Ex Parte Jordan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2011

11151906 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LUIS G. JORDAN, THOMAS W. VANEK,
SCOTT A. MCDERMOTT, JONATHON MILLER,
SIMON MORRIS SHAND WEISS, and ROBERT A. SUMMERS
____________________

Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, KEN B. BARRETT, and FRED A.
SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Luis G. Jordan et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-42, 45-61, 63-75, and 78-86.
Claims 76 and 77 have been cancelled. The Examiner has indicated that
claims 43, 44, and 62 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE INVENTION
Claims 1 and 78, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A spacecraft system comprising a stack of modules,
the stack of modules including:
an anchor module,
an upper module, and
a plurality of intermediate modules arranged
between the anchor module and the upper module,
wherein
each intermediate module of the plurality of intermediate
modules provide a common mechanical interface and a
common electrical interface, such that a coupling of each
intermediate module to its adjacent modules provides a
structural integrity and an electronic integrity that extends
across an entirety of the stack of modules.
78. A spacecraft module comprising:
a plurality of solar panels that are arranged:
to be stored substantially within an interior of the
spacecraft module during a launch of the spacecraft module,
and
to be deployed substantially exterior to the
spacecraft module after the launch of the spacecraft module,
wherein
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

3
the plurality of solar panels include substantially rigid
panels that are configured to be extended in a radial direction
from the interior of the spacecraft during deployment.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hansen US 3,423,748 Jan. 21, 1969
Hatschek US 3,772,545 Nov. 13, 1973
Karius US 3,778,312 Dec. 11, 1973
Murry US 5,159,218 Oct. 27, 1992
Perkins US 5,271,582 Dec. 21, 1993
Robinson US 5,647,561 Jul. 15, 1997
Watts US 5,806,803 Sept. 15, 1998
Garbus US 5,884,027 Mar. 16, 1999
Basuthakur US 6,089,509 Jul. 18, 2000
Anderson US 6,260,804 B1 Jul. 17, 2001
Bullock US 6,433,319 B1 Aug. 13, 2002
Arulf US 6,494,407 B2 Dec. 17, 2002

The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 78-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Karius;
2. Claims 1-8, 12-18, 25-27, 29, 38-42, 46, 48-50, 55, 58-61, 63-
65, and 78-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Anderson and Perkins;
3. Claims 9-11, 36, 37, 45, 47, and 66-68 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Watts;
4. Claims 19-21, 51-54, and 83-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Arulf;
5. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, Arulf, and Robinson;
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

4
6. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Garbus;
7. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Murry;
8. Claims 28 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Hansen;
9. Claims 33-35 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Basuthakur;
10. Claims 69-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, Watts, and either Bullock or Hatschek;
and
11. Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Karius.

OPINION
1. Claims 78-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Karius
Appellants offer arguments pertaining to all of claims 78-80 and offer
additional arguments for dependent claim 80. App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 3. For
the arguments pertaining to all of the claims, we select independent claim 78
as the representative claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We consider
separately the additional arguments pertaining to claim 80.
Independent claim 78 recites “the plurality of solar panels include
substantially rigid panels ….” Karius shows a flexible carrier foil 13
supporting a field of solar cells 14. Karius, col. 3, ll. 20-22, figs. 1, 2. We
understand the Examiner to have found the supported field of cells to
collectively constitute the recited solar panel and the individual solar cells 14
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

5
to be the recited substantially rigid panels. See Ans. 3, 13-14. Appellants do
not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the individual cells are substantially
rigid but argues “the fact that the solar panel 13 is comprised of a plurality of
rigid solar cells does not render Karius’s solar panel 13 to be characterized
as a substantially rigid panel, as claimed.” Reply Br. 3. Thus, Appellants
implicitly construe claim 78 as referring to only one “panel” and requiring
the overall solar panel to be substantially rigid. We disagree. The claim can
reasonably be read to refer to two “panels” – solar panels and the included
substantially rigid panels. Thus, the claim requires the solar panel to include
substantially rigid panels but does not recite a rigidity requirement for the
overall solar panel. As such, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive and we
affirm the rejection of claim 78 and its dependent claim 79 (which is not
argued separately).
Claim 80 depends indirectly from claim 78 and recites that “the
plurality of deployment mechanisms are also configured to provide control
of an orientation of the plurality of panels after deployment.” The Examiner
maintains that the term “deployment” is broad, and that:
This [above-quoted] claimed limitation is broad in that once the
panels are deployed or extended, partially extended, or semi-
extended, the panels can be further extended to the maximum
position or they can be retracted partially or fully. This
provides control of the orientation of the panels after
“deployment”.
Ans. 14. The Examiner’s interpretation is overly broad. In our view,
controlling orientation suggests changing the angle of the panel. Moving a
panel linearly in and out does not change its orientation. As such, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 80 as anticipated by Karius.
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

