Ex Parte KANOU

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

14192109 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
14/192,109 02/27/2014 Rui KANOU 4639-322 7002
22429 7590 08/01/2017
HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
LUO, KATE H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 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):
docketing @ ipfirm. com
pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com
EAnastasio @ IPFirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUI KANOU
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,1091
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “carrying out appearance
inspection of an object having a line pattern, and in particular . . .
wherein the object is captured by a camera and it is judged as to whether an
appearance of the object is good or not by using obtained image data of
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Fanuc Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
the object.” See Spec. 1,11. 7—14. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. An appearance inspection device for inspecting an
appearance of an inspection object, comprising:
an image storing part which stores a first image obtained
by capturing a reference object corresponding to the inspection
object and a second image obtained by capturing the inspection
object;
a teaching part which teaches, on the first image, a
portion to be inspected of the inspection object as a reference
inspection line, defines a reference inspection region associated
with one reference inspection point on the reference inspection
line, determines an inspection factor inspected within the
reference inspection region, and determines a judgment
condition for judging as to whether a result of inspection based
on the inspection factor passes or fails;
a teaching factor storing part which stores a position and
a shape of the reference inspection line, a position of the
reference inspection point, a position and a size of the reference
inspection region, the inspection factor and the judgment
condition; and
an inspecting part which overlaps the reference
inspection line on the second image as an actual inspection line,
generates a plurality inspection points on the actual inspection
line, generates an inspection region in relation to each
inspection point so that a positional relationship between the
inspection point and the inspection region is the same as a
positional relationship between the reference inspection point
and the reference inspection region, inspects each of generated
inspection regions based on the inspection factor, judges as to
whether each inspection point passes or fails based on the
judgment condition in relation to a result of executed
inspection, and comprehensively judges as to whether the
inspection object passes or fails based on a result of judgment
of each inspection point.
2
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Tachibana (JP 63-206877; published
Aug. 26, 1988) and Yoon et al. (US 2012/0105617 Al; published May 3,
2012) (hereinafter “Yoon”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments2 and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the February 23, 2016 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—
12) and (2) the December 9, 2016 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2—28). We
highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for
emphasis.
(1) Capturing two images
Appellant argues Tachibana fails to teach or suggest two captured
images (i.e., claim 1 ’s first and second images), and instead “describes one
image of one object (article 1).” App. Br. 10—11 (citing Final Act. 5 (citing
Tachibana Fig. 1, Abstract)). Appellant also argues Tachibana fails to teach
2 We note Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 9—10) regarding the Examiner
failing to provide a full translation of the Tachibana reference have been
mooted. Ans. 17 (“[F]or the purpose of Examiner[’]s Answer to Appeal
Brief, [the] Examiner submits the human translation of key figures 3, 5, 6
and 10 along with the complete machine translation of Tachibana
reference.”).
3
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
a captured image of a reference object, but rather “is set by the setter and is
not a reference object.” See Reply Br. 8 (citing Tachibana Abstract).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Tachibana teaches or suggests
two images in accordance with claim 1. See Ans. 17—18. More specifically,
the Examiner finds, and we agree, Tachibana teaches or suggests storing
(i) a captured first image of a reference object (i.e., the mask pattern image
of an inspection reference) and (ii) a captured second image (i.e., the article
being inspected captured by a camera). Ans. 18 (citing Tachibana Figs. 1—2,
Abstract). We also agree with the Examiner that “[i]t is well known to
persons skilled in that art that the reference pattern image can be obtained by
capturing a reference object.” Ans. 18 (citing example references teaching
capturing an image of reference objects). Furthermore, capturing an image
of an object is a broad concept, which includes obtaining the image for
storage, such as taught by Tachibana. See Tachibana Abstract (teaching that
an inspection reference is selected and stored in memory).
