Ex Parte Lao

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2014

11826436 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUILLERMO LAO
____________

Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Guillermo Lao (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 2-46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

THE INVENTION
Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
2. A computer-implemented method for using one or
more items in accordance with one or more usage rights, the
method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a request from a user
to use one or more items on the computing device;
receiving, by the computing device, an identification
element from a server, wherein the identification element is
stored in a subscription database on the server and is associated
with the user and corresponding user information in the
subscription database, the computing device supporting at least
one of: more than one user and more than one identification
element from the subscription database;
storing, by a secure component on the computing device,
the identification element received from the server, wherein the
secure component is used for enforcing the one or more usage
rights;
receiving, by the computing device, the one or more
items and the one or more usage rights, wherein the one or

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Feb. 4, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Apr. 20,
2011).
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

3
more items are encrypted, the one or more usage rights control
use of the one or more items, and the one or more usage rights
are associated with the identification element; and
decrypting, by the secure component on the computing
device, the one or more items on the computing device for the
requested use of the one or more items, the requested use being
permitted by the one or more usage rights and the one or more
usage rights being associated with the identification element.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Ginter US 5,892,900 Apr. 6, 1999
Headings US 2002/0083006 A1 Jun. 27, 2002

The following rejections are before us for review: 2
1. Claims 2-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
2. Claims 2-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention.3
3. Claims 2-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ginter and Headings.

2 Appellant’s arguments with respect to the Examiner’s objection are not
within the purview of the Board, and as such, will not be addressed on
appeal.
3 This statement of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
applied to all claims on appeal covers three separate rejections.
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

4
ISSUES
Does the Examiner err in finding that the application fails to provide
adequate written descriptive support for the step of “decrypting, by the
secure component on the computing device, the one or more items,” as
recited in independent claims 2, 29, and similarly recited in claims 11, 20,
and 38?
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
there are two issues: (a) whether the Examiner errs in determining that
claims 2 and 29 are indefinite when given the broadest reasonable
construction in light of the Specification, and (b) whether the Examiner errs
in determining that the Specification lacks adequate disclosure of the
structures corresponding to the functions recited in the means-plus-functions
clauses found in independent claims 11, 20, and 38, to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of
§ 112.
Does the Examiner establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the
claimed subject matter over the prior art combinations?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 2-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.

The Examiner takes the position that the step “decrypting, by the
secure component on the computing device, the one or more items,” as
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

5
recited in claims 2 and 29, “is not specifically disclosed in the original
written disclosure.” Ans. 4. Independent claims 11, 20, and 38 recite a
similar limitation and are similarly rejected. Ans. 4-5. While
acknowledging that the disclosure provides adequate support for a
“decrypting” step, the Examiner asserts there is no support that ties the
“decrypting” to a secure component on the computing device, as the
amended claim requires. Ans. 4-5.
The Appellant responds by reproducing paragraph [0032] of the
instant Specification, which states:
Because items of protected content 108 are encrypted or
otherwise protected, they cannot be used by end users 114
without licenses 116 and software package 103 as a security
component. DRM system 100 includes an activation device
such as activation server 102 that is adapted to issue software
package 103 to a usage device such as client 106 to allow one
or more end users 114 to use a plurality of items of protected
content 108.
Br. 10 (bold added).
The Appellant points out that paragraph [0032] of the instant
Specification provides support which ties the claimed decryption step to the
secure component. Br. 10.
We have carefully reviewed the Specification and find the facts weigh
in favor of the Appellant’s position. Compliance with the written
description requirement is a question of fact. Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-
Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In our view, these statements in the Specification, among others (see
e.g., para. [0018]), provide sufficient detail so “that one skilled in the art can
clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention [i.e.,
wherein the ‘decrypting’ step is performed by the secure component on the
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

6
computing device] as of the filing date sought.” In re Alonso, 545 F.3d
1015, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2008). While not using the exact words, the
Specification at paragraph [0032] does describe the software package as a
security component being issued to the client device to allow the end user to
use the protected content. Thus, the Examiner has not established, given the
above descriptions, that the Specification fails to support the limitations
recited in claims 2, 11, 20, 29, and 38.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2, 11, 20, 29, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. The rejection of claims 2-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reversed.

