Ex Parte Lucas et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 16, 201311634621 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/634,621 12/06/2006 Tommie Lucas 530055.437 5342 500 7590 09/16/2013 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC 701 FIFTH AVE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER WELLINGTON, ANDREA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3722 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/16/2013 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 TOMMIE LUCAS, NEIL HOLLIS SLATER, and DENNIS LEE EPSTEIN ____________ Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, NEIL T. POWELL, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Tommie Lucas, Neil Hollis Slater, and Dennis Lee Epstein (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1- 21 and 25-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to “a novel food slicer with improved safety features.” Spec., p. 1, ll. 9-10. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A mandolin cutter, comprising: a frame having a first frame member and a second frame member; a first food support surface and a second food support surface, the first and second food support surfaces between the first and second frame members; a cutting member configured to be inserted into and removed from a space between the first and second food support surfaces, the cutting member having a cutting edge; a food carrier rail coupled to the first frame member, the food carrier rail extending substantially parallel to, separate from and higher than the first and second food support surfaces; a food carrier rotatably coupled to the food carrier rail, the food carrier configured to receive a food article and to be movable along the food carrier rail to pass over the first and second food support surfaces when the food carrier is moved along the food carrier rail; Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 3 and a slicing thickness adjustment mechanism configured to vary a vertical distance between the cutting edge of the cutting member and the first food support surface. EVIDENCE The Examiner relies on the following evidence: Weed US 126,115 Apr. 23, 1872 Winberg US 2,685,315 Aug. 3, 1954 Knight US 2,912,757 Nov. 17, 1959 Denman US 5,662,019 Sep. 2, 1997 Koerselman US 2004/0200366 A1 Oct. 14, 2004 Wangler US 2006/0075872 A1 Apr. 13, 2006 Vincent US 7,107,890 B2 Sep. 19, 2006 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11-13, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, and Wangler. Ans. 3. Claims 2, 14-21, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, Wangler, and Weed. Ans. 7. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, Wangler, and Knight. Ans. 7. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, Wangler, and Winberg. Ans. 8. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, Wangler, and Vincent. Ans. 9. Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 4 ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11-13, and 25-27 under § 103(a) The Examiner finds that Koerselman teaches a frame having first and second frame members, a first food support surface 7 and a second food support surface 6 located between the first and second frame members, and a cutting member 8 located between the first and second food support surfaces and having a cutting edge 9. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Koerselman also teaches food carrier rails that include, referring to Figure 3, the upper triangular-shaped portion of Koerselman’s longitudinal edge 2 that is located above the surface 6, the food carrier rails being coupled to and located above the frame members. Id. The Examiner then finds that Koerselman teaches a handle 13 rotatably coupled to the food carrier rail, and Koerselman’s food carrier 10 receives food and moves along the food carrier rail to pass over the first and second food support surfaces 6, 7 and press a food article onto the support surfaces 6. Id. The Examiner finds that Koerselman does not teach the food carrier rails being separate from the support surfaces 6, 7, and being attached to the frame members via fastening members that extend higher than the support surfaces 6, 7, or the food carrier rail being a metal tube with a length approximately as long as the combined support surfaces. Id. The Examiner also finds that Koerselman does not teach a slicing thickness adjustment mechanism configured to adjust the distance between its cutting edge 9 and its first food support surface 7, the blade being removably coupled to the first and second frame members in a space between the first and second food support surfaces 6, 7, or a plurality of vertical blades disposed on a member Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 5 that is removable, or the use of a plurality of cutting members 8 configured to be inserted into and removed from the space between the first and second food support surfaces by way of openings in side portions both the first and second frame members. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner finds that Denman teaches that it is old and well known in the art of cutting devices to locate the blade 13 within the work support surface 16 and to attach the rotatable work piece carrier 28 to the support surface 16 via a work piece carrier rail 30 that is separate from and higher than the work support surface 16. Ans. 5. The Examiner also finds that Denman’s work piece carrier rail 30 is a metal tube that has approximately the same length as the entire work support surface, and is attached to the frame 24 by a plurality of fasteners 32, 34, 60 that extend higher than the work piece support surface 16. Id. The Examiner concludes that “because both [Koerselman] and Denman teach means for rotatably and translatably attaching a food carrier to a frame member of a cutting device, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute” Denman’s rail means for Koerselman’s rail “to achieve the predictable result of rotatably and translatably attaching the food carrier to the device.” Ans. 5-6. The Examiner finds that Wangler teaches a slicing device comprising a slicing thickness adjustment mechanism 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 having a camshaft 44 traversing frame members 16, 17 and supporting a cam 40 allowing a user to adjust the height between a trailing edge of a first support surface 22 and cutting edges of removable blade cartridges 25, 27 that are insertable and removable from openings in the frame members. Ans. 6. The Examiner also finds that one of Wangler’s removable blade cartridge 25 has Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 6 a blade that is coplanar with a second food support surface 20 and Wangler’s other removable blade cartridge 27 has blades disposed vertically and perpendicular to the planes of both support surfaces. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have modified Koerselman to include Wangler’s thickness adjustment mechanism and removable blades, because doing so would provide a means to adjust slicing thickness while also allowing a user to cut the food in many ways to increase the overall utility of the device. Id. The Examiner then concludes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the vertical adjustment in a range between about zero and one-half inch because “discovering the workable or optimum adjustable range would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired food material thickness range.” Id. Analogous Art Appellants initially argue that Denman and Winberg are non- analogous art to mandolin cutters. App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 9-10. The Examiner responds that a reference is analogous art if it is within the field of an applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Ans. 10 (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The Examiner defines Appellants’ field of endeavor to be holding and pushing a cutting tool and a cutting surface for supporting a work piece during cutting, and the Examiner defines the problem with which Appellants were concerned as incorporation of a rotatable carrier onto a device having a work support surface and a cutting member found within the work support surface. Id. Appellants offer no alternative definitions for the field of their endeavor or problem to be solved. Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 7 The Examiner finds that Denman is within Appellants’ field of endeavor and pertinent to the particular problem because Denman discloses a cutting device with a blade located in a work support surface, wherein a work piece is moved across the work support surface with a rotatable and movable work holder. Id. The Examiner further finds that Winberg teaches a known configuration for a work support surface designed to support a food item during cutting, which the Examiner considers to be within Appellants’ field of endeavor. Ans. 10-11. The Examiner concludes that one skilled in the art would look to any cutting tool where a work piece is slid relative to a blade for ideas on how to improve safe operation of a mandolin cutter, such cutting tools including deli slicers and table saws, which are both considerably more dangerous than a mandolin cutter because they are electrically powered. Ans. 11. We agree with the Examiner that Denman and Winberg are pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned, as defined by the Examiner, and that Denman and Winberg are therefore analogous prior art. Independent Claims 1, 13, and 25 Claims 1 and 25 recite a food carrier rail coupled to the first frame member and extending parallel to, separate from, and higher than the first and second food support surfaces. Claim 13 recites “means for rotating the means for transversely moving the food article along an axis extending parallel to the means for supporting the food article, the means for rotating separate from and higher than the means for supporting the food article.” Appellants allege that the means for transversely moving the food article is the food carrier 90, the means for rotating is the food carrier rail 86 (App. Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 8 Br. 24), and the means for supporting a food article includes the first and second support surfaces 38, 40 (App. Br. 34). Appellants argue that the upper triangular portion of Koerselman’s element 2 is not the claimed separate food carrier rail coupled to the frame, because the upper triangular portion of Koerselman’s element 2 is “unitary with the device body, not a separately coupled part of the device body.” App. Br. 16-17. Appellants also argue, to this point, that Koerselman’s guide 14, which attaches its food carrier 10 to element 2, latches onto both the upper and lower portions of element 2, such that the “[t]he entire longitudinal edge 2 is required so that the food holder 10 is guided along the device body.” App. Br. 18. Appellants also argue that the Examiner arbitrarily segments Koerselman’s element 2 to meet multiple claim limitations, and that it is improper to rely on the same structure to meet two different claim limitations. App. Br. 18 (citations omitted). The Examiner responds that Koerselman’s element 2 allows the food carrier to couple to the mandolin cutter, and that Koerselman need not teach all of the claimed characteristics of a carrier rail because the Examiner relies on the teachings of Denman that it is known to attach a separate, higher, tubular carrier rail 30 to a cutting device for the purpose of attaching the rotatable food carrier in a manner that would allow the food carrier to rest on the material to be cut in a direction perpendicular to the cutting direction. Ans. 11. We agree with the Examiner. Even if Koerselman’s element 2 does not teach the claimed parallel, separate, and tubular carrier rail, its element 2 supports the food carrier and allows it to pivot, and the Examiner finds that Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 9 Denman teaches the claimed parallel, separate, tubular carrier rail performing the same function. Appellants next argue that Koerselman cannot be properly combined with Wangler to provide a removable cutting member, because Koerselman’s paragraphs [0006] and [0020] teaches against having removable or interchangeable blades, and because the Examiner’s proposed modification would “render Koerselman's simple and cheap design unsatisfactory for the stated purpose of having a single fixed blade that is rigidly connected to the one-piece body 1.” App. Br. 20-21. The Examiner responds that, though Koerselman “teaches against using adjustable and interchangeable blades, Koerselman does not state the device will not work with these type of blades.” Ans. 13. The Examiner notes that adjustable and interchangeable blades, as evidenced by Wangler, “are old and well known in the cutting art and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand both the risks and rewards associated with fixed and non- fixed blades and make a decision on how to construct a cutting device based on what he or she wanted the cutting device to accomplish.” Id. We agree with the Examiner that, although Koerselman discloses that interchangeable blades are difficult to store safely, one skilled in the art would, in light of such teachings, “understand both the risks and rewards associated with fixed and non-fixed blades and make a decision on how to construct a cutting device based on what he or she wanted the cutting device to accomplish.” See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”); Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 10 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding Koerselman teaching against removable blades. Appellants then argue that the Examiner’s proposed combination of references “would involve substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in the Koerselman reference and would change the basic principle under which the Koerselman reference construction was designed to operate.” App. Br. 21. The Examiner responds that making Koerselman’s blades adjustable and interchangeable does not change the basic principle of Koerselman, because Koerselman will still slice food products, and that although Koerselman mentions safety concerns with using adjustable and interchangeable blades, Koerselman does not state its device will not work with these type of blades. Ans. 12-13. Also, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of the secondary reference can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but rather what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those skilled in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants have not alleged, with particularity, why one skilled in the art would not have been able to combine Koerselman, Denman, Wangler as suggested by the Examiner, or why combining Denman and Wangler with Koerselman in accordance with the Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 11 knowledge of one skilled in the art would have changed the principle of operation of Koerselman. We are therefore not persuaded by this argument. Appellants also argue that modifying Koerselman to include the slicing adjustment mechanism of Wangler is improper and against the teachings of Koerselman, because Wangler’s blades and cam 25, 27, 41 are “located on the side of the frame and would block the movement of Koerselman's guide 14 along the longitudinal edge 2 of the device body 1,” and that the technical challenges of combining Koerselman and Wangler would deter one of ordinary skill in the art from the Examiner's proposed modification. App. Br. 22-23. Again we note that, in accordance with In re Keller, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of the secondary reference can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but rather what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those skilled in the art. Appellants’ arguments have not convinced us that one skilled in the art would not have been able to work around the location of Wangler’s blades relative to Koerselman’s guide, and would have been deterred by the technical challenges of combining Koerselman and Wangler. Appellants further argue that “substantial reconstruction and redesign of Koerselman . . . would be required to modify it with the power driven wood cutting saw mechanisms of Denman” and that the “Examiner has not provided any support for why or how such modifications would be made in light of the teachings of Koerselman.” App. Br. 25. The Examiner responds that “a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton . . . . [O]ne of ordinary skill would have no problem incorporating the teachings of Wangler into the Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 12 device of Koerselman in such a way that the entire device would function properly.” Ans. 13-14. The Examiner also notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary, but rather what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 14 (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). We agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art would have the knowledge and creativity needed to incorporate Denman’s carrier rail teaching into Koerselman’s device, and are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments to the contrary. We note that the Examiner is not proposing to combine any of Denman’s power driven elements, such as the saw blade, into Koerselman. We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellants also argue that Denman is directed to cutting wood and therefore it cannot teach either a food carrier or a food carrier rail. App. Br. 25. Despite possible references to Denman’s carrier rail as a food carrier rail, the Examiner acknowledges that Denman discloses a table saw and makes clear that he relies on the teachings of Koerselman, not Denman, for providing a food carrier rail, and we therefore are not persuaded by this argument. Appellants then argue that the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness because “the critical underlying factual inquiries of Graham v. John Deere Co. have not been addressed.” App. Br. 24, 25. This argument is conclusory. In addition, the Examiner made detailed findings regarding both the teachings of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claims. While the Examiner did not make a detailed finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the level of Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 13 ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the prior art references. See In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). We are not persuaded by this argument. We sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 25 for the reasons set forth above. Claims 5, 7, and 10 Claims 5, 7, and 10 fall with claim 1. App. Br. 14. Claims 2 and 28 Claim 2 recites “a handle coupled to the food carrier in a position such that when the food carrier rests on the frame, the handle is not above the cutting member, the handle configured to allow a user to move the food carrier translationally along the food carrier rail by the handle.” Appellants argue that the handle of Weed is incompatible with the combination of Koerselman, Denman, and Wangler because Weed is not intended to press on the food being cut, but rather to have food enter the cutting hopper under their own weight. App. Br. 26. Appellants also argue that combining Weed with the other references would not result in a handle coupled to the food carrier, because the rod of Weed “is not coupled to any food carrier and sticks out the back of the vegetable cutter in the same plane as the blade” so that “a user would not be able to apply a downward mechanical force on the food items while moving the food carrier back and forth past the cutting member.” Id. at 27. We note that Weed’s handle (or rod) C moves a knife carriage B relative to vegetables in a hopper F. See, e.g., Weed, p. 1, fig. 1. Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 14 The Examiner responds that Weed’s handle is coupled to a food carrier at a location that is not above a cutting member, and that there is no reason why a user could not press down on a handle incorporated into the device of Koerselman. Ans. 14. The Examiner notes that claim 2 does not require the handle to facilitate a downward force, and that there is no reason why a user couldn't have a first hand on member 13 pushing down and [a] second hand pushing with the handle from behind. In this scenario the first hand would be protected by the base plate (11) and the second hand would be located in a position away from the blades and out of harms way . . . . Ans. 14-15. The Examiner, however, does not address the fact that Weed’s handle is not coupled to a food carrier as claimed, but rather is coupled to a knife carriage. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 2. Claim 28 depends from claim 2, and we therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 28 for at least the same reason. Claim 3 Claim 3 recites a “fastener coupled to the first frame member and the food carrier rail,” the fastener being separate from and extending higher than the food support surfaces, and holding “a portion of the food carrier rail separate from and higher than the . . . food support surfaces.” Appellants argue that Denman’s mounting blocks are not coupled to a frame member, but rather to a rip fence 20 on top of the table saw 10 and separate from the table 14 or its frame. App. Br. 28. The Examiner responds that, in combining Koerselman and Denman, one skilled in the art would understand that the rail of Denman would need to be attached adjacent to a frame member, and that a fastener extending Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 15 between the rail and the rest of the cutter would inherently be coupled to all other parts of the cutter, including the frame, and that claim does not require that the fastener be coupled directly to the frame. Ans. 15. We agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art would understand that Denman’s fasteners (i.e., mounting blocks) would be coupled directly or indirectly to its frame, and that direct connection of the fasteners to the frame is not recited in claim 3. We therefore are not persuaded by this argument and we sustain the rejection of claim 3. Claims 4, 6, 8, 11, and 14-21 Although presented under separate headings, Appellants do not provide any separate arguments for claims 4, 6, 8, 11, and 14-21 relying instead on the arguments set forth with respect to claims 1 and 13. App. Br. 28-30. We therefore sustain the rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth above regarding claims 1 and 13. Claim 25 In addition to the arguments set forth above, Appellants make the same argument regarding independent claim 25 that were made regarding dependent claim 3. App. Br. 31-32. We are not persuaded by these argument for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 3. Claim 26 Appellants again argue that “the structure of Koerselman makes it incompatible with the removable blades of Wangler.” App. Br. 32. We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons set forth above. Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 16 Claims 13-21 Also regarding claims 13-21, which are means-plus-function claims, Appellants argue that “the Examiner has failed to meet the standard of In re Donaldson in the rejections of the means plus functions claims” by failing to determine structure in Appellants’ Specification that performs the claimed function. App. Br. 34. The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation “is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The next step in construing a means-plus- function claim limitation “is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Id. at 1297. As explained in In re Donaldson, “the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Rather, the PTO must look to the Specification and construe the “means” language recited in the claim as limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification and equivalents thereof. Id. Here, although the Examiner did not explicitly construe the means limitations presented in the claims, the Examiner’s analysis in the rejections included the structure recited in Appellants’ Specification as performing the claimed function. For example, the Examiner’s analysis of the device of claim 1 included the structure corresponding to the means of claim 13. This fact is evidenced by Appellants’ own construction of the means limitations set forth on pages 34-35 of the Appeal Brief. We are therefore not persuaded by this argument. Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 17 Claims 1-21 and 25-27 Regarding claims 1-21 and 25-27, Appellants argue that table saws (Denman) and demi meat slicers (Wangler) are not reasonably pertinent to the particular problems solved by Appellants’ mandolin slicer, and are not within the same field of endeavor as a mandolin slicer. App. Br. 38. The Examiner responds that although deli slicers and power saws are different from mandolin cutters, they each perform the function of slicing a work piece into multiple products using human interaction, and that one skilled in the art could therefore look to any of these devices “to search for ways to improve safety, cutting consistency, or prevent unwanted results.” Ans. 17-18. The Examiner also responds that the rejection does not modify a mandolin cutter with a table saw, but rather modifies an attachment means of a traversing work carrier for a cutting tool. Ans. 18. We agree with the Examiner and note that Appellants do not define either the problem solved or the field of endeavor. Appellants also argue that, even if Koerselman, Denman, and Wangler are analogous art, one skilled in the art would not have combined Denman’s table saw and Wangler’s deli meat slicer with Koerselman’s mandolin slicer as proposed by the Examiner. App. Br. 39. We again note that, in accordance with In re Keller, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of the secondary reference can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but rather what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those skilled in the art. Appellants have not explained with particularity why one skilled in the art would not have combined Denman’s table saw and Appeal 2011-008033 Application 11/634,621 18 Wangler’s deli meat slicer with Koerselman’s mandolin slicer as proposed by the Examiner. We therefore are not persuaded by this argument. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11-13, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, and Wangler. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 14-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, Wangler, and Weed. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 2 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, Wangler, and Weed. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, Wangler, and Knight. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, Wangler, and Winberg. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koerselman, Denman, Wangler, and Vincent. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation