how Mathew describes
displaying multiple timelines having the same time scale, selecting and
adjusting time periods (time segments), maintaining a temporal offset, and
updating time segments. Final Act. 3^4. Appellants, as discussed infra, do
not address these findings in their Appeal Brief. Further, Appellants do not
provide a compelling explanation for why these arguments were not
previously presented. Therefore, these arguments are waived. See Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473—74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion)
6
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
(absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address an
argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been presented
in the principal brief on appeal); 37 C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2) (same). We will not
consider or address Appellants new arguments in their Reply Brief.
Turning to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, Appellants make generalized
arguments concerning the Examiner’s rationale for combining the seven
cited prior art references, contend the Examiner has not presented a prima
facie obviousness rejection because the Examiner has not provided a
detailed explanation and/or mapping with respect to Mathew and the other
six references, contend that the references have materially different
purposes, and contend that the combination of references does not teach the
disputed features of claim 1. See App. Br. 9-10. Appellants’ generalized
arguments and contentions do not directly dispute the Examiner’s rationale
for combining Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John.
Nor, do they directly dispute (or persuasively rebut) the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Mathew or the other cited references (Hanrahan, Hao,
Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John).
Appellants provide no persuasive evidence in their Appeal Brief to
rebut the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, let alone demonstrate error in
the Examiner’s findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant.”). It is Appellants’ burden to
address at-issue claim features and corresponding arguments with
meaningful particularity. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (affirming because Appellants “merely argued that the claims differed
from [the prior art], and chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this
7
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
difference.”). Indeed, Appellants provide mere unsupported attorney
argument contending that, for a number of reasons, the Examiner has erred
{supra). Such attorney argument and conclusory statements, unsupported by
factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-
Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no
substitute for evidence.”).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by the Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365 (“it has
long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identity the alleged
error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ arguments, we are not
persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 2 and 3
Appellants argue claims 2 and 3 together and provide nominal
separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 3. App. Br. 11—12. The
Examiner rejects claims 2 and 3 as being obvious in view of Mathew,
Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John. See Final Act. 10-12.
Appellants contend that Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon,
and John do not teach the disputed features of representative claim 2. See
App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 6—7. Specifically, Appellants contend claim 2
recites:
8
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
a first time input unit for enabling a user to indicate a first time
point on the first timeline and a second time point on the second
timeline, and wherein the first timeline unit and the second
timeline unit are arranged for aligning the first time point with a
second time point and keeping the time points aligned when the
user makes a change to the time segments such that the temporal
offset between the first and second time point is kept constant
App. Br. 11. Appellants further contend that Mathew describes selecting
different time periods, “but does not teach or fairly suggest the selection of
time points on first and second timelines.” Id. Appellants also contend that
Hanrahan, cited by the Examiner as teaching a specific time point and
aligning the time points (see Final Act. 10-11), “is not analogous to
Mathew. Rather, Hanrahan relates to drilling down on data from
progressively more detail, e.g., years, to quarters, to months, etc. Moreover,
Hanrahan relates to bar graphs, not timelines.” Id. Further still, Appellants
contend that Khafizova, cited by the Examiner as teaching selecting specific
timeline time periods or events and linking or synchronizing two timelines
(see Final Act. 11), “also does not call for selecting a time point on the first
time line and a second time point on the second timeline. . . . and keeping
these time points temporally fixed when a user makes a change to the time
segments.”
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 10—12)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 31—37) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the
following for emphasis.
9
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
The Examiner finds that Mathew describes displaying and
manipulating timelines, as well as linking and synchronizing selected time
periods in the timelines. See Ans. 31—37. Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Mathew. See App. Br. 11. Instead,
Appellants contend Mathew does not teach “the selection of time points on
first and second timelines.” App. Br. 11. Mathew describes selecting and
displaying specific events (see Fig. 4a-4d) that correspond to specific points
in time. Mathew 129; see, e.g., 123 (calendar events).
