Ex Parte Kuramori

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

12435911 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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.
12/435,911 05/05/2009 Akira Kuramori 4386.084595 4344
24978 7590 11/17/2017
GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD
300 S. WACKER DR.
SUITE 2500
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
ROGERS, MARTIN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
ptomail @ gbclaw. net
docket @ gbclaw. net
verify @ gbclaw. net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKIRA KURAMORI
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,9111
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and BRIAN D.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision2 finally rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, and 14. Claim
10, the other claim pending in the above-identified application, stands
withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner as being directed to a
nonelected invention.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Yokohama Rubber Co.,
LTD.” Appeal Brief filed February 23, 2015 (“App. Br.”) 2.
2 See Final Action entered September 12, 2014 (“Final Act.”) at 3-18; and
Examiner’s Answer entered June 5, 2015 (“Ans.”) at 2-8.
3 See Non-Final Action entered June 14, 2012 (“Non-Final Act.”) at 2.
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter of the claims on appeal is directed to “a method for
manufacturing a pneumatic tire including a sound-absorbing member made
of a porous material [such as a urethane foam] on an inner surface of the
tire.” Specification filed May 5, 2009 (“Spec.”) ^fl[ 1 and 8. An object of
this method is to enable “a sound-absorbing member to be easily mounted
on the tire with an improved fixation of the sound-absorbing member onto
an inner surface of the tire.” Spec. 14. “The sound-absorbing member is
preferably fixed onto the inner liner layer by a flame lamination process.”
Spec. 19. “Alternatively, the sound-absorbing member may be fixed onto
the inner liner layer with an adhesive agent.” Spec. 19. The sound
absorbing member is a porous material, such as “a urethane foam having
open cells therein.” Spec. 1 8.
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative
claim l,4 which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief (with disputed limitations italicized):
1. A method for manufacturing a pneumatic tire by a bladderless
curing system, comprising the steps of:
forming a green tire including an inner liner layer and a
sound-absorbing member, the inner liner layer disposed in an
inner surface of the tire and made of any one of a thermoplastic
4 Appellant presents substantive arguments for claim 1, but do not present
substantive arguments for claims 3, 5, 9, 11, and 14 on appeal. App. Br. 12-
27. Appellant relies upon the same substantive arguments directed to claim
1 as a basis for the patentability of claims 5, 9, and 11 event though the
Examiner relied upon additional prior art to reject these dependent claims.
App. Br. 26-27. Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we limit our
discussion to independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
2
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
resin and a thermoplastic elastomer composition obtained by
dispersing an elastomer in a thermoplastic resin, the sound­
absorbing member fixed onto the inner liner layer and made of
a porous material, wherein the sound-absorbing member is
fixed onto the inner liner layer by a flame lamination process',
and thereafter:
curing the green tire,
wherein the porous material of the sound-absorbing
member is a urethane foam having open cells therein, and
wherein the radially inner surface of the sound-absorbing
member has no skin layer thereon resulting in the suppressing
of collapse of the sound-absorbing member due to
pressurization at the curing step, and
wherein in the step of forming the green tire:
the inner liner layer is first formed by winding an inner
liner member on an outer peripheral side of a making drum, the
inner liner member having the sound-absorbing member
previously fixed thereto;
a carcass layer is then formed by winding a carcass
member on an outer peripheral side of the inner liner layer; and
thereafter,
a cylindrical intermediate formed body including the
inner liner layer and the carcass layer is inflated, so that the
green tire is formed.
App. Br., Claims Appendix A-l.
Appellant seeks review of the following grounds of rejection5
maintained by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer:
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 3, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Dodt6 (DE 19806935 A1
5 Appellant does not contest the prior art status of the Examiner’s evidence.
App. Br. 12-21.
6 Our reference to Dodt is to the English translation of DE 19806935 Al,
which was entered into the record on February 13, 2013.
3
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
published September 9, 1999), Watanabe et al. (US 6,062,283 issued May
16, 2000) (“Watanabe’), Horio7 (JP 2005-14228 A published January 20,
2005), Rucker (US 5,851,339 issued December 22, 1998), Gonzales et al.