The rejection of claims 2-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite.
Claims 2-10 and 29-37

The Examiner rejects independent claims 2 and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite because “the instant
Specification does not specifically disclose the claim term ‘secure
component.’” Ans. 6. While acknowledging the Specification implicitly
teaches that secure component comprises “a secure processor, secure
storage, or secure rendering devices along with certified (trusted) software
applications,” the Examiner determines that it is unclear what component
represents a secure component on the computing device. Ans. 6. Thus, the
Examiner finds the phrases “storing, by a secure component on the
computing device” and “decrypting, by the secure component on the
computing device,” as recited by independent claims 2 and 29 to be unclear.
Ans. 6.
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

7
The difficulty with the Examiner’s position is that no claim
construction analysis has been done. “That determination [for definiteness]
requires a construction of the claims according to the familiar canons of
claim construction. Only after a thorough attempt to understand the
meaning of a claim has failed to resolve material ambiguities can one
conclude that the claim is invalid for indefiniteness.” All Dental Prodx, LLC
v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Part
of that determination is to read the claims in light of the Specification. “The
requirement that the claims ‘particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[]’
the invention is met when a person experienced in the field of the invention
would understand the scope of the subject matter that is patented when the
claim is read in conjunction with the rest of the specification.” S3 Inc. v.
NVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Only then can a
determination be made that the claimed subject matter is so unclear as to rise
to the level of indefiniteness as proscribed by the second paragraph of § 112.
Cf. Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have held that a claim is not indefinite merely because
it poses a difficult issue of claim construction; if the claim is subject to
construction, i.e., it is not insolubly ambiguous, it is not invalid for
indefiniteness. That is, if the meaning of the claim is discernible, ‘even
though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over
which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently
clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds.’ Exxon Research &
Eng’g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal
citation omitted).”)
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

8
Accordingly, we find that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The rejection of claims 2-10 and 29-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.

Claims 11-28 and 38-46

The Examiner rejected independent claims 11, 20, and 38 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention. Ans. 6-9. The Examiner finds
the “means for receiving a request from a user of a device to use one or more
items on the device,” as recited by claims 11, 20, and 38, invokes 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph, and as such, must be construed to cover the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
equivalents thereof. Ans. 7.
According to the Examiner:
11. In the instant application, the following portions of the
specification and drawings may appear to describe the
corresponding structure for performing the claimed function(s):
¶0011, receiving a request from the at least one user to access
the at least one item; ¶0026, user make a request for the
protected content; ¶0033, license request is made based on
request from a user; ¶0035, request on behalf of user; Fig. 5 and
¶0037 receiving content request; ¶0041, request on behalf of
user; ¶0052, company sending request for license.

12. However, the specification and drawings do not disclose
sufficient corresponding structure, material or acts for
performing the claimed function: It appears the claimed means
for receiving a request from a user, are broadly defined on
¶0018; ¶0026; ¶0028; ¶0033; ¶0035; ¶0037 and broadly shown
in Fig. 1. However, the specification does not specifically
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

9
disclose the specific machine performing the functions, rather
discloses multiple computing devices capable of performing
functions. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose
algorithm as to how the recited function is performed.
Therefore, the Appellant[] ha[s] failed to adequately describe
sufficient structure for performing the claimed means.
Ans. 8.
The Appellant disagrees, arguing:
According to the M.P.E.P., “[t]he disclosure of the structure (or
material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it
would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or
material or acts) corresponds to the means (or step )-plus-function
claim limitation” [citations omitted]. Therefore, the means-plus-
function elements recited in independent claims 11, 20, and 38 should
be construed to include structure described in the specification. In
particular, the specification explains, in paragraphs [0031], and
[0058]-[0061].

. . . .

Thus, the structure in the specification includes computing
devices that can be programmed to execute the claimed function.
Moreover, the specification explains, for example, that “software
package, and public and private key pair can be a single executable
file and data files, or plural files or modules stored on the same device
or on different devices.” Id., paragraph [0059]. Indeed, the
specification generally discusses “documents or other content in forms
readable by computers.” Id., paragraph [0003]. Thus, the structure in
the specification also includes software stored on a device in a form
readable by the computing devices, i.e., computer-readable media.
Therefore, Appellant[] respectfully submit[s] that it would be clear to
one of ordinary skill in the art that the functions in the mean-plus-
function elements of claims 11, 20, and 38 are structurally embodied
in the computer-readable media and structurally executed by
computing devices.
Br. 12-13.
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

10
The Examiner correctly invokes means-plus-function treatment. A
claim limitation that includes the term “means” is presumed to be intended
to invoke means-plus-function treatment, i.e., treatment under 35 U.S.C.
§112, 6th paragraph. Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294,
1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he court has presumed an applicant advisedly
used the word ‘means’ to invoke the statutory mandates for means-plus-
function clauses.”) The Appellant has not disputed that such treatment
applies to the claims at issue. Br. 11. When the presumption is not rebutted,
as here, means-plus-function claim language must be construed in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, by “look[ing] to the
specification and interpret[ing] that language in light of the corresponding
structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the
extent that the specification provides such disclosure.” In re Donaldson Co.,
16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The Examiner concedes that the Specification provides disclosure of
structures corresponding to the functions recited in the means-plus-functions
clauses of the claims. But the Examiner finds the disclosure inadequate; that
is, the Examiner found the Appellant in effect failed to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of
section 112. “[I]f one employs means-plus-function language in a claim,
one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what
is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate
disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section
112.” Id. at 1195.
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

