Ex Parte Hursey et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2009

09912391 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte NEIL JOHN HURSEY and WILLIAM
ALEXANDER MCEWAN
________________

Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391
Technology Center 2400
________________

Decided: September 23, 2009
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and DEBRA
K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6 -12, 14 -20, and 22 -28. Appellants have canceled
claims 5, 13, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
An e-mail client serves to detect mass mailing malware by
detecting if over a threshold number of addressees from within
the address book of that e-mail client are being sent an e-mail or
over a predetermined number of substantially identical e-mails
are being sent by that e-mail client. The sending of e-mail
messages to a substantial proportion of the addressees within an
address book is a characteristic indicative of mass mailing
malware. A quarantine queue may be provided in which e-mail
messages are held for a predetermined period prior to being sent
out in order that separate e-mail messages being sent to a large
proportion of the address book addressees may be identified
and linked together.
(Spec. 16, Abstract, Figs. 3-5.)
Representative Claim
9. A method of detecting e-mail propagated malware within an email
client computer, said method comprising the steps of:
generating an e-mail message;
comparing said e-mail message with at least one of an address book of
a sender of said e-mail message and one or more previously generated e-
mail messages from said client computer;
identifying whether;
(i) said e-mail message is being sent to more than a threshold
number of addresses specified within said address book;
(ii) said e-mail message contains message content having at least a
threshold level of similarity to non-identical message content of said
previously generated e-mail messages being sent to more than a threshold
number of addresses specified within said address book; and
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

3
(iii) said e-mail message contains message content having at least a
threshold level of similarity to non-identical message content of more than a
threshold number of said previously generated e-mail messages;
wherein said email message is identified as potentially containing
malware if at least one of items (i), (ii), and (iii) is identified; and
holding said previously generated e-mail messages in a quarantine queue for
at least a predetermined quarantine period prior to being sent from said
client computer.

Prior Art and Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Kouznetsov 6,725,377 B1 Apr. 20, 2004
(filed March 12, 1999)
Marsh 6,763,462 B1 July 13, 2004
(filed Oct. 5, 1999)
Radatii 6,763,467 B1 July 13, 2004
(filed Feb. 3, 1999)
Bates 6,779,021 B1 Aug, 17, 2004
(filed July 28, 2000)
Bates (“Bates 2”) 6,785,732 B1 Aug. 31, 2004
(filed Sept. 11, 2000)

All claims on appeal 1 through 4, 6 through 12, 14 through 20, and 22
through 28 stand rejected under the written description portion of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. These claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103. In a first stated rejection, the Examiner relies upon Bates in view of
Marsh as to claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 15, 17-19, 23, and 26. In the second stated
rejection, the Examiner adds Bates 2 to reject claims 4, 6, 12, 14, 20, 22, 27,
and 28. The Examiner adds Kouznetsov to the combination of Bates and
Marsh in the third stated rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as to claims 8, 16,
and 24. Lastly, the Examiner further relies upon Radatii in addition to the
combination of Bates and Marsh as to claim 25 in a fourth stated rejection.
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

4
Claim Groupings
Based upon Appellants’ arguments in the principal Brief on appeal,
we will utilize independent claim 9 as representative of the subject matter of
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 as to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, and for the initial rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Separate
arguments are represented in the principal Brief only as to dependent claims,
25 -28. We will address the subject matter of them separately. It is noted
that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 utilizing Kouznetsov has not been
separately argued and appellants rely for patentability upon the arguments
presented as to the respective parent independent claims, of which we
consider independent claim 9 as representative.

ISSUES
1. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding lack of support
for certain enumerated subject matter set forth in representative independent
claim 9 on appeal?
2. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
respective combination of references teaches or suggests that subject matter
of representative independent claim 9 and dependent claims 25 through 28?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. Appellants describe the state of the prior art in part:
Some of the most prolific and damaging computer viruses in
recent times have replicated and distributed themselves by use
of the victim's e-mail service. The virus is received in an e-mail
and when activated serves to replicate and send itself to most, if
not all, of the e-mail addresses listed in the victim's e-mail
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

5
address book. The infected e-mail is then received by another
unsuspecting user who again causes it to replicate it propagate.
(Spec. 2, ll. 10-15.)
2. On the one hand, while the title of the invention to the Bates patent relates
to a method and system for predicting and managing undesirable electronic
mail, its Abstract appears to focus upon approaches taken only within a
server. On the other hand, there are significant teachings in this patent
relating to methodologies that correspond to actions within a client as well
as we will note in turn.
At column 1, lines 21-26, Bates states:
A client is typically a requester of services, and a server is the
provider of services. A single machine can be both a client and
a server depending on the software configuration. A typical
client machine is loaded with client software, while a typical
server machine is loaded with server software.