6
2. Claims 1-8, 12-18, 25-27, 29, 38-42, 46, 48-50, 55, 58-61, 63-65, and
78-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Anderson and Perkins
Appellants argue several of the rejected claims, including claim 1,
under separate subheadings. Appellants do not offer separate arguments for
claims 2-6, 8, 13, 16-18, 25, and 29, which depend from claim 1. As to
claims 1-6, 8, 13, 16-18, 25, and 29 we select claim 1 as the representative
claim, and claims 2-6, 8, 13, 16-18, 25, and 29 stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We consider separately the arguments set forth
under Appellants’ subheadings.
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
wherein each intermediate module of the plurality of
intermediate modules provide a common mechanical interface
and a common electrical interface, such that a coupling of each
intermediate module to its adjacent modules provides a
structural integrity and an electronic integrity that extends
across an entirety of the stack of modules.
Appellants contend that the combination of the cited references lacks both
the common mechanical interface and the common electrical interface. App.
Br. 7.
Regarding the mechanical interface, the Examiner found that
Anderson’s structural clip 1300 is the mechanical interface and provides
structural integrity. Ans. 4; Anderson, col. 6, ll. 1-8, figs. 13-14. Appellants
argue that Anderson’s clips do not provide the structural integrity of the
stack of modules but rather that the longitudinal channel members do so.
App. Br. 8. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not require that
the common mechanical interface provide all of the structural integrity, as
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

7
Appellants suggest, but merely requires a common mechanical interface
such that the coupling of the modules “provides a structural integrity.” The
claim does not recite a minimum amount of structural integrity. We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that the clips provide structural integrity.
Regarding the electrical interface, the Examiner states the reasonable
belief that Anderson’s modules are connected to each other via a common
electrical interface. Ans. 4. Nonetheless, the Examiner also found that
Perkins shows “that ‘common electrical interfaces’ to provide ‘electronic
integrity’ between parts/modules are well known.” Id. (citing Perkins, fig.
8). The Examiner specifically points to the common bus into which the
individual modules are plugged. Id. at 11. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to have used common electrical interfaces, as
taught by Perkins, in Anderson’s system. Id. at 4.
Appellants’ arguments focus on the purported shortcomings of
Perkins alone, primarily with regard to Perkins’s use of a central hub to
which modules are coupled rather than a vertically stacked configuration
where modules are coupled to each other. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3. These
arguments are not persuasive as they fail to address the Examiner’s proposed
combination involving the application of the general concept of a common
electrical interface, as taught by Perkins, in Anderson’s stacked
configuration. See Ans. 11-12.
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject
matter of claim 1 is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of
Anderson and Perkins. The rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 2-6, 8,
13, 16-18, 25, and 29 fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

8
Claim 7
Appellants argue that the references lack the recited “plurality of tabs”
of claim 7. App. Br. 9. The Examiner does not appear to make a finding in
this regard. See Ans. 5, 12. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claim 7.
Claim 12
The Examiner found that Anderson’s figures 3 and 6 show hexagon
shaped modules. Ans. 5 (citing Anderson, fig. 3), 12 (citing fig. 6). We are
persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 10) that Anderson discloses a
parallelogram-shaped (four sided) module rather than the hexagon of claim
12. See Anderson, Abstr., col. 5, ll. 10-11, 17 (in the context of describing
fig. 6: “[t]he parallelogram cross sectional shape”). The rejection of claim
12 is reversed.
Claims 14 and 15
Dependent claim 14, from which claim 15 further depends, recites:
“the electrical interface of the intermediate modules includes a plug and a
socket for coupling to a corresponding socket and plug on adjacent modules
on the stack.” Appellants do not dispute that Perkins shows a socket and
plug, but argue that Perkins shows plugging each module into the central
hub rather than an adjacent module. App. Br. 10; see Ans. 5 (citing Perkins,
fig. 8), 12. This argument is not persuasive because it fails to address the
combination of Perkins’s teachings with Anderson’s stacked modules.
Further, Appellants offer no explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in
the art of spacecraft architecture would fail to recognize the obviousness of
using a socket and plug between modules. We sustain the rejection of
claims 14 and 15.
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