(US 2007/0157948 Al published July 12, 2007) (“Gonzales”), Conlon et al.
(US 6,935,697 B2 issued August 30, 2005) (“Conlon”), Yukawa et al. ’042
(US 2006/0108042 Al published May 25, 2006) (“Yukawa”), Hiranuma et
al.8 (JP 2004-290386 A published October 21, 2004) (“Hiranuma”),
Schulpen (US 3,431,802 issued March 11, 1969), Hong et al. (US 4,664,168
issued May 12, 1987) (“Hong”), and Hashimura et al. (US 2002/0033557 Al
published March 21, 2002) (“Hashimura”);
Rejection 2: Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Dodt, Watanabe, Horio, Rucker, Gonzales,
Conlon, Yukawa ’042, Hiranuma, Schulpen, Hong, Hashimura, and Yukawa
’726 (US 2009/0038726 Al published February 12, 2009);
Rejection 3: Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Dodt, Watanabe, Horio, Rucker, Gonzales,
Conlon, Yukawa ’042, Hiranuma, Schulpen, Hong, Hashimura, Takagi (US
2005/0269008 Al published December 8, 2005), and Torn9 (JP 2001-
260135 A published September, 2001);
7 Our reference to Horio is to the English translation of JP 2005-14228 A,
which was entered into the record on April 18, 2013.
8 Our reference to Hiranuma is to the English translation of JP 2004-290386
A, which was entered into the record on May 22, 2014.
9 Our reference to Torn is to the English translation of JP 2001-260135 A,
which was entered into the record on October 18, 2011.
4
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
Rejection 4: Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Dodt, Watanabe, Horio, Rucker, Gonzales,
Conlon, Yukawa ’042, Hiranuma, Schulpen, Hong, Hashimura, and Tanno
(US 2008/0099177 A1 published May 1, 2008); and
Rejection 5: Claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Dodt, Watanabe, Horio, Rucker, Gonzales,
Conlon, Yukawa ’042, Hiranuma, Schulpen, Majumdar et al. (2004/0103967
A1 published June 3, 2004) (“Majumdar”), and Hashimura. Final Act. 3-18;
Ans. 2-8; App. Br. 10-11; the Reply Brief filed August 4, 2015 (“Reply
Br.”)3.
DISCUSSION
Rejections 1 through 4
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon by the Examiner in
light of each of Appellant’s contentions,10 we find Appellant does not
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,3,5,
9, 11, and 14, all of the claims on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as set
forth in Rejections 1 through 4 in the Final Action and the Answer.
10 Any new arguments raised in the Reply Brief, which could have been
raised in the Appeal Brief, will not be considered. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any
arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused
consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”); see also Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative)
(explaining that under the previous rules, which are similar to the current
rules, “the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could
have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s
rejections, but were not.”).
5
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of the above
claims substantially for the reasons set forth in the Final Action and the
Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 1,
3, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies upon the collective
teachings of Dodt, Watanabe, Horio, Rucker, Gonzales, Conlon, Yukawa
’042, Hiranuma, Schulpen, Hong, and Hashimura. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner found, and Appellant does not dispute, that Dodt discloses a
method of manufacturing a pneumatic tire with a bladderless curing system,
which comprises dispersing an elastomer in a thermoplastic resin disposed
on an inner surface of a green tire to form an inner liner layer,11 fixing a
sound-absorbing member made of a porous, open-cell polyurethane onto the
inner liner layer with an adhesive to form a laminate, applying a carcass over
the inner liner layer, and curing the green tire after attaching the sound
absorbing member to the inner liner layer on the inner surface of the green
tire. Compare Final Act. 3-4 and 7, with App. Br. 12-21. The Examiner
also found, and Appellant does not dispute, that Dodt discloses that its
sound-absorbing polyurethane foam layer having open cells therein has a
11 Alternatively, the Examiner also determined, and Appellant does not
dispute, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to form
Dodt’s inner liner of a green tire through dispersing an elastomer in a
thermoplastic resin per teachings of Watanabe, with a reasonable
expectation of successfully obtaining the advantages taught by Watanabe.
Compare Final Act. 4, with App. Br. 12-21; see also Watanabe, col. 1,11. 9-
20.
6
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
radially interior contoured surface with no skin12 and can be laminated in the
form of a planar sheet (plate). Compare Final Act. 5-8, with App. Br. 12-
21; see also Dodt p. 20 (“the foamed-material ring, or foamed-material plate,
respectively, which outer surface is not anymore having any skin.”).
The Examiner acknowledged that Dodt alone, or in combination with
Watanabe, Yukawa, Hiranuma, and/or Schulpen, does not disclose or
suggest fixing its sound-absorbing polyurethane foam layer having open
cells therein onto the inner liner layer by a flame lamination process as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4-5. Nor does Dodt alone, or in combination
with Watanabe, Yukawa, Hiranuma, and/or Schulpen, disclose or suggest
fixing its sound-absorbing polyurethane foam layer having open cells therein
onto the inner liner layer prior to winding the inner liner layer and a carcass
layer on an outer peripheral side of a tire making drum and inflating the
carcass to form a green tire, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8.
To account for these missing features, the Examiner first relied upon
the disclosure of either Horio, Rucker, Gonzales, or Conlon to show that
bonding a polyurethane foam with an adhesive or a flame lamination process
was well known at the time of the invention. Final Act. 4-5 and Ans. 5. Of
these alternatively relied upon prior art references, the Examiner primarily
focused on the disclosure of Horio.13 Final Act. 4. The Examiner found,
12 To the extent that Dodt does not teach or suggest a contoured foam noise
dampener without a skin on its radially internal surface, the Examiner
alternatively relied upon Yukawa, Hiranuma, and/or Schulpen to show the
obviousness of using such contoured foam noise dampener for a tire without
a skin in its interior surface as the foam noise dampener of the tire taught by
Dodt. Final Act. 6-7.
13 37 C.F.R. § 1.104 (c)(2) (2013) requires the Examiner to focus on “the
7
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
and Appellant does not dispute, that “Horio discloses that when making a
polyurethane foam laminate ([002]) to act as a sound-absorber (‘sound­
absorbing material’ [002]), it is possible to achieve high production
efficiency (‘working efficiency is excellent’ [004]) and avoid the unevenness
and high costs of adhesive bond ([0003]) by flame laminating.” Compare
Final Act. 4, with App. Br. 12-21; see also Horio ^fl[ 1—4. Thus, based on
these undisputed findings, the Examiner correctly determined that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent reason, suggestion, or
motivation to employ Horio’s flame lamination process, in lieu of Dodt’s
adhesive lamination process, to bond the polyurethane foam (sound­
absorbing material) on the inner liner layer of the green tire taught by Dodt,
with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the advantages
associated with the flame lamination process taught by Horio.
The Examiner also relied upon the disclosures of Hong to show that
laminating an interior component of a tire to the inner liner to form a liner
laminate before winding the liner laminate and a carcass, respectively, to a
drum and shaping (inflating14) the green tire into its desired shape, prior to
vulcanization, as recited in claim 1, was known. Final Act. 8; see also
Hong, col 5,1. 47-col. 6,1. 34. Although Hong does not specifically identify
an interior component as a sound absorbing member as required by claim 1
and argued by Appellant, the Examiner found, and Appellant does not
dispute, that Dodt discloses, inter alia, a polyurethane foam sound absorbing
best references at his or her command.”
14 Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Hashimura
explains that the act of shaping a cylindrical liner and carcass, as taught by
Hong, constitutes inflating. Compare Final Act. 8 with App. Br. 12-21.
8
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
component in the form of a planar sheet (plate) in the interior of a tire, which
is laminated to the inner liner of the tire as indicated supra. Compare Final
Act. 7-8 with App. Br. 12-21; see also Dodt, pp. 17-18 (“Alternatively
thereto, an embodiment as foamed-material plate can also be conceivable”).
