Ex Parte Kramer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2014

10033775 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2014)

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.
10/033,775 01/03/2002 Bruce Elliot Kramer TREADMILL1 8566
7590 01/29/2014
BRUCE E. KRAMER
9112 CHERBOURG DR.
POTOMAC, MD 20854
EXAMINER
CROW, STEPHEN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3764
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRUCE ELLIOT KRAMER and JOY ELIZABETH BELIN
____________

Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 10-13, 17-19, and 22-26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to “a treadmill which can be used
simultaneously by two treadmill users side-by-side” for instance, while the
users are holding hands. Spec. 1, ll. 4-5 and Spec. 2, ll. 20-22. Claim 1,
reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the appealed
subject matter.
1. A treadmill comprising a base, a pair of parallel,
spaced rollers rotatably disposed in the base, and an endless belt
extending around both rollers, wherein the belt has a width
which is large enough to accommodate two treadmill users
side-by-side, wherein the two treadmill users are two adult
people, wherein the treadmill further comprises a control panel
for a treadmill user on the treadmill.
App. Br., Clms. App’x.
Independent claim 7 is also directed to a treadmill and includes, inter
alia, two endless belts, “wherein each belt has a width which is large enough
to accommodate one treadmill user, and wherein the two belts are positioned
to accommodate two treadmill users side-by-side, wherein each belt has a
width which is large enough to accommodate an adult person.” Id.
Independent claim 13 is directed to a method for two treadmill users
to exercise side-by-side on a single treadmill and includes, inter alia, the
step of providing a treadmill having an endless belt, “wherein the belt has a
width which is large enough to accommodate two treadmill users side-by-
side, wherein the two treadmill users are two adult people.” Id.
Independent claim 19 is directed to a method for two treadmill users
to exercise side-by-side on a single treadmill and includes, inter alia, the
step of providing a treadmill having two endless belts, “wherein each belt
has a width which is large enough to accommodate one treadmill user, and
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

3
wherein the two belts are positioned to accommodate two treadmill users
side-by-side, wherein each belt has a width which is large enough to
accommodate an adult person.” Id.

Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections1 are before us for review2:
I. claims 6, 7, 10-12, 18, 19, and 22-263 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement;
II. claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Moon (US 5,857,942, issued Jan. 12, 1999);

1 The Examiner sets forth a drawing objection under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) in
the “Grounds of Rejection” section of the Answer. Ans. 4-5. However, the
drawing objection is reviewable by timely petition to the Director under 37
C.F.R. § 1.181 and is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1201 (8th Ed., Rev. 8, Jul. 2010)
(the Board will not ordinarily hear a question that is reviewable by petition);
In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing In re Hengehold,
440 F.2d 1395, 1403-04 (CCPA 1971) (stating that there are many kinds of
decisions made by examiners that are not appealable to the Board when they
are not directly connected with the merits of issues involving rejections of
claims, and holding that “the kind of adverse decisions of examiners which
are reviewable by the board must be those which relate, at least indirectly, to
matters involving the rejection of claims”)); and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d
892, 894 (CCPA 1967) (holding that the refusal of an examiner to enter an
amendment of claims is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, and
not by appeal to the Board). Accordingly, we will not review the drawing
objection.
2 To facilitate our analysis, we alter the order of the rejections from that in
the Examiner’s Answer.
3 In an Office Communication mailed Nov. 18, 2011, the Examiner
acknowledged that claim 17 should not have been included in the claim
listing for this rejection and thus, we have omitted claim 17.
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