9
Claims 26 and 27
Claims 26 and 27 recite “elements that facilitate a determination” of
the intermediate module’s relative location and orientation, respectively, in
the stack. The Examiner found that:
it is inherent that [each of] the modules know[s] its positions
with respect to each other as taught by Anderson and Perkin[s]
since the electrical integrity requires such element so that the
electrical can work effectively to prevent high voltage surges
that cause damage.
Ans. 5, see also id. at 12. Appellants argue that this finding is in error. App.
Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 3.
Under principles of inherency, when a reference is silent about an
asserted inherent characteristic, it must be clear that the missing descriptive
matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that
it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Continental Can Co.
v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Inherency may not
be established by mere probabilities or possibilities. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d
578, 581 (CCPA 1981). We determine that the Examiner has not provided
adequate reasoning to show that the recited elements that facilitate a
determination of location and orientation are necessarily present in the
modified Anderson system. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 26 and 27 as obvious in light of Anderson and Perkins.
Claim 38
Claim 38 depends from claim 37, which is not subject to this rejection
based only on Anderson and Perkins. Claim 37 calls for each intermediate
module to be thermally isolated from the others, and the Examiner appears
to have found that Anderson and Perkins fail to disclose or render obvious
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

10
this feature. See Ans. 6. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim
38 as obvious in light of only Anderson and Perkins.
Claims 39-42, 46, 48-50, and 55
Independent claim 39 calls for each intermediate module to have a
substantially hexagonal cross-sectional profile. As discussed above, the
Examiner erred in finding that Anderson discloses hexagon shaped modules.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 39 and of its dependent claims
40-42, 46, 48-50, and 55.
Claims 58-61 and 63-65
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to identify where the
references teach each limitation of independent claim 58, and therefore has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 58 or of its
dependent claims 59-61 and 63-65. App. Br. 11. Appellants do not point to
any specific limitation in these claims purportedly lacking from the
combined references’ teachings. We select claim 58 as the representative
claim for which to decide the rejection as to this group of claims. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner’s general findings and reasoning regarding all of the
claims subject to this rejection based on Anderson and Perkins are found on
pages 4 and 10-12 of the Answer. Claim 58 is similar to claim 1 but has a
“function component” and an “electrical interface to the function
component.” The Examiner finds that Anderson discloses modules for
various operations (i.e. functions). Ans. 4 (citing Anderson, col. 4, ll. 10-21,
which discloses several exemplary “[f]unctional modules”); see also id. at 5
(referring to Anderson’s various modules in the context of claim 18). The
Examiner’s above-discussed findings and reasoning regarding Perkins’s
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

11
general teachings concerning an electrical interface apply equally in the
context of the electrical interface of claim 58.
We determine that the Examiner has made adequate findings and
provided articulated reasoning directed to each of the limitations of claim 58
as well as the overall subject matter of the claim. We affirm the rejection of
claim 58 and of claims 59-61 and 63-65 which fall therewith.
Claims 78-80
Independent claim 78 calls for solar panels arranged to be stored
substantially within an interior of the spacecraft. The Examiner does not
appear to find that either Anderson or Perkins discloses this feature and does
not articulate why the feature would be obvious from the combined two
references’ teachings. Cf. Ans. 10 (in the context of claims 30-32, relying
on tertiary reference Karius, which is not a reference in the ground of
rejection of claims 78-80, for this feature). As such, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 78 or of its dependent claims 79 and 80 as obvious over
Anderson and Perkins.
Claims 81-86
As with claim 58 discussed above, Appellants argue that the Examiner
has failed to identify all of the limitations of independent method claim 81,
and therefore has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness of
claim 81 or of its dependent claims 82-86. App. Br. 12. Again, Appellants
do not point to any specific limitation that is purportedly missing from the
combined references’ teachings. We select claim 81 as the representative
claim.
Generally speaking, claim 81 recites a method of configuring a three
module spacecraft like that of claim 1. We determine that the Examiner has
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