Moreover, as indicated supra, Horio teaches laminating a polyurethane foam
material sheet useful for a sound-absorbing material via a flame laminating
process is advantageous. The Examiner also found, and Appellant does not
dispute, that Dodt discloses that the green tire includes a carcass applied
over an inner liner. Compare Final Act. 7 with App. Br. 12-21; see also
Dodt Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5 and 12. Thus, based on these undisputed factual
findings, the Examiner also correctly determined that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have had an apparent reason, suggestion, or motivation to
laminate a polyurethane foam sound absorbing material, of a tire to the inner
liner to form a liner laminate before winding the liner laminate and a
carcass, respectively, to a drum and shaping (inflating) the green tire into its
desire shape, prior to vulcanization, as recited in claim 1, with a reasonable
expectation of successfully forming the green tire.
Appellant contends that Dodt does not disclose laminating a sound
absorbing material to the inner liner to form a liner laminate before winding
the liner laminate and a carcass, respectively, to a drum and inflating the
green tire into its final shape, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15. Appellant
also contends that Hong does not relate to applying a sound-absorbing
member to a liner of a tire. App. Br. 18-20. Appellant further contends that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to modify the process
of Dodt “to include an additional step of fixing a sound absorbing member to
an inner liner prior to winding a laminate of these two components upon a
9
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
tire making drum based on Hong . . App. Br. 16. However, we are not
persuaded by these contentions.
As indicated supra, there is no dispute that Dodt discloses that the
green tire includes a carcass applied over an inner liner. Although Dodt, at
page 18, lines 12-14, discloses that “[p]rior to vulcanization of the tire, the
[sound-absorbing] foamed-material ring 6, or the [sound-absorbing] foamed-
material plate [(planar sheet)], is curled onto the tire’s inner surface [where
the inner liner is located,]” as pointed out by Appellant, App. Br. 15, the
Examiner found, and Appellant does not dispute, Hong discloses laminating
an interior component of a tire to the inner liner to form a liner laminate
before winding the liner laminate and a carcass, respectively, to a drum and
shaping (inflating) the green tire into its desired shape prior to vulcanization,
as recited in claim 1, compare Final Act. 8 with App. Br. 12-21. The sound­
absorbing foamed-material plate (sheet) taught by Dodt is an interior
component of a tire, which is laminated to the inner liner of the tire, prior to
vulcanization, as indicated supra. Laminating the sound-absorbing material
to a liner prior to winding the liner and/or carcass, as suggested by Dodt,
Horio, and Hong, in lieu of laminating the sound-absorbing material to the
liner subsequent to winding the liner and/or carcass, as taught by Dodt, does
not add a step as argued by Appellant. More importantly, even without the
teaching of Hong relating to laminating an interior component to a liner
prior to winding the liner and carcass, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reasonable expectation of successfully forming the same tire
structure regardless of whether the lamination of the sound-absorbing
material to a liner is conducted prior to or subsequent to winding the liner
and/or carcass so long as such lamination is conducted prior to vulcanization
10
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
as taught by both Dodt and Hong. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 692 (CCPA
1946) (explaining that changing the order of the sequence of adding
components in a known process does not impart patentability absent proof in
the record that the order of performing the steps produces a new and
unexpected result). Further, as indicated supra, Horio teaches laminating a
polyurethane foam material sheet useful as a sound-absorbing material via a
flame laminating process is advantageous.
Under these circumstances, we find no reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the
knowledge of the collective teachings of the applied prior art, would have
been led to flame laminate the sound-absorbing foamed-material plate
(sheet) to an inner liner before winding the inner liner and the carcass,
respectively and inflating the green tire into a desired shape prior to
vulcanization, as required by claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of
successfully forming a green tire.