(2) Teaching reference inspection point, line, and region
Appellant argues that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon fails to
teach or suggest “a teaching part which teaches, on the first image, a portion
to be inspected of the inspection object as a reference inspection line,” nor
which “defines a reference inspection region associated with one reference
inspection point on the reference inspection line,” as recited in claim 1. See
App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 5—7. Appellant argues the Examiner “failed to
specify with reasonable clarity as to which element of Tachibana is
considered as the recited ‘reference inspection line.’ Thus, the reference, as
applied by the Examiner, does not disclose the recited feature.” App. Br. 12.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s rejection is illogical because the
4
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
Examiner allegedly admits Tachibana does not teach “a reference
inspection region associated with one reference inspection point on the
reference inspection line,” and thus, “logically” cannot teach “any
‘positional relationship between the reference inspection point and the
reference inspection region.’” Reply Br. 6.
As to Yoon, Appellant argues the Examiner fails to “explicitly specify
with reasonable clarity which elements of Yoon is/are considered as the
recited ‘reference inspection line,’ ‘reference inspection region,’ and
‘reference inspection point.’” App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 13. Appellant also
argues Yoon’s teachings focus on an inspection stage (i.e., comparing an
actual pattern with a design pattern) rather than a teaching stage (i.e.,
teaching a portion of a reference to be inspected in inspected patterns by
defining a reference point, line, and region), and thus, fails to teach the
disputed limitation. App. Br. 18—19 (citing Yoon Figs. 2—5, Tflf 36—37, 54,
59-60, 62); Reply Br. 13.
The Examiner finds the combination of Tachibana and Yoon teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 17—22; Final Act. 5—7. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that Tachibana and Yoon each teach or
suggest the disputed limitations. As to Tachibana,3 the Examiner finds it
teaches or suggests a “mask pattern image of an inspection reference,
including the binary data of a designed point and plural inspection points,
[which] can be viewed as a teaching part for indicating inspected points,
lines and regions.” Ans. 18—19 (citing Tachibana Figs. 1—2, Abstract); see
3 We note that although the Examiner has stated Tachibana does not
“explicitly disclose” the disputed limitations, the Examiner also finds that
Tachibana at least suggests (e.g., “can be viewed,” “implies”) the disputed
limitations. See Ans. 5—6, 18—21, 24.
5
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
also Ans. 18—21 (citing Tachibana (machine translation) 5—6, Figs. 2, 10
(finding the master pattern teaches or suggests reference information
(including implying reference points, reference lines, and reference
inspection regions (“i.e. regions around check/inspection points as shown in
Fig. 2”)) for use in comparing with an inspected article)).
As to Yoon, the Examiner finds it also teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations. Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 24—25. For example, the
Examiner finds Yoon teaches or suggests an image having design pattern
data (e.g., turning points) with reference lines between the points. Ans. 24—
25 (citing Yoon Figs. 4—5, 60—61). The Examiner finds Yoon also
teaches defining a reference inspection region associated with a reference
inspection point on the inspection reference line via its teachings that “a
predetermined range DR is derived based on the turning points or regions
(SL1, SL2, SRI and SR2).” Ans. 25 (citing Yoon Fig. 5, Tflf 61—63); see also
id. (citing Yoon Fig. 6, 61—63 (teaching “another region of interest (ROI)
is derived within a predetermined range”)). The Examiner also finds that the
teaching part, as claimed, requires providing, inter alia, the reference point,
line and region, but does not limit how to detect these features — thus,
Appellant’s criticism of Yoon’s teachings is inapposite. See, e.g., Ans. 23—
24.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
For example, we agree Tachibana teaches or suggests a plurality of check
points (i.e., reference inspection points), with at least two of these points
defining a reference inspection line under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the phrase. See Tachibana Fig. 2 (showing at least two
check points are collinear), Abstract (teaching binary data of designated
6
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
points), Tachibana (machine translation) 5—6. We also agree with the
Examiner that Tachibana teaches, or at least suggests, a reference inspection
region associated with a reference inspection point. See Tachibana Fig. 2 (at
least suggesting regions around check/inspection points). We also are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 24) that Tachibana fails to
teach the disputed limitation because it requires carrying out the teaching
operation multiple times, rather than by a simple teaching operation —
Appellant fails to tether this argument to the claim language.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Yoon also teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations. For example, Yoon teaches, or at least
suggests, defining a reference inspection region (e.g., regions SF1, SRI,
SF2, SR2 or a detection region (DR)) associated with a reference inspection
point (e.g., the points of SF1, SRI, SF2, SR2) on the inspection reference
line (e.g., contours can include the points SF1, SRI, SF2, SR2). See Yoon
Figs. 4—6; Tflf 60-63. We note Yoon teaches that “single points or regions
(SF1, SRI, SF2, SR2) may be determined in comparison with the design
pattern” and that “predetermined single points or regions may correspond to
locations where a tangent line of the pattern contour changes.” Yoon | 62.