11
Having carefully reviewed the Specification, we agree with the
Examiner that the Appellant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.
Where there is no dispute that this limitation is written in means-plus-
function form and falls under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, (Section 112, paragraph
6 provides: “An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a
means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
structure . . . in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover
the corresponding structure . . . described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (2000).), the first step in the
construction of a means-plus-function claim element is to identify the
particular claimed function. Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The second step in the analysis is to
look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that
function. Id. Under this second step, “structure disclosed in the
specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or
prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,
1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Independent claim 11 is directed to a system comprising five elements
– all of which are in means-plus-function format. Independent claim 20 is
directed to an apparatus comprising the same five means-plus-function
elements and independent claim 38 is directed to a similar system
comprising six means-plus-function elements. There is no dispute that the
functions set forth in all the means-plus-function clauses in claims 11, 20,
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

12
and 38 are implemented on a computer. The particular claimed functions of
exemplary independent claim 11 are means for:
o receiving a request from a user of a device to use one or more
items on the device;
o receiving an identification element from a server, wherein the
identification element is stored in a subscription database on the
server and is associated with the user of the device and
corresponding user information in the subscription database, the
device supporting at least one of: more than one user and more
than one identification element from the subscription database;
o storing the identification element received from the server in a
secure component on the device, wherein the secure component
is used for enforcing the one or more usage rights;
o receiving the one or more items and the one or more usage
rights, wherein the one or more items are encrypted, the one or
more usage rights control use of the one or more items, and the
one or more usage rights are associated with the identification
element; and
o decrypting, using the secure component, the one or more items
for the requested use of the one or more items if the requested
use is permitted by the one or more usage rights and if the one
or more usage rights are associated with the identification
element.

The Appellant points to paragraphs [0031], and [0058]-[0061] of the
Specification as disclosing the corresponding structure for these functions.
Br. 12-13. These are reproduced below:
[0031] In addition, it should be understood that whereas terms
“server” and “client” are used below to describe the devices for
implementing the present invention in the embodiment discussed
herein, these terms should be broadly understood to mean any
appropriate device for executing the function described. For instance,
a personal computer, laptop, PDA or other hand held device, PDAs, or
any other general purpose programmable computer, or combination of
such devices, such as a network of computers may be used.

Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

13
[0058] It should again be understood that whereas the terms “server”
and “client” are used to describe the devices for implementing the
present invention in the illustrated embodiments above, these terms
should be broadly understood to mean any appropriate device or
devices for executing the described function.

[0059] Communication between the various devices can be
accomplished through any channel, such as a local area network
(LAN), the Internet, serial communications ports, and the like. The
communications channels can use wireless technology, such as radio
frequency or infra-red technology. The various elements of the
preferred embodiment such as the various servers and databases
connected thereto are segregated by function for the purpose of
clarity. However, the various elements can be combined into one
device or segregated in a different manner. For example, software
package, and public and private key pair can be a single executable
file and data files, or plural files or modules stored on the same device
or on different devices. The software package can be any exchange of
information that permits license activation and need not include a
rendering application, a public key can be any type of identification
tag or code. Further, the function of the various devices can be
combined. For example, a single device can accomplish the function
of license server 110 activation server 102, subscription list manager
120, and client 106. Also, the functions can be combined or
segregated into any number and configuration of devices. The various
components and modules have separate utility and may exist alone or
in combination.

[0060] Any protocols, data types, or data structures can be used in
accordance with the invention. Moreover, any appropriate means of
expressing usage rights and conditions may be used in implementing
the present invention. For instance, as previously noted, a rights
language, e.g. a grammar such as XrMLTM can be used.

[0061] While various embodiments in accordance with the present
invention have been shown and described, it is understood that the
invention is not limited thereto. The present invention may be
changed, modified and further applied by those skilled in the art.
Therefore, this invention is not limited to the detail shown and
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

14
described previously, but also includes all such changes and
modifications as are encompassed by the appended claims and legal
equivalents.

We do not see in these passages any mention of the functions recited
in the means-plus-function clauses of the claims. It is impossible to
determine the structure that the Specification is disclosing as the
“corresponding” structure because these passages do not clearly link or
associate any structure to the functions recited in the claims. At best, these
passages provide a list of known software-driven devices that can be used to
perform any and all the recited functions. However, “a bare statement that
known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure” in the
context of a means-plus-function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters
Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Simply disclosing
software, however, ‘without providing some detail about the means to
accomplish the function[,] is not enough.’” Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit, Inc.,
675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV
Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). “[W]hile it is true that
the patentee need not disclose details of structures well known in the art, the
specification must nonetheless disclose some structure.” Default Proof
Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (d/b/a The Home Deport),
412 F.3d 1291, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted).
Here the Specification provides a list of software-driven devices but
no details, no examples, and no explanation of how any of the software in
the devices performs the recited functions.
Simply put,
[a] patentee cannot avoid providing specificity as to structure
simply because someone of ordinary skill in the art would be
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

15
able to devise a means to perform the claimed function. To
allow that form of claiming under section 112, paragraph 6,
would allow the patentee to claim all possible means of
achieving a function.
Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed.Circ.
2009). “Section 112, paragraph 6, is intended to prevent such pure
functional claiming. Id. (citing Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l
Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008)].” Function Media,
L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, the rejection as to independent claims 11, 20, and 38,
and their dependent claims 12-19, 21-28, and 39-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite, is sustained.

Claims 29-37
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29-37. The
rejection of claims 29-37 is based on the Examiner’s finding that claim 29 is
indefinite because it recites “creating, by a server, an identification element
stored in a subscription database of the server.” Ans. 9. The Appellant does
not argue that this is error, but instead offers to “amend this claim element to
‘creating, by a server, an identification element to be stored in a subscription
database of the server.’” Br. 13. Thus, the Appellant has not provided any
analysis or findings as to why the rejection against claims 29-37 should be
reversed.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 29-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite, is sustained.

Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

16

Obviousness
Claims 2-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ginter and Headings.

Claims 11-46
The rejection of claims 11-46 is reversed pro forma. As discussed
above, we find claims 11-46 indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. The rejection of claims 11-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
prior art must fall, pro forma, as being necessarily based on speculative
assumptions as to the scope of these claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,
862-63 (CCPA 1962). Our decision in this regard is based solely on the
indefiniteness of the subject matter and does not reflect on the adequacy of
the prior art evidence applied in support of the rejection.

Claims 2-10
The Appellant argues independent claim 2-10 as a group (Br. 14-20).
We select claim 2 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 3-10 stand or fall with claim 2. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Appellant argues that a combination of Ginter and Headings fails
to disclose or suggest “receiving, by the computing device, an identification
element from a server, wherein the identification element is stored in a
subscription database on the server and is associated with the user and
corresponding user information in the subscription database, the computing
device supporting at least one of: more than one user and more than one
identification element from the subscription database,” as recited by claim 2.
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

17
Br. 15-20. Specifically, the Appellant argues that Ginter fails to disclose a
computing device which supports “at least one of: more than one user and
more than one identification element from the subscription database”
because the device in Ginter is associated with a single certificate for
rights/content protection, and as such, does not teach or suggest “a
subscription model that associates an identification element with a
subscription user on a client device, where the client device supports more
than one user and more than one identification element.” Br. 18.
The argument is unpersuasive as to error in the rejection. Contrary to
the Appellant’s argument, we agree with the Examiner that Ginter discloses
a “computing device” which supports “more than one user” and “more than
one identification element.” Ans. 22-24. As the Examiner points out, Ginter
describes several different multi-user electronic devices including a wide-
range of computers containing one or more microprocessors, cable TV
decoders, and multimedia players which provide a distributed virtual
distribution environment (VDE) (col. 62:24-50). Ginter discloses that
different users using a VDE node are assigned unique user IDs which allows
different users to maintain different rights at the VDE node (col. 293:13-48).
Ginter also discloses that its users are able to move their subscription (i.e.,
rights) from one machine to another and define an account with a distributor
or clearinghouse that is independent of the electronic appliance (col. 291:33-
41). Neither the claim nor the Specification provides any specific details
about the type of “computing device” to be used and, so, it is reasonable to
assume the claimed method covers employing an electronic device similar to
type disclosed by Ginter. Thus, we find the Appellant’s argument that the
Appeal 2011-011574
Application 11/826,436

18
device in Ginter is only associated with a single certificate for rights/content
protection to be unsupported.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-10.

CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 2-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement is reversed.
The first rejection of claims 2-10 and 29-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite is reversed.
The second rejection of claims 11-28 and 38-46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite is affirmed.
The third rejection of claims 29-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite is uncontested.
The rejection of claims 2-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ginter and Headings is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 11-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ginter and Headings is reversed pro forma.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2-46 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

llw