4
III. claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Kelsey (US 6,273,844 B1, issued Aug. 14, 2001);
IV. claims 7, 10, 11, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Piaget (US 5,336,146, issued Aug. 9, 1994);
V. claims 1, 5, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kelsey;
VI. claims 1, 5, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moon and Derksen (US 6,228,037 B1, issued May 8,
2001);
VII. claims 6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
either Moon or Kelsey and Nichols (US 6,058,888, issued May 9, 2000);
VIII. claims 6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
either Moon or Kelsey and Gerard (US 5,162,029, issued Nov. 10, 1992)4;
IX. claims 12 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Piaget and Gerard;
X. claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Moon, Derksen, and either Gerard or Nichols; and
XI. claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kelsey and either Gerard or Nichols.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Lack of Written Description
The Examiner finds that “[t]he pair of endless belts; the separate belt
inclinations; the independently driven belts; the separate pivoting handlebar,

4 We note that the Examiner inadvertently included this rejection twice in
the Answer. See Ans. 9 and 10-11.
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

5
and other structure claimed are not described and shown, as originally filed,
by the [d]isclosure.” Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that “the present claims satisfy the requirements of
35 U.S.C. [§] 112, first paragraph,” and point to page 5, line 13 to page 6,
line 16 and the last paragraph on page 7 of the Specification as support for
the subject matter recited in claims 6, 7, 10-12, 18, 19, and 22-26. App. Br.
11 and 15.
“[T]he test for sufficiency [of the written description under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph] is whether the disclosure of the application relied
upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad
Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Col., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
This test “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the
specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”
Id. “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention
understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually
invented the invention claimed.” Id. This inquiry is a question of fact. Id.
(citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed.
Cir. 1985)).
We agree with Appellants. The disclosure of the Specification at page
5, line 13 to page 6, line 16 and page 7, lines 13-23 relied upon by
Appellants reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor
had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. More
particularly, page 5, lines 13-18 and 20-22 and page 6, lines 9-14 adequately
discloses the pair of endless belts; page 5, line 23 through page 6, line 2 and
page 6, lines 6-8 adequately discloses the separate belt inclinations; page 6,
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

6
lines 14-16 adequately discloses the independently driven belts; and page 7,
lines 13-23 adequately discloses the separate pivoting handlebar.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6,
7, 10-12, 18, 19, and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.

Rejection II – Anticipation based on Moon
The Examiner finds that Moon anticipates independent claims 1 and
13, because “[t]he Moon treadmill is capable of receiving two adults in
various relative orientations.” Ans. 6. More particularly, the Examiner
interprets that “[t]he claimed limitation ‘side-by-side’ can include: one user
ahead of the other user; the two users facing orthogonal to the belt’s
direction of travel; [and] two users facing forward and fitted between the
handrails when the belt is stationary.” Id.
Appellants note that the Examiner previously indicates that “the
language ‘adult people’ doesn’t recite specific dimensions and that adult
humans come in various sizes, such as dwarfs who are abnormally small,”
and Appellants argue that the Examiner’s “interpretation is unreasonable and
is not the interpretation that one skilled in the art would give to the
terminology at issue.” App. Br. 17. Appellants also argue that the
Examiner’s interpretation that side-by-side can include one user ahead of
another or two persons facing orthogonal to the belt’s direction of travel is
unreasonable, because “‘side-by-side’ means that the two users are next to
each other[, ]not one in front of the other.” App. Br. 17-18.
Moon discloses treadmill 20 having base 22, rollers 24, 26, and
endless belt 28. Moon, col. 2, ll. 20-24. The Examiner has not pointed to
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

7
any particular disclosure in Moon which supports that the width of belt 28
“is large enough to accommodate two treadmill users side-by-side, wherein
the two treadmill users are two adult people” as recited in claims 1 and 13.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We determine the scope
of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim
language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Here, the Examiner has failed to give the claim language the
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, because one
of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “adult people” to be average sized
adults, not abnormally small individuals, and would interpret “side-by-side”
as described supra by Appellants, not one if front of another or facing
orthogonal to the belt’s direction of travel. Thus, the Examiner’s
interpretation as to how Moon discloses the language of “the belt ha[ving] a
width which is large enough to accommodate two treadmill users side-by-
side, wherein the two treadmill users are two adult people” in both claims 1
and 13 is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Moon.