Hence, Yoon teaches, or at least suggests, defining points, lines, and regions
based on the design pattern (i.e., an image of the reference object). Id.
Thus, we also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Yoon teachings
focus on an inspection stage rather than a teaching stage. See In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference may be read for all that
it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.”). We are similarly
unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 23) that Tachibana and
7
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
Yoon are not combinable4 because “the cited portions of Yoon are directed
to measurement/inspection, rather than to any teaching aspect.”
(3) Inspection factor and judgment condition
Appellant argues Tachibana fails to teach or suggest “a teaching part
which . . . determines an inspection factor inspected within the reference
inspection region, and determines a judgment condition forjudging as to
whether a result of inspection based on the inspection factor passes or fails,”
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 9—10. More specifically,
Appellant argues the Examiner fails “to specify with reasonable clarity”
where Tachibana teaches the disputed limitation. App. Br. 12—13.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Tachibana teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. Ans. 20. More specifically, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, Tachibana teaches:
determine [ing] an inspection factor inspected within the
reference inspection region (i.e. The decision processing part
8c extracts the data of the same address as a master pattern, and
a bit position from the picture signal memory 8a, and compares
with the data of a master pattern. Here the comparing relation or
correspondence between the address data from check points of
the master pattern and the bit position of the article image are
inspection factors.), and determines a judgment condition for
judging as to whether a result of inspection based on the
inspection factor passes or fails (i.e. decision is made in
processing parts in accordance with plural inspection points and
the references in the memory 21a to the article 1. Synthetic
decision of the mask pattern is made by a decision part 21d and
4 We do not reach Appellant’s argument in the Reply Brief concerning the
Examiner’s alleged “new” rationale for combining Tachibana and Yoon
(Reply Br. 13—16) because we need not rely on the alleged new rationale to
address Appellant’s argument raised in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.41(b)(2).
8
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
it is sent to an output part if passes. Here, the decision is related
to correspondence conditions stored in the master pattern
memory 8b as master pattern information. If a total judgment is
performed and it corresponds on the correspondence conditions
memorized by the master pattern by the total judging part 8d
based on the result, it passes, and it will become a rejection if
inharmonious.)
Id. (citing Tachibana Figs. 1, 10; Abstract; (machine translation) 5—6).
(4) Storing positions and shapes
Appellant argues Tachibana fails to teach or suggest “a teaching factor
storing part which stores a position and a shape of the reference inspection
line, a position of the reference inspection point, [and] a position and a size
of the reference inspection region,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 13—
15. Appellant argues Tachibana instead teaches storing “only binary data of
various points,” rather than storing the mask pattern. App. Br. 14 (citing
Tachibana Abstract); see also Reply Br. 10-11. Hence, Tachibana fails to
teach ‘“a teaching factor storing part which stores a position and a shape of
the reference inspection line,... a position and a size of the reference
inspection region.’” App. Br. 14—15. Appellant also argues Tachibana’s
Figure 2 “shows no line, only check points.” Reply Br. 10 (citing Tachibana
Fig. 2).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon, and
Tachibana in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Final
Act. 5; Ans. 21. More specifically, the Examiner finds Tachibana teaches,
or at least suggests, storing a position and a shape of the reference inspection
line, a position of the reference inspection point, a position and a size of the
reference inspection region. Ans. 21 (citing Tachibana Fig. 2 (finding
master pattern implies shape and line of reference pattern), 5—6 (machine
9
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
translation) (finding all check points are judged and form master pattern
data).