Notwithstanding Mathew’s teachings, the Examiner cited Hanrahan as
teaching selecting and aligning specific time points. See Final Act. 10-11
(citing Hanrahan Fig. 17—21). Hanrahan at least suggests multiple
simultaneously displayed timelines (see Figs. 18 and 22, showing timelines
for 1998 sales and 1999 sales) and selecting specific time points (see Figs.
18 and 22, showing months and quarters in 1998 and 1999 timelines).
Hanrahan describes selecting specific time points, such as months and
quarters in yearly timelines. Months and/or quarters are specific points in
time. Appellant claims do not recite any particular limit in the amount of
time that may constitute a time period, time segment, or a specific point in
time.
Appellants contend Hanrahan is not analogous art. We disagree.
Hanrahan describes computer systems for displaying data (GUIs) in a
multitude of dimensions including, for example, time. See Hanrahan
Abstract; || 19 (Fig. 3), 33 (Fig. 17).
The Examiner further cites Khafizova as teaching selecting specific
timeline time periods or events and linking or synchronizing multiple
timelines. See Final Act. 11. Khafizova describes displaying multiple
10
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
(related) events (medical diagnosis from medical records) in multiple
timelines, displaying time intervals between events, and aligning, events,
time intervals, and timelines. See Fig. 6; col. 10,11. 1—9; col. 11,11. 2—5, 8—
16, and 37—59. Appellants contend Khafizova “does not call for selecting a
time point on the first timeline and a second time point on the second
timeline. . . . and keeping these time points temporally fixed when a user
makes a change to the time segments.” App. Br. 11. But, Khafizova
describes points (diagnosis or disorder identification dates) on multiple
timelines derived from records having specific dates (see Fig. 6B; col. 10,11.
7—9). See Fig. 6. The events are selected and placed into respective
timelines so that the events and intervals between related events/points on
the timelines are linked, synchronized (aligned), and displayed to aid in
diagnosis. See Fig. 6; col. 10,11. 1—9; col. 11,11. 2—5, 8—16, and 37—59. We
find, therefore, that Khafizova at least suggests keeping points in different
timelines temporally fixed (i.e., keeping a temporal offset constant) when
changes are made to the timeline (such as adding additional related events).
For example, in Khafizova’s Fig. 6, the dates of diagnosis for various
disorders for various patients (in different timelines) do not change when
other patients and disorders are added.
We agree with the Examiner and find a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the combination of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova,
Hafey, Poon, and John and, in particular, Mathew, Hanrahan, and Khafizova
would have taught or at least suggested the disputed features of Appellants’
claim 2. Appellants do not rebut the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
references and improperly attack the references individually instead of
addressing the combination as a whole. The cited references must be read,
11
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
not in isolation, but for what each fairly teaches in combination with the
prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).
Appellant’s arguments do not take into account what the combination of
Mathew, Hanrahan, and Khafizova would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art —
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference;. .. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner and find that it would have
been well within the skill of one skilled in the art to combine such known
techniques manipulating timeline points/events as taught by Mathew,
Hanrahan, and Khafizova, keeping the temporal offset between points/events
constant as taught by Mathew, Hanrahan, and Khafizova. See KSR Int 7 Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”). We are not
persuaded that combining the respective familiar elements of the cited
references in the manner proffered by the Examiner would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the
time of Appellant’s invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
12
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
With respect to claim 3, Appellants merely state that Hanrahan and
Khafizova do not teach vertical alignment of two timeline points. See App.
Br. 12. Appellants do not directly address or rebut the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Hanrahan (which describes vertical alignment with respect to
different time points (months and/or quarters in different years)) and
Khafizova (which describes aligning timeline points). See Final Act. 12.
For the same reasons as claims 1 and 2 {supra), we also find Appellants
arguments with respect to claim 3 unavailing of Examiner error.