12
made adequate findings and provided articulated reasoning (Ans. 4, 10-12)
so as to establish the obviousness of the subject matter of method claim 81.
We affirm the rejection of claim 81 and of claims 82-86 which fall
therewith.
3. Claims 9-11, 36, 37, 45, 47, and 66-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Watts
Claims 9 and 10
Together, claims 9 and 10 call for walls having ribs that provide
structural support and facilitate thermal transfer. The Examiner found that
“Watts teaches that ‘ribs’ or pipes 25, 70 that are used for support and
thermal management is well known.” Ans. 6; see also id. at 12. Appellants
argue that Watts’ pipes are not the claimed ribs. App. Br. 13-14.
We are not persuaded of error. Appellants do not direct us to any
limiting definition for “rib” in the Specification or explain why the
Examiner’s implicit construction in unreasonably broad. Cf. Spec. 11, para.
[0031] (“Optionally, some or all of the perimeter plates 220 may include
reinforcing ribs, to provide additional mechanical support.”) An ordinary
meaning of “rib” is “[s]ome part or piece similar to a rib and serving to
shape or support.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE 1115 (New College ed. 1976) (“rib” definition 2). Watts’ heat
pipes are connected to the radiator panels (see Watts, col. 4, ll. 16-23, col. 4,
l. 61 - col. 5, l. 19) and will provide at least some structural support to the
panels. As the name implies, the heat pipes facilitate thermal transfer. We
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Watts’ pipes are
ribs within the meaning of claims 9 and 10, and we affirm the rejection of
those claims as obvious over Anderson, Perkins, and Watts.
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

13
Claims 11, 45, and 66
Appellants argue claims 11, 45, and 66 as a group. App. Br. 14.
Claim 45 depends from claim 39, the rejection of which we have reversed
above. Therefore, we also reverse the rejection of claim 45. We select
claim 11 as the representative claim for deciding the rejection as to claims
11 and 66.
Claim 11 recites “a height of at least one of the intermediate modules
is determined based on the thermal transfer provided by the one or more
walls of the polygon.” Appellants argue that the rejection is deficient
because none of the cited references teach this feature. App. Br. 14.
However, Appellants do not assert that one of ordinary skill in the art of
spacecraft architecture would not normally consider thermal transfer in
designing the dimensions of the spacecraft, or that it would have at least
been obvious to such a person to consider that variable in designing the
module height. To the contrary, Appellants’ Specification suggests that this
is a normal consideration. Spec. 11, para. [0032] (“thermal management is
often one of the most challenging constraints in modular design ….”) We
determine that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is supported by
adequate articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. See Ans. 7, 12-
13. The rejection of claims 11 and 66 is affirmed.
Claim 36
Claim 36 recites “each intermediate module is configured to provide a
thermal integrity that is independent of an order of arrangement of the
modules on the stack.” Appellants argue that the references do not teach this
feature. App. Br. 15. We affirm the rejection of claim 36 for reasons set
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

14
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in the last paragraph on page 6 and in
first full paragraph on page 13.
Claims 37, 47, and 68
Appellants argue claims 37, 47, and 68 as a group. App. Br. 15.
Claim 47 depends from claim 39, the rejection of which we have reversed
above. Therefore, we also reverse the rejection of claim 47.
Claims 37 and 68 call for modules to be configured to be substantially
thermally isolated from other modules. This limitation pertains to, e.g.,
isolating the modules via the use of insulation. See Spec. 11, para. [0033].
The Examiner’s findings and articulations (Ans. 6, 13) do not appear to
address this feature but rather the broader aspect of thermal management and
fails to adequately explain how the references render obvious the claimed
module configured for thermal isolation. As such, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 37 and 68.
Claim 67
Claim 67 recites that “the module is configured to provide thermal
control of the function component.” Appellants argue that the references fail
to teach this feature. App. Br. 15. We agree with the Examiner’s finding
(Ans. 13) that Watts’ pipes will provide thermal control, and therefore affirm
the rejection of claim 67.
4. Claims 19-21, 51-54, and 83-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Arulf
Claims 51-54 depend from claim 39, the rejection of which we have
reversed above. Therefore, because Arulf does not remedy the deficiencies
of Anderson and Perkins, as shown supra, we also reverse the rejection of
claims 51-54.
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