Rejection III - Anticipation based on Kelsey
The Examiner finds “[t]he Kelsey . . . treadmill is capable of receiving
two adults in various relative orientations,” and “[t]he claimed limitation
‘side-by-side’ can include: one user ahead of the other user; the two users
facing orthogonal to the belt’s direction of travel; [and] two users facing
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

8
forward and fitted between the handrails when the belt is stationary.” Ans.
6.
Appellants make similar arguments with respect to Kelsey as those
discussed supra with respect to Moon. See App. Br. 19-20.
Kelsey discloses apparatus 2 for unloading a user’s body weight
during physical activity. Kelsey, Abstr., col. 4, l. 16, and Figs. 1-2.
Apparatus 2 includes frame 4 having base members 10, 12, side supports 18,
20, and side rails 30, 34 which are “spaced apart a sufficient distance for
receiving a treadmill.” Kelsey, col. 4, ll. 24-42 and Figs. 1-2. Although
Kelsey’s Figure 2 shows what appears to be an adult person exercising on
apparatus 2 with space on either side of his body between the treadmill and
side rails 30, 34, the Examiner has not pointed to any particular disclosure in
Kelsey which supports that a belt of the treadmill “has a width which is large
enough to accommodate two treadmill users side-by-side, wherein the two
treadmill users are two adult people.”
Accordingly, for similar reasons to those discussed supra with respect
to Moon, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kelsey.

Rejection IV - Anticipation based on Piaget
The Examiner finds that Piaget discloses a treadmill having two
endless belts, “wherein each belt has a width which is large enough to
accommodate one treadmill user, and wherein the two belts are positioned to
accommodate two treadmill users side-by-side, wherein each belt has a
width which is large enough to accommodate an adult person.” Ans. 6-7.
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

9
Appellants argue “that Piaget discloses that a user stands with one leg
positioned on each of the side-by-side treadmills,” and “[t]herefore, Piaget
clearly is directed to one treadmill user who places one foot on each belt and
thus uses both belts himself or herself.” App. Br. 21 (citing Piaget, top of
col. 4).
Piaget discloses that “[i]n operation, a user stands with one leg
positioned on each of the side-by-side treadmills 14, and then walks on the
treadmills 14 at a pace equal to the speed of the continuous treads 34, i.e.[,]
in the same manner as a conventional treadmill.” Piaget, col. 4, ll. 1-5.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has not
pointed to any particular disclosure in Piaget which supports that the width
of each belt (tread 34) “is large enough to accommodate one treadmill user,
and wherein the two belts are positioned to accommodate two treadmill
users side-by-side, wherein each belt has a width which is large enough to
accommodate an adult person” as recited in claims 7 and 19.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 7 and 19, and claims 10, 11, 22, and 23 which depend
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Piaget.

Rejection V – Obviousness based on Kelsey
Appellants argue claims 1 and 5 as a group (App. Br. 26-28) and
purport to argue claims 13 and 17 separately (App. Br. 28); however, the
arguments set forth for claims 13 and 17 are in essence the same as the
arguments for claims 1 and 5. Therefore, we select claim 1 as the
representative claim and claims 5, 13, and 17 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

10
The Examiner concludes that modifying the belt of the treadmill of
the apparatus 2 of Kelsey to have “a width which is large enough to
accommodate two treadmill users side-by-side, wherein the two treadmill
users are two adult people” as recited in claim 1 would have been an obvious
matter of design choice as only amounting to a change in size or degree.
Ans. 8-9.
Appellants argue “their wider treadmill is not merely a matter of
design choice or a matter of degree, but rather is a significant change which
produces a new form of exercise equipment” and “enables a completely new
form of treadmill exercising, namely, exercising by two adult treadmill users
side-by-side on the same treadmill, which is neither taught nor suggested by
Kelsey.” App. Br. 27. Appellants also argue that “[s]ince the present
invention provides a completely new form of exercising, . . . it is a change in
kind, not merely degree.” Ans. 27-28.
Design choice applies when old elements in the prior art perform the
same function as the now claimed structures. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,
555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and
presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design
choice within the skill of the art”). However, when the claimed structure
performs differently from the prior art a finding of obvious design choice is
precluded. In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding of obvious
design choice precluded when claimed structure and the function it performs
are different from the prior art). See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set
forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the
prior art would result in a different function).
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