We are persuaded that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon
teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation. Tachibana teaches or
suggests storing a plurality of checkpoints for the master pattern. See
Tachibana Fig. 2, Abstract, 5—6 (machine translation). These checkpoints
collectively define the master pattern, including at least suggesting the shape
and position of the reference points, lines, and regions — the collection of
points and their positions together provide for, or at least suggest, reference
lines and regions. See id.; see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA
1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). We also note that Yoon’s
teachings, as discussed above, also teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
See Yoon Figs. 4—6; 60-63.
(5) Inspecting part
Appellant argues that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon, and
Tachibana in particular, fails to teach or suggest “an inspecting part” in
accordance with the claims. App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 11. More
specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner unreasonably cites the same
portion of Tachibana for teaching the claimed “inspecting part” as is cited
for the “teaching part.” App. Br. 15—16 (citing Final Act. 5—6). Appellant
further argues “[t]he cited portions of Tachibana cannot be interpreted to
both determine an inspection factor (if any) and a judgment condition (if
any), and inspect/judge based on such inspection factor (if any) and
judgment condition (if any).” App. Br. 16.
10
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
The Examiner finds the combination of Tachibana and Yoon, and
Tachibana in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See
Final Act. 6; Ans. 21—22. More specifically, the Examiner finds Tachibana
teaches or suggests, inter alia, “extracting] the data of the same address as a
master pattern, and a bit position from the picture signal memory 8a, and
comparing] with the data of a master pattern,” where “[comparisons are
performed on all points of a master pattern between the data from article
image based on correspondence conditions stored by master pattern.” Ans.
22 (citing Tachibana Figs. 1, 10; Abstract; (machine translation) 5—6). The
Examiner finds that Tachibana teaches deciding whether an article passes
based on a plurality of the inspection points correspondence with the mask
pattern. Ans. 22—23 (citing Tachibana Figs. 1, 10; Abstract; (machine
translation) 5—6).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument and adopt the
Examiner’s findings as out own. The cited portions of Tachibana teach or
suggest both the claimed “inspecting part” and “teaching part,” as discussed
above, with the teachings of each intertwined in the cited portions. See
Tachibana Figs. 1,10; Abstract; (machine translation) 5—6. We also
disagree with Appellant (Reply Br. 11) that the combination of Yoon and
Tachibana fails to teach or suggest the claimed “positional relationship.”
Rather, Tachibana teaches or suggests that the check points’ position and
suggested region are correlated for the inspected article and reference
pattern. See, e.g., Tachibana Abstract (teaching that “the article 1 is
transferred to a prescribed position”), (machine translation) 5 (teaching
capturing an image of the article for processing when the inspected article is
in a predetermined position); see also Yoon Figs. 4—6; ^flf 60-63.
11
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
(6) Not on a contour
Appellant argues the combination of Tachibana and Yoon fails to
teach or suggest that “the reference inspection line is not on a contour of the
reference object,” as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 25; Reply Br. 17.
Appellant argues Yoon instead teaches that the design pattern (i.e., reference
inspection line(s)) is a contour. App. Br. 25. Appellant also argues the
Examiner fails “to clarify what element of Yoon is readable on the recited
reference inspection point,” and that “it is entirely unclear as to which point
on the dot lines in Fig. 5 of Yoon is considered by the Examiner at the
recited ‘reference inspection point. Reply Br. 17.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination of Tachibana
and Yoon, and Yoon in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Ans. 27. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Yoon, when
combined with Tachibana, teaches or suggests a reference inspection line
that is not on a contour of the reference object. See Ans. 27 (citing Yoon
Fig. 5,H 60—61). More specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Yoon, when combined with Tachibana as discussed above, teaches or
suggests “a predetermined range DR [which] is derived based on the turning
points or regions (SL1, SL2, SRI and SR2).” As shown in Fig. 5, the
reference line (i.e. dot lines) which outlines the predetermined range DR is
not on a contour of the reference object.” Ans. 27 (citing Yoon Figs. 4—5,
11 60-61). For example, Yoon teaches that “the detection region (DR)
includ[es] one or more single points or regions (SL1, SRI, SL2, SR2) of the
pattern contour on the pattern image.” Yoon 160. As discussed above, the
combined teachings of Tachibana and Yoon teach or suggest that these
points can be reference inspection points, which can be displaced from the
12
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
reference contour, and can form reference lines. See Yoon Fig. 5 (teaching,
inter alia, dotted lines for SL1, SRI, SL2, and SR2 can be displaced from the
contour); see also Yoon Fig. 6, ]Hf 68—71; Tachibana Figs. 1—2, Abstract.
(7) Only one reference inspection point
Appellant argues that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon fails to
teach or suggest “in the teaching process, only one reference inspection
point is defined on the reference inspection line,” as recited in claim 12.
App. Br. 25. Appellant argues Tachibana instead teaches multiple
inspection points. Id. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in the
Answer in referencing a “region,” and if the Examiner meant to refer to a
“line” in the finding, such a finding would contradict the Examiner’s alleged
position that Tachibana does not disclose the claimed teaching part. Reply
Br. 18. Appellant also argues the Examiner fails to provide sufficient
rationale to support the finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to define only one turning point on the pattern
contour. App. Br. 25.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 27—28; Final Act. 11. The
Examiner finds Yoon teaches “in the teaching process, only one reference
inspection point is defined on the reference inspection line (i.e. a pattern
image in Fig. 4 with turning points or regions (SL1, SL2, SRI and SR2) on
the pattern contour.” Ans. 27—28 (citing Yoon Figs. 4—5, 60-61). The
Examiner further finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art “to define only one turning point on the pattern contour.” Ans. 28.
Furthermore, the Examiner finds Tachibana also teaches or suggests “only
one inspection point in each of reference line region as shown in Fig. 2.” Id.
13
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As to Tachibana’s
teachings, we find it clear that the finding refers to a reference line (i.e., the
word “region” was inadvertently included), including because (i) a
“reference line region” is a non-sensical phrase here and (ii) the finding
regards claim 12, which does not itself refer to “region.” Furthermore, as
discussed above, the Examiner finds Tachibana teaches or suggests the
claimed teaching part, and, thus, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
argument of contradiction. See Section 2, supra', see also Tachibana Fig. 2
(teaching, or at least suggesting, having only one reference point for at least
one reference line (e.g., short contour segment). We also are unpersuaded
by Appellant’s argument (which largely is just an assertion) that the
Examiner fails to provide sufficient rationale supporting the finding that one
of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to define only one turning
point on the pattern contour in the context of Yoon’s teachings.
(8) Performed before
Appellant argues the combination of Tachibana and Yoon fails to
teach or suggest “defining the reference inspection region associated with
one reference inspection point on the reference inspection line is performed
before said overlapping the reference inspection line on the second image as
the actual inspection line,” as recited in claim 13. App. Br. 26; Reply Br.
18—19. Appellant argues that Yoon instead teaches “that the turning points
SL/SR are detected after overlapping the design pattern (Fig. 4) on the
pattern image (Fig. 3). See also Yoon at the description of Fig. 5.” Reply Br.
18-19.
14
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
The Examiner finds Yoon teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 28. More specifically, the Examiner finds Yoon teaches or
suggests:
a pattern image in Fig. 4 with turning points or regions (SL1,
SL2, SRI and SR2) on the pattern contour. Here the turning
points are defined based on the pattern contour of the pattern
image and are part of [the] design pattern. They impl[y that] the
reference inspection regions need[] to be detected during
inspection. It is of course defined before the overlapping the
design pattern on the pattern image.
Ans. 28 (citing Yoon Figs. 4—5, ^flf 60-61).
We find that the disputed limitation would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art in light of Tachibana and Yoon’s teachings. See
Section 2, supra. There are only a finite number of times (i.e., before,
during, or after) to overlap the reference inspection line, and picking one of a
finite number of known solutions to a known problem would have been
obvious here. See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (“When
there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact
that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under
§ 103.”).
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings and reasoning above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11—13, as well as claims 2—10 and 14—
15
Appeal 2017-006321
Application 14/192,109
16, as Appellant does not provide separate arguments for their patentability.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16.
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