15
Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 19-21 and 83-86 pertain to
the requirement of an “exoskeleton.” App. Br. 17; see, e.g., Claim 19.
Specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Arulf’s
joint 4 is an exoskeleton. Id.; see Ans. 7, 13. Appellants do not direct us to
any limiting definition for “exoskeleton” in the Specification or explain why
the Examiner’s implicit construction is unreasonably broad. Cf. Spec. 14-
15, paras. [0043] – [0046] (explaining that structural support during launch
is provided via the exoskeleton); figs. 4B and 4C. An ordinary meaning of
“exoskeleton” is “[a]n external protective or supporting structure ….”2 THE
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 461 (New
College ed. 1976). Arulf’s joint 4 is on the exterior of the spacecraft and is
described as an important structural unit for absorbing the forces that arise
during launch. Arulf, col. 1, ll. 15-20, fig. 1. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Arulf discloses an exoskeleton, and affirm the
rejection of claims 19-21 and 83-86 as obvious in light of Anderson,
Perkins, and Arulf.
5. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Anderson, Perkins, Arulf, and Robinson
Appellants merely assert that claim 22 is allowable as being
dependent upon allowable claim 21. App. Br. 17. Because Appellants do
not provide any additional arguments and we have affirmed the rejection of
claim 21, we also affirm the rejection of claim 22 as being unpatentable over
Anderson, Perkins, Arulf, and Robinson.

2 The general dictionary defines “exoskeleton” as the structure of many
invertebrates, such as insects and crustaceans, but we recognize that
Appellants are applying the term analogously to spacecraft architecture.
Appellants have not directed us to any art-specific dictionary definition.
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

16
6. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Anderson, Perkins, and Garbus
Appellants assert that claim 23 is allowable as being dependent upon
allowable claim 1. App. Br. 18. Because Appellants do not provide any
additional arguments and we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1, we also
affirm the rejection of claim 23 as being unpatentable over Anderson,
Perkins, and Garbus.
7. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Anderson, Perkins, and Murry
Appellants assert that claim 24 is allowable as being dependent upon
allowable claim 1. App. Br. 18. Because Appellants do not provide any
additional arguments and we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1, we also
affirm the rejection of claim 24 as being unpatentable over Anderson,
Perkins, and Murry.
8. Claims 28 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Hansen
Appellants assert that claim 28 is allowable as being dependent upon
allowable claim 1. App. Br. 19. Because Appellants do not provide any
additional arguments and we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1, we also
affirm the rejection of claim 28 as being unpatentable over Anderson,
Perkins, and Hansen.
Claim 56 depends from claim 39, the rejection of which we have
reversed above. Therefore, because Hansen does not remedy the
deficiencies of Anderson and Perkins, as shown supra, we also reverse the
rejection of claim 56.
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

17
9. Claims 33-35 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Basuthakur
Appellants assert that claims 33-35 are allowable as being dependent
upon allowable claim 1. App. Br. 20. Because Appellants do not provide
any additional arguments and we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1 (as
well as claim 29 through which claims 33 and 34 depend), we also affirm the
rejection of claims 33-35 as being unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and
Basuthakur.
Claim 57 depends from claim 39, the rejection of which we have
reversed above. Therefore, because Basuthakur does not remedy the
deficiencies of Anderson and Perkins, as shown supra, we also reverse the
rejection of claim 57.
10. Claims 69-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, Watts, and either Bullock or Hatschek
Claims 69-75 depend from claim 68, the rejection of which we have
reversed above. Therefore, because neither Bullock nor Hatschek remedy
the deficiencies of Anderson, Perkins, and Watts as shown supra, we also
reverse the rejection of claim 69-75.
11. Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and Karius
Appellants assert that claims 30-32 are allowable as being dependent
upon allowable claim 1. App. Br. 19. Because Appellants do not provide
any additional arguments and we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1 (as
well as claim 29 through which claim 30-32 depend), we also affirm the
rejection of claims 30-32 as being unpatentable over Anderson, Perkins, and
Karius.
Appeal 2009-008839
Application 11/151,906

18
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7, 12, 26, 27, 37-42, 45-
57, 68-75, and 80 is reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims
1-6, 8-11, 13-25, 28-36, 58-61, 63-67, 78, 79, and 81-86 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls

ROBERT M. MCDERMOTT, ESQ.
1824 FEDERAL FARM ROAD
MONTROSS, VA 22520