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative dependent claims 2 and 3 and,
accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2 and
3.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 8, 10, and 13—20
Appellants provide separate arguments with respect to independent
claims 14 and 16, but do not separately argue dependent claims 8, 10, 13, 15,
and 17—20. App. Br. 12—17. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 16 as
being obvious in view of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon,
and John. See Final Act. 16—25, 27. We will address claims 14 and 16
together because the Examiner uses the same reasoning and Appellants’
arguments substantially overlap. Appellants contend that Mathew,
Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John do not teach the disputed
features of representative claims 14 and 16. See App. Br. 12—17; Reply Br.
7—11. Specifically, Appellants contend claim 14 recites:
an unlimited mode in which a user causes a first timeline with a
plurality of events within a first time segment to be displayed and
a second timeline with a plurality of events in a second time
segment to be displayed. In the unlimited mode, the first and
13
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
second time segments are moved independently along the
timelines and the time scales of the first and second timelines are
independently adjusted. This enables the user to move the
segments independently along the time axes to find two points of
interest. The user then selects first and second time points on the
first and second timelines respectively to enter a linked mode, in
which the first and second time points are displayed such that
they define a line perpendicular to the time axes and the time
scales of the first and second timelines are adjusted to a common
time scale
App. Br. 12—13. Appellants further contend that none of Mathew,
Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John teach the recited
unlimited mode or changing to a linked mode. Id.
With respect to Mathew, Appellants contend Mathew does not
describe the unlimited mode features (independently moving time segments
along timelines and independently adjusting time scales), but rather
“Mathew merely suggests selecting events such as current events and past
events.” App. Br. 13. We disagree. As explained with respect to claim 2
{supra), Mathew describes displaying and manipulating timelines and, in
particular, selecting and displaying specific events corresponding to specific
points in time. We agree with the Examiner {see Final Act. 17—18; Ans. 39)
that Mathew also describes independently manipulating time segments and
adjusting time scales in distinct timelines.
We also agree with the Examiner that Hanrahan at least suggests
selecting and aligning time points {see Final Act. 19-22) and Khafizova at
least suggests selecting timeline time periods or events and linking multiple
timelines {see Final Act. 22—23). See discussion of claim 2 {supra). It
follows that we find Appellants’ arguments {see App. Br. 13) concerning
Hanrahan and Khafizova unpersuasive.
14
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
With respect to Poon, John, and Hafey, Appellants merely assert that
these references do not teach the various features of claim 14. See App. Br.
13—14. Appellants, however, make generalized arguments (id.) concerning
the references (Poon, John, and Hafey) and do not directly address or dispute
the Examiner’s findings (see Final Act. 23—25) with respect to Poon, John,
and Hafey. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to
Poon, John, and Hafey. See Final Act. 23—25; Ans. 42 46. It follows that
we find Appellants’ arguments concerning Poon, John, and Hafey
unpersuasive for the same reasons as claims 1 and 2 (supra). Appellants’
generalized attorney argument has little persuasive value. See In re Jung,
637 F.3d at 1365 and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470. And, Appellants fail
to address what the combination of Poon, John, and Hafey (with Mathew,
Hanrahan, and Khafizova) would have suggested. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d at 1097.
With respect to Appellants’ arguments concerning claim 16 and
Mathew, Hanrahan, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John (see App. Br. 15—16)
we find Appellants arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons as claim
14. Further, we find Appellants’ arguments concerning Hao (see App. Br.
15) equally unpersuasive. The Examiner cited Hao as teaching
synchronizing timelines. Final Act 22. Appellants concede Hao describes
“a common timeline or scale onto which all of the data or events are fit.”
App. Br. 15. The Examiner did not cite Hao as teaching independent time
segment and timeline manipulation.
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 14 and 16 or dependent claims
8, 10, 13, 15, and 17—20, not separately argued with particularity (supra).
15
Appeal 2017-003005
Application 14/122,282
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 8, 10,
and 13—20.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-8, 10, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8, 10, and 13—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
16