Appellant contends that “the Hong et al. reference does not related to
a tire that includes a sound-absorbing member, and thus the problems related
to the affixing of such a component to the inner surface of a tire are not
relevant to Hong et al.” App. Br. 17. Appellant also contends that “the
Hong et al. reference is not concerned with the same problem facing the
present invention . . . .” App. Br. 17. In support of these contention,
Appellant refers to Hong’s disclosure directed to forming a self-sealing
pneumatic tire and solving a problem associated with the flowable nature of
a sealant. App. Br. 17-20. In so contending, Appellant fails to take into
account the collective teachings of the applied prior art. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“[n]on-obviousness cannot be
11
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
established by attacking reference individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references”). Nor does Appellant
recognize that “motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the
claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the patentee
had.” Alcon Research, Ltd. v Apotex Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406, 420 (2007)
(stating that it is error to look “only to the problem the patentee was trying to
solve”)). On this record, Appellant does not explain why the collective
teachings of the applied prior art, especially Dodt, Horio, and Hong, would
not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to flame laminate the sound­
absorbing foamed-material plate (sheet) to an inner liner before winding the
inner liner and the carcass, respectively prior to vulcanization, as required by
claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming a green tire.
App. Br. 17-20; In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]he test
[for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Appellant contends that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have looked to [Horio, Rucker, Gonzales, and Conlon] for guidance on a
method of creating a laminate of a sound-absorbing member and an inner
liner of a pneumatic tire.” App. Br. 21. Appellant also contends that “none
of these references relate to a tire manufacturing process, and thus . . . one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use such a flame
lamination process during tire manufacturing.” App. Br. 20. However, we
are again not persuaded by these contentions.
As correctly found by the Examiner, Horio, Rucker, Gonzales, and
Conlon are ah directed to bonding a polyurethane foam material with which
12
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
Appellant is concerned from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the
art. Ans. 6; compare Horio 1—4, Rucker col. 5,11. 5-20, Gonzales ^ 28,
or Conlon col. 3,11. 50-55, with Spec. 13. Of these alternatively relied upon
references, Horio, like Appellant, further discloses using a polyurethane
foam material as a sound-absorbing material. Horio 12. In fact, Appellant
does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that “Horio discloses that when
making a polyurethane foam laminate ([0002]) to act as a sound-absorber
(‘sound-absorbing material’ [0002]), it is possible to achieve high
production efficiency (‘working efficiency is excellent’ [0004]) and avoid
the unevenness and high costs of adhesive bond ([0003]) by flame
laminating.” Compare Final Act. 4, with App. Br. 12-21; see also Horio ^fl[
1-4. Thus, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have looked to these references, in particular
Horio, for improving the method disclosed by Appellant and suggested by
Dodt and Hong as they are from analogous art and relevant to the method
suggested by Dodt and Hong. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986—87 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“The analogous-art test requires .. .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. References are selected as being reasonably pertinent to
the problem based on the judgment of a person having ordinary skill in the
art.”). Nor do we find reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent reason or motivation to
employ Horio’s flame lamination process, in lieu of Dodt’s adhesive
lamination process, to bond the polyurethane foam (sound-absorbing
material) on the inner liner layer of the green tire taught by Dodt, for Horio
13
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
discloses various advantages of using a flame lamination process rather than
an adhesive lamination process.
With respect to claims 5, 9, and 11 separately rejected in Rejections 2
through 4, Appellant relies upon the same arguments advanced in connection
with claim 1 discussed supra. App. Br. 26-21. Thus, we also find no
reversible error in the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 9, and 11
set forth in Rejections 2 through 4 for the reasons indicated above.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3,
5, 9, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection 5
Having concluded that the Examiner did not err in rejecting all of the
claims on appeal, we need not reach the decision on Rejection 5 directed to
claims 1 and 9 as it is, at best, cumulative. Cf. In re Basell Poliolefine Italia
S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Having concluded that the
Board properly affirmed the rejection of claims 1—52 of the ’687 patent
based on obviousness-type double patenting in view of the ’987 patent, we
need not address the remaining issues raised by Basell regarding the
§§ 102(b) and 103(a) rejections, as well as the additional double patenting
rejections. Accordingly, the Board's decision is affirmed.”); Beloit Corp. v.
Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (ITC having decided a
dispositive issue, there was no need for the Commission to decide other
issues decided by the presiding officer.)
14
Appeal 2015-007434
Application 12/435,911
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given in the
Final Action, Answer and above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as set forth in
Rejections 1 through 4 above and decline to reach the decision on the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as set
forth in Rejection 5.
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
15