With respect to Figure 1, column 5, lines 18-21 state: “a computer
system that may be utilized as a stand-alone computer system or one of the
clients or servers on a network is presented.” Figure 2 shows a system
arrangement, and Figure 3 shows the software modules associated with the
network server 40. Figure 5 shows a client system 60 from the block
showing in Figure 2, where Figure 5 also identifies various software
modules within the client system itself. Figure 6 illustrates client displays
relative to the logic associated with determining spam including illustrations
of percentages associated with the determination of whether or not spam
exists. Figure 7 shows the management of e-mail at a client, which
compares with the showing in Figure 4B, item D beginning with flow chart
element 130 that associates client actions with respect to server activities as
well.
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

6
The paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2 updates and discusses the
receipt and sending of unsolicited e-mail, which states that such mail may
include viruses, worms or other destructive attachments that can easily be
transmitted within a server upon activation at a single client. Furthermore,
the sentence bridging column 7 and 8 indicates that received e-mail may
have embedded HTML links that may be associated with spam.
The logic of Figure 4A relates to processes that predict undesirable
email. They include comparing new email with previously confirmed email
spam, addresses, titles, and keywords as well as determinations of thresholds
or percentages of recipients of email greater than a designated number of
recipients, such as those illustrated in Figure 6 noted earlier. These
determinations relate to the functionalities associated with the first column
of flow chart Figure 4A, where those in the latter portion of the second
column, beginning with logic block 110, relate to determinations of
substantial similarities, such as by size and content as well in an effort to
identify received email as spam. The first column of flow chart 4B
illustrates the determination by updating email histories and spam rules
according to the software functionalities and modules illustrated in Figure 3.
With respect to the server architecture showing at Figure 3, Bates
teaches at column 6, lines 49-50, that “E-mail folder 44 preferably provides
storage of all incoming and outgoing e-mails according to user account.” In
a corresponding client showing in Figure 5, “E-mail data base 66 preferably
temporarily holds a copy of the users’ e-mail folder accessed from the
network server” as discussed at column 11, lines 16-18. According to the
operability of a mail organizer application 62 in Figure 5, users and
corporations or administrators may establish spam handling rules as
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

7
discussed beginning at column 11, line 33, and “a user may designate a
preference in user preferences 64 for all predicted spam to be automatically
moved to a trash folder if a user does not open the predicted spam after a
first session being displayed” as discussed at column 11, lines 49-52.
In addition to these complementary storage areas in the client in
server in Bates, this reference significantly teaches the following at column
6, lines 64-column 7, line 12:
As an additional feature, prediction application 42 may also
analyze out-going e-mail in the same manner as in-coming e-
mail to predict the likelihood of each outgoing e-mail as spam.
Thereby, a corporation or other provider that hosts network
server 40 may utilize spam prediction filters to detect out-going
spam and further restrict employees or other users from
utilizing e-mail accounts to transmit spam. This feature is
particularly helpful in subduing the spread of viruses, such as
those that automatically transmit themselves utilizing client e-
mail address books.

Multiple levels of prediction may be determined by prediction
application 42. For example, a percentage of likelihood as
spam may be determined by prediction application 42. In
another example, prediction application 42 may predict that a
particular e-mail is in a particular category of spam, such as
viral, job marketing, pornographic, etc.

The functionality associated with the prediction application 42 in
Figure 3 also includes the following teachings at column 7, lines 22 through
29:
In a preferred embodiment, during the first filtering process,
prediction application 42 looks for an unusually large number
of users receiving the same e-mail from a particular user
address in a given time period. For example, if more than five
percent of users receive an e-mail from a particular user address
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

8
within one minute, then prediction application 42 may predict
that the e-mail is spam.

Column 8, lines 7 through 10, also teaches that “spam data base 46
may contain a history of all e-mails sent to and received from network server
40 in a database format that can be searched according to sender, recipient,
title content, etc. in a manner that is time-saving.”
3. The title of Marsh’s patent relates as well to e-mail virus detection
utilities that focus upon e-mail addresses in a distribution list or electronic
address book that relates to client operations as revealed in the Abstract of
this patent. The background of Marsh at column 1 indicates that it was
known in the art that computer viruses can spread through electronic mail
and specifically teaches at lines 32-35 that “a virus may attempt to send a
copy of itself to other computers by sending e-mail messages including
destructive code segments.” Thus, an artisan would appreciate that Marsh
relates to outgoing electronic mail messages.
The system 100 in Figure 1 of Marsh illustrates email application 102
and a virus utility 104 that examines email distribution patterns.
Figure 2 of Marsh shows a flow diagram of a virus detection utility
that includes inspecting outgoing messages 202 and comparing email
addresses with potential recipients in block 204. For selected addresses
identified as recipients, the users are notified in element 208. More
significantly, Marsh teaches at column 3, lines 35-65:
A user may be notified of possible virus activity (block 208)
through any conventional messaging technique such as a pop-
up warning dialog. A virus warning may include information
regarding recent e-mail activity such as recipients and message
content. The virus warning may also give a user options to
respond to possible virus activity including deleting an
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

9
outgoing message without sending, saving an outgoing message
for later examination, or disregarding the warning and sending
an outgoing message.
In yet another embodiment, the virus detection utility 104 may
examine e-mail distribution patterns to determine if a computer
virus is replicating itself by sending e-mail messages to
individual e-mail addresses (i.e., one at a time). Some viruses
may attempt to send a series of e-mail messages, each to a
different e-mail address, in an effort to disguise a mass
distribution of virus code segments. The random numbers
generated may again represent positions of an e-mail addresses
in a distribution list or address book. In this embodiment, the
virus detection utility 104 may track e-mail messages sent by
the e-mail application 102. If electronic messages are sent to
each of the e-mail addresses represented by the random
numbers in a specified period of time, a virus warning may be
issued to a user. The user would again have the options
described above regarding the disposition
of an outgoing message. For example, if e-mail messages are
transmitted to all recipients identified by the random numbers
within two minutes, a user may be alerted. Alternatively,
potential virus activity may be identified if electronic messages
are transmitted to a particular number of the selected e-mail
addresses (e.g., 3 out of 5) within the specified period of time,
e.g. two minutes.

4. Like the initial Bates patent, Bates 2 contains complementary teachings
relating to virus checking methodologies in servers and clients. Initially,
Bates 2 teaches at column 1, lines 46-53:
Virus checking application programs are currently available for
checking viruses on individual computers. Norton Anti-virus
and McAfee VirusScan are two examples of commercially-
available virus checkers. Known virus checkers run on a single
computer system, such as a web server or a web client. These
virus checkers typically are run at the user’s request to
determine whether there are any viruses on any specified drive
or file.
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

10
The ability of users to set preferences is illustrated in Figure 6 and discussed
beginning at column 8, line 45.
The initial showings in Figures 1 and 3 relate to server activities.
Email virus processing activities are illustrated in Figure 7 to include
checking attachments for viruses. Figure 10 illustrates the ability of a
user/client to download virus checking software in a corresponding manner.
In the paragraph bridging column 7 and 8, Figure 4 is discussed to
include the notification determination of a virus being found. This action
includes the following teachings at column 8, lines 15-22:
Finally, the appropriate authorities may be notified of the virus
(step 470). The term “appropriate authorities” is a broad term
that encompasses anyone who may need to know about the
occurrence of a virus, including a network administrator of a
local area network, a web site administrator, a contact person in
a virus detection company, and appropriate law enforcement
officials, such as local, state, federal, and international law
enforcement agencies.

5. Radatti’s background of the invention discusses at column 1, lines
36-48 the following:
Virus, worms, and trojan horses can infect an internal network
or single computer system when the internal network or
computer system executes a program from the external network
that contains the hostile algorithm. All binary executables,
unreviewed shell scripts, and source code accessed from an
external network may contain worms, viruses, or trojan horses.
In addition, outside binary executables, shell scripts, and
scanned source code may enter en internal network or single
computer system through an E-mail attachment. Also,
executables can be directly accessed from an external network
through the IFTP program, a world-wide web browser, or an
outside contractor whose network already has been
compromised.

Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

11
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989)). Our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the
claims to specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).

The Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a
patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” and
discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be
obvious. Id. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14
(1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.
The operative question in this “functional approach” is thus “whether the
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

12
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417.
We must determine whether or not the differences between the subject
matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
See id. at 407. Obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid
formula, and we will consider the facts of a case and the common sense of
those skilled in the art. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). That is, the test for
obviousness is rather what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981).
Teaching Away
As to the specific question of "teaching away," our reviewing court in
In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) stated "[a] reference may be
said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant." (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS
1. Rejection under the written description portion of the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

13
With respect to the written description rejection, the Examiner states
at page 3 of the Answer: “although there is support for each of (i), (ii) and
(iii) in the alternative, as shown in page 7 line 30-page 8 line 15 of the
present specification, but never as a combination.” The Examiner persists in
this view at page 9 of the Answer by continuing to urge that there is no
“support for identifying all of (i), (ii), and (iii) together. Rather, the section
of the specification which supports (i), (ii), (iii) located at Page 7 Line 30-
Page 8 Line 15, only supports identification of these conditions in the
alternative.”
With respect to the subject matter actually recited in representative
independent claim 9, the identification is recited to occur “whether” the
three enumerated items identified by the Examiner are present. The second
and third items are connected by the connective “and.” This recitation is
akin to a Markush grouping common in the chemical arts. Significantly, the
claim additionally recites “wherein said email message is identified as
potentially containing malware if at least one of items (i), (ii), and (iii) is
identified.”
The Examiner misperceives the actual, minimal requirements of the
independent claims on appeal to include the capability that all are required at
the same time. By its own terms, the claim merely requires “at least one of”
the three items listed to be identified, which is consistent with the use of the
word “whether” earlier in the claim.
As noted by Appellants’ briefing before us, Specification page 2, line
30-page 3, line 14 as originally filed indicates corresponding limitations to
those presently claimed to include the recitation of “identifying logic
operable to identify said e-mail message as potentially containing malware if
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

14
at least one of” which recites the three enumerated circumstances. This
language is also recited in original independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Since
the Examiner recognizes that the disclosure originally filed indicates the
three contingent elements are set forth in the alternative, and because they
are still claimed in the alternative, the Examiner’s rejection of all claims on
appeal under the written description portion of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reversed. Appellants’ briefing has shown error in the
Examiner’s positions as to this rejection.

2. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
At the outset, we address Appellants’ apparent arguments that Bates
and Marsh are not properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
strongly disagree with this view since Examiner’s choice and identification
of teachings of Marsh and Bates, further buttressed by FF 2 and 3, are
consistent with the governing case law set forth earlier in this opinion. The
artisan would well understand that the combination of teachings relied upon
among these two references relates to a combination of familiar elements
utilizing known methods to yield predictable results according to their
established functions. Our extensive citation of the pertinent teachings in
Bates and Marsh in FF 2 and 3 would also clearly indicate that the artisan
would understand that Bates teaches features associated with clients and
servers in addition to Marsh’s predominant teachings relating to clients only.
We have indicated that Bates 2 even contains similar overlapping teachings
relating to clients as well as servers in FF4.
We have considered in detail Appellants’ arguments regarding an
alleged teaching away of the combination of Bates and Marsh in the Brief
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

15
and the Reply Brief. The bulk of these arguments relate to the features that
are not necessary to be present among the references, such as the elements
recited in the alternative associated with the identified sub clauses of
representative independent claim 9 on appeal, (ii), and (iii). Again, the
teachings we and the Examiner have identified with respect to Bates and
Marsh clearly indicate the combinability of them within 35 U.S.C. § 103
from an artisan’s perspective. Moreover, according to the guidance
provided by the earlier-noted case law, Appellants have not shown to us that
either or both of these references would have discouraged the artisan from
following the path set out between them or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path actually taken by Appellants.
In other words, their teachings clearly indicate the obviousness of the
paths taken by appellants. The artisan would clearly consider the teachings
of Marsh and Bates complementary and thus aid in their combinability.
Problems associated with emails that include viruses being received
by a client that can be activated and replicated to addressees using a client’s
email address book were identified by Appellants’ as known in the art in FF
1. We have identified corresponding teachings with respect to various
storage capabilities in Bates to include the identification in a corresponding
manner of viruses received in the address books of clients in the quoted
material we reproduced in FF 2, at columns 6 and 7 of Bates. With the other
teachings related to so-called executables we identified in FF 2 in Bates and
the just noted the teachings of the ability of viruses to automatically transmit
themselves utilizing clients’ email address books, the artisan would
understand that the complementary teachings already exist as well in Marsh
as we have identified in FF 3. These teachings are in addition to those
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

16
already relied upon by the Examiner as to claim 25 and the teachings of
executables well known in the art in FF 5 in Radatti.
The Examiner’s reliance upon Bates’ teachings at column 8, line 56-
column 9, line 2 relates to the showings in the Figure 4A of this reference
that we have discussed in brief in FF 2 and clearly pertain to the initial
alternative recitation “(i) said e-mail messages being sent to more than a
threshold number of addresses specified within said address book.” The
showings in Figures 4A, 4B, and 7 of Bates clearly relate to such a threshold
determination, which is taught to even include the claimed “a threshold
number,” which is broad enough to include only one.
We identified in FFs 2 and 3 pertinent teachings in both Bates and
Marsh relating to the claimed feature of temporarily storing, as in the
claimed a quarantine queue, for a period prior to being sent from the
computer for respective messages as recited at the end of representative
independent claim 9 on appeal. These include the teachings at column 7,
lines 22 -29 of Bates and part of the extensive quoted material from column
3 of Marsh.
As to dependent claim 26, we find that the mere sharing of common
attachments among previously generated and currently generated email
messages was contemplated by the extensive citation of noted teachings in
FF 2 relating to Bates alone, notwithstanding the additional teachings the
Examiner has isolated and we have noted in FF 3 in Marsh. The Examiner
and we noted from the paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2 of Bates in FF 2
the detailed teachings of logic in Figures 4A, 4B, and 7 of Bates regarding
emails based upon the known property of e-mails having attachments that
may include destructive viruses.
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

17
The Examiner’s additional reliance upon Bates 2 in the second stated
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 pertains to argued dependent claims 27 and
28. Notifying the provider or sender of the identified malware in dependent
claim 27 would have been an obvious variation among the broad teachings
we identified in FF 4 associated with the teachings at column 8 of Bates 2.
The teachings include anyone who may need to know about the occurrence
of such virus, which obviously would have included the sender.
Additionally, the Examiner’s use of common sense in the art as to sending a
copy of the actual originating email in the message to this provider, as
recited in the dependent claim 28, is also considered to have been an obvious
additional function as the Examiner argues in light of the earlier-noted case
law when taken from the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the
art.
Appellants do not argue that Bates 2 is not properly combinable
within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to the combination of Bates and Marsh as to the
second stated rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner further relies
upon Kouznetsov in the third stated rejection under this statutory basis.
Appellants rely for patentability upon the features already argued with
respect to the first stated rejection that includes representative independent
claim 9 on appeal. Again, Appellants do not argue that this reference is not
properly combinable with the combination of Bates and Marsh.
We have already addressed the fourth stated rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of dependent claim 25 regarding the teachings of Radatti with respect
to our earlier discussion relating to the receipt of email messages in address
books and the extensive realization among the prior art relied upon that
malware in the form of separate executable elements of dependent claim 25
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

18
were known to be part of received email messages. Again, Appellants did
not separately argue Radatti is not properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. §
103 to combination of Marsh and Bates.
Because we have found that the Examiner has provided substantial
evidence of unpatentability of all argued claims on appeal among the
plurality of references that are properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief are considered not
persuasive of patentability. Appellants’ reproduction of all of the arguments
presented the principal Brief on appeal and the Reply Brief, in addition to
the responsive arguments in the Reply Brief to the Examiner’s responsive
arguments in the Answer, is not helpful to us and is not required by the rules.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that certain
presently claimed features in representative independent claim 9 on appeal
are without proper written description support within the first paragraph of
the 35 U.S.C. § 112.
2. On the other hand, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the respective combinations of teachings of the references
among each of the four separately stated rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
would have rendered obvious the correspondingly rejected claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection under the written description portion of the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 of all claims on appeal, claims 1 through
4, 6 through 12, 14 through 20, and 22 through 28, is reversed. The
Appeal 2008-005953
Application 09/912,391

19
Examiner’s separate rejections of all of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
are affirmed. Since we have affirmed rejections encompassing all claims on
appeal, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed. All claims on appeal are
unpatentable.
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)(v).

AFFIRMED

erc

Zilka-Kotab, PC
P.O. Box 721120
San Jose, CA 95172-1120