11
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Design choice is
appropriate here because Appellants have not set forth any reasons why the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a
different function. The claimed invention performs the same function as the
prior art, i.e., providing exercise equipment for users. The fact that the prior
art discloses one user per piece of exercise equipment and two users can use
the claimed invention simultaneously does not result in a different function.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 5, 13, and 17 which fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelsey.

Rejection VI – Obviousness based on Moon and Derksen
Because we have affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 5, 13, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelsey as discussed supra,
we find it unnecessary to reach a decision about the cumulative rejections of
claims 1, 5, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moon
and Derksen. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) (“The affirmance of the rejection
of a claim on any of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance
of the decision of the examiner on that claim . . . .”).

Rejection VII – Obviousness based on either Moon or Kelsey and Nichols
Claims 6 and 18 depend from independent claims 1 and 13,
respectively, and recite that “the treadmill has a handle bar comprising a
front portion and left and right side portions, wherein the handle bar further
comprises a middle portion which can extend back from a middle part of the
front portion.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. Emphasis added.
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

12
To the extent that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 18 relies
upon the erroneous finding that either Moon or Kelsey anticipates
independent claims 1 and 13, respectively, we note that the Examiner has
not relied upon Nichols to cure the deficiency of either Moon or Kelsey.
To the extent that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 18 relies
upon “Rejection V – Obviousness based on Kelsey,” which rejection was
sustained for the reasons discussed supra, we note that the Examiner finds
that “Nichols discloses the use of a handle 100 pivotally connected to the
handle 15 of a treadmill.” Ans. 9. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to provide a pivoting
handle on the . . . Kelsey . . . treadmill[] either by clamping the handle 100 to
the sides of the treadmill handle or by attaching to the front span of the
treadmill handle for user support purposes.” Id.
Appellants argue that “[e]lement 100 of Nichols cited by the
Examiner is attached to a side portion . . . , not a front portion as required for
the present invention.” App. Br. 29 (citing Nichols, col. 2, ll. 48-49 and Fig.
1).
Nichols discloses a detachable harness assembly 100 for securing
animals on a treadmill 10. Nichols, Title, col. 2, ll. 36-52 and Figs. 1-3.
Treadmill 10 includes a pair of sidearms 15 and harness assembly 100
includes arm 105 mounted within anchor unit 100 to one of sidearms 15. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner has not
made any finding that Nichols’ discloses treadmill 10 to have “a handle bar
comprising a front portion and left and right side portions, wherein the
handle bar further comprises a middle portion which can extend back from a
middle part of the front portion,” as required by claims 6 and 18. Although
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

13
the Examiner appears to be modifying Kelsey to attach the Nichols’ harness
assembly 100 “to the front span of the treadmill handle for user support
purposes,” there is no teaching or suggestion to do so because Nichols only
teaches or suggests to attach the harness assembly 100 to sidearm 15 as
shown in Figures 1-3, not to a front portion of a handle of a treadmill.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over either Moon or Kelsey
and Nichols.

Rejection VIII – Obviousness based on either Moon or Kelsey and Gerard
Claims 6 and 18 are discussed supra. To the extent that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 18 relies upon the erroneous finding
that either Moon or Kelsey anticipates independent claims 1 and 13,
respectively, we note that the Examiner has not relied upon Gerard to cure
the deficiency of either Moon or Kelsey.
To the extent that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 18 relies
upon “Rejection V – Obviousness based on Kelsey,” which rejection was
sustained for the reasons discussed supra, we note that the Examiner finds
that “Gerard discloses the use of a handle 42 pivotally connected to the
handle 36 of a treadmill.” Ans. 9. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to provide a pivoting
handle on the . . . Kelsey . . . treadmill[] either by clamping the handle 42 to
the sides of the treadmill handle or by attaching to the front span of the
treadmill handle for user support purposes.” Id.
Appellants argue that “element 42 of Gerard cited by the Examiner is
a ski pole grip . . . , and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

14
fairly applied it to a treadmill as in . . . Kelsey.” App. Br. 30 (citing Gerard,
col. 4, l. 5).
Gerard discloses an apparatus for teaching downhill skiing on a
simulated ski slope which includes a treadmill (ski deck 10) and handle bar
(front vertical support 28 and transverse rail 36). Gerard, Title, col. 2, ll. 61-
66, col. 3, ll. 43-45 and 63-68, and Figs. 1-3. Ski pole grip 42 extends from
a middle part of a front portion (transverse rail 36) of the handle. Gerard,
col. 4, ll. 5-7, and Fig. 1.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. To the extent that
Appellants are arguing nonanalogous art, we note that “[t]he analogous-art
test requires that the Board show that a reference is either in the field of the
applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which
the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for
rejection.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Gerard is within
Appellants’ field of endeavor as both the present invention and Gerard
pertain to exercising equipment including treadmills and handle bars. Even
assuming arguendo that Gerard is not in Appellants’ field of endeavor,
Gerard is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was
concerned, because the matter with which it deals, namely, exercising
equipment, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention
in considering his problem. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (“A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a
different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because
of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to
an inventor's attention in considering his problem.”).
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

15
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moon and Gerard, but
we do sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelsey and Gerard.

Rejection IX – Obviousness based on Piaget and Gerard
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 24 relies upon the
erroneous determination that Piaget anticipates independent claims 7 and 19
from which claims 12 and 24 depend, respectively. Ans. 7. The Examiner
has not relied upon Gerard for any disclosure that would cure the deficiency
of Piaget. Id. Accordingly, for the same reason as discussed supra with
respect to “Rejection IV - Anticipation based on Piaget,” we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Piaget and Gerard.

Rejection X – Obviousness based on
Moon, Derksen, and either Gerard or Nichols
Since we did not reach the rejection of claims 1, 5, 13, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moon and Derksen for the reasons
discussed above with respect to Rejection VI, we also do not reach the
rejection of claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Moon, Derksen, and Gerard or Nichols.

Rejection XI – Obviousness based on Kelsey and either Gerard or Nichols
Claims 25 and 26 depend from claims 5 and 17, respectively, which in
turn depend from claims 1 and 13, respectively. App. Br., Clms. App’x.
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

16
Claims 25 and 26 recite the same claim language as discussed supra with
respect to claims 6 and 18. Id.
Kelsey and Gerard
The Examiner makes the same findings (Ans. 11) and Appellants set
forth the same arguments (App. Br. 35) as discussed supra with respect to
Rejection VIII.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to
Rejection VIII, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelsey and Gerard.
Kelsey and Nichols
The Examiner makes the same findings (Ans. 11) and Appellants set
forth the same arguments (App. Br. 35) as discussed supra with respect to
Rejection VII.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to
Rejection VII, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelsey and Nichols.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 6, 7, 10-12, 18,
19, and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement; claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Moon; claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Kelsey; claims 7, 10, 11, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Piaget; claims 6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over either Moon or Kelsey and Nichols; claims 6 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moon and Gerard; claims 12
Appeal 2012-002537
Application 10/033,775

17
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Piaget and Gerard;
and claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelsey
and Nichols.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 1, 5, 13, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelsey; claims 6 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelsey and Gerard; and
claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelsey and
Gerard.
We DO NOT REACH the Examiner’s rejection of: claims 1, 5, 13,
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moon and Derksen;
and claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moon,
Derksen, and either Gerard or Nichols.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh