Ex Parte MalinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201713304098 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017) 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. 13/304,098 11/23/2011 Cosmas G. MALIN P41163 6996 7055 7590 02/02/2017 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE RESTON, VA 20191 EXAMINER WRIGHT, PATRICIA KATHRYN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1798 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2017 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): gbpatent@gbpatent.com greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte COSMAS G. MALIN Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 Technology Center 1700 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13, 14, and 16—32. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 13 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 13. A storage cassette for laboratory objects, which forms a plurality of storage sites arranged one above the other to accommodate laboratory objects, the storage cassette comprising: a back wall, two side walls standing perpendicular to the back wall, wherein the side walls and the back wall are formed by sections of a single piece of sheet metal bent towards one another; and bent angle brackets on the back wall and on the two side walls, the bent angle brackets being formed in the piece of sheet metal and being arranged as storage sites on which the laboratory objects are placed. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Dahl US 4,832,195 US 6,129,428 May 23, 1989 Oct. 10, 2000Helwig et al. (hereafter “Helwig”) Gonska et al. US 2001/0043031 Al Nov. 22, 2001 (hereafter “Gonska”) Barbera-Guillem et al. WO 01/83694 A2 Nov. 8, 2001 (hereafter Barbera-Guillem) 2 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 28—30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dahl. Ans. 2. 2. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Dahl. Id. at 5. 3. Claims 21—24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Dahl in view of Helwig. Id. 4. Claim 19, 26, 27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Dahl in view of Gonska. Id. at 6. 5. Claims 13, 14, 16—18, 20 and 25 are rejected under § 103(a) as being obvious over Barbera-Guillem. Id. at 8. 6. Claims 19, 26, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Barbera-Guillem in view of Gonska.1 Id. at 12. 7. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Barbera-Guillem in view of Helwig. Id. at 13. 1 Claim 31 depends upon claim 28, and claim 28 is not rejected over Barbera-Guillem (see Rejection 5). Hence, it appears the inclusion of claim 31 in this rejection is in error, and therefore the rejection of claim 31 is reversed. Reply Br. 21. 3 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 ANALYSIS We consider certain claims separately in this appeal, based upon Appellant’s presented arguments, and these claims are identified, infra. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (iv) (2014). Rejection 1 Rejection 1 involves the rejection of claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 28—30 as being anticipated by Dahl. Claims 14, 16, 17, and 18 are dependent upon claim 13. Claim 25 is an independent claim. Claim 28 is an independent claim, and claims 29 and 30 depend upon claim 28. We consider each of these claims, based upon Appellant’s arguments. With regard to claim 13, one of the claimed elements is “bent angle brackets on the back wall and on the two side walls, the bent angle brackets being formed in the piece of sheet metal and being arranged as storage sites on which the laboratory objects are placed.” The bent angle brackets are item 40 shown in Appellant’s Figure 8, for example (reproduced below). 4 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 40. 39 46, A \_35 Figure 8 depicts a lower end of Appellant’s storage cassette. Item 42 are also bent angle brackets located on the backwall as shown in Appellant’s Figure 7. The Examiner finds that Dahl discloses bent angle brackets on the back wall (item 21 on backwall 12) and on the sidewalls (item 22 on side wall 13). Dahl, Fig. 6. Final Act. 2. Appellant argues that items 21, 22 of Dahl secure shelves 10, and shelves 10 receive the cassette tapes. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that claim 13 recites that the bent angle brackets are arranged as storage sites on which the laboratory objects are placed and that items 21, 22 of Dahl are not storage sites as recited in Appellant’s claims. Appeal Br. 12—13. 5 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 Paragraph [0071] of Appellant’s Specification indicates that the bent angle brackets are support elements for sample plates. The Examiner’s position that items 21, 22 of Dahl are capable of functioning as storage sites for laboratory objects because items 21, 22 of Dahl support shelves 10, is a reasonable position. Ans. 15. Where the Examiner establishes a reasonable assertion of inherency and thereby evinces that a claimed process appears to be identical to a process disclosed by the prior art and/or that the products claimed by the applicant and disclosed in the prior art appear to be the same, the burden is properly shifted to the applicant to show that they are not. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-56 (CCPA 1977). Put differently, the language “arranged as storage sites on which the laboratory objects are placed” is functional. Ans. 15 (stating that “recitation of a storage cassette for laboratory objects is merely an intended use”). While a patent applicant may recite features structurally or functionally, “choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In particular, where there is reason to believe that prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See id.', In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981) (affirming rejections where applicant failed to show that prior art structures were not inherently capable of functioning as claimed invention). 6 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 In the instant case, Appellant has not convinced us that items 21, 22 of Dahl are not capable of functioning as storage sites for laboratory objects. As such, we affirm the rejection of claim 13. With regard to claim 14, claim 14 recites the storage cassette of claim 13 further “comprising at least one of a top part and base part is arranged on a respective at least one of an upper and lower end of the storage cassette, and the at least one top and base part is formed by a bent section of the piece of sheet metal.” Appellant argues that Dahl does not disclose the recited base part or that such a base part is formed from a bent section of the piece of sheet metal, and Dahl does not disclose the top part as recited in claim 14. Appeal Br. 18. We agree. The Examiner’s position, as set forth at page 3 of the Answer, does not adequately explain how the disclosure of Dahl suggests these features recited in claim 14. We thus reverse the rejection of claim 14. With regard to claim 16, claim 16 recites a storage cassette according to claim 13, “wherein at least one of the angle brackets arranged on the back wall is provided with upwardly bent front edge retention elements structured and arranged to securely hold the laboratory objects against slipping.” Appellant argues that Dahl fails to disclose that the bent angle brackets are arranged as storage sites on which the laboratory objects are placed. Appeal Br. 18. However, as discussed, supra, with regard to claim 13, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive in this regard. Moreover, Appellants do not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s finding that Dahl teaches upwardly bent front edge retention elements that meet the claim recitation. Ans. 3. As such, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument 7 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 that Dahl fails to disclose the brackets are structured to securely hold the laboratory objects against slipping. We thus affirm the rejection of claim 16. With regard to claim 17, claim 17 recites the storage cassette of claim 13, further comprising “predetermined bending locations being arranged in the piece of sheet metal in the form of at least one of elongated holes and slots.” Appellants argue that Dahl does not teach this element. Appeal Br. 18—19. The Examiner’s findings are set forth on page 4 of the Answer wherein the Examiner refers to Dahl’s Figure 6 in support of the stated position. However, the Examiner does not adequately explain how Dahl’s Figure 6 shows “predetermined bending locations being arranged in the piece of sheet metal in the form of at least one of elongated holes and slots.” As such, based on the present record and the Examiner’s lack of elaboration as to the Examiner’s position, we are in agreement with Appellant’s position, and reverse the rejection of claim 17. With regard to claim 18, Appellant presents no independent argument. We therefore group claim 18 with claim 13 and affirm the rejection of claim 18 consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). With regard to claim 25, Appellant presents arguments for clam 25 on pages 13—15 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant argues, inter alia, that claim 25 requires that the storage arrangement comprises a chamber (this is depicted in Appellant’s Figure 1 as item 3, for example). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s claim interpretation is flawed with regard to the word “chamber” for the reasons stated in the record. Appeal Br. 13—14. As such, we reverse the rejection of claim 25. 8 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 With regard to claim 28, claim 28 is similar to claim 13, but is directed to a method of forming a storage cassette. For similar reasons that we affirmed the rejection of claim 13, we affirm the rejection of claim 28. With regard to claim 29, claim 29 recites the method according to claim 28, “further comprising bending the single piece of sheet metal to form at least one of a top part and a base part on a respective at least one of an upper and lower end of the storage cassette”. Claim 29 is similar to claim 14, and therefore, for similar reasons discussed with regard to claim 14, we reverse the rejection of claim 29. With regard to claim 30, claim 30 recites the method of claim 28, “further comprising bent angle brackets formed on the piece of sheet metal that are arranged as storage sites on which the laboratory objects are placed”. Claim 28 is similar to claim 13, and therefore, for the reasons discussed with regard to claim 13, we affirm the rejection of claim 30. In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1 with regard to claims 14, 17, 25, and 29. We affirm Rejection 1 with regard to claims 13, 16, 18, 28, and 30. Rejection 2 Rejection 2 involves Appellant’s claim 20. Claim 20 is similar to claim 13, and the Examiner’s position is set forth on page 5 of the Answer. Appellant’s arguments are similar to the arguments presented for claim 13. Appeal Br. 20—24. Appellants note that “the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to modify these documents to include such a plate to determine optimum materials for use,” but, aside from presenting arguments similar to those presented for claim 13, Appellants present no argument as to 9 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 why the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion is incorrect. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). Thus, for similar reasons that we affirmed the rejection of claim 13, we also affirm the rejection of claim 20. Rejection 3 Rejection 3 involves Appellant’s claims 21—24 and 32 (claims 22, 23, and 24 depend upon claim 21, and claim 32 depends upon claim 28). The Examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on pages 5—6 of the Answer. Appellant argues, inter alia, that one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to have looked to Helwig (pertaining to a climate controlled device) to modify the cassette tape carrier of Dahl (hand carrying magnetic tape cartridge). We agree for the reasons expressed by Appellant on pages 24—25 of the Appeal Brief. Notably, the Examiner does not address this point raised by Appellant in the response to argument section on pages 14—18 of the Answer. We also are persuaded by Appellant’s additional arguments regarding horizontal versus vertical storage as set forth on pages 25—27 of the Appeal Brief, and note that the Examiner also does not address this line of argument in the response to argument section on pages 14—18 of the Answer. We thus reverse Rejection 3. Rejection 4 10 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 Rejection 4 involves the rejection of claims 19, 26, 27, and 31. Claims 26 and 27 depend directly or indirectly upon claim 25. Claim 31 depends upon claim 28. Appellant argues, inter alia, that because Dahl is directed to a hand carried magnetic tape cartridge rack that is designed to allow the user to easily insert and remove the cartridges singly or in a group, one skilled in the art would not have looked to a climate controlled enclosure-type storage device, as in Gonska, to seek to modify Dahl as proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 28—32. We agree for the reasons provided by Appellant in the record. Notably, the Examiner does not address this point raised by Appellant in the response to argument section on pages 14—18 of the Answer. We thus reverse Rejection 4. Rejection 52 Rejection 5 is set forth on pages 8—12 of the Answer. Rejection 5 involves the rejection of claims 13, 14, 16—18, 20, and 25 under § 103(a) as being obvious over Barbera-Guillem.3 Appellant’s position for this rejection is set forth on pages 2—18 of the Reply Brief. Therein, Appellant argues claims 13, 20, and 25 separately, and hence we consider these claims in this rejection. With regard to claim 13, Appellant argues that Barbera-Guillem discloses that holder 10 is formed “as an integral one-piece unit such as by 2 The Examiner indicates that Rejections 5, 6, and 7 are new rejections. Ans. 8—18. 3 The Examiner refers to Barbera-Guillem as “Lucus.” Appellants refer to Barbera-Guillem as WO ’694. 11 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 an injection molding process,” citing Barbera-Guillem, p. 8,11. 20 — 23. Reply Br. 5. Appellant also argue that Barbera-Guillem teaches alternatively that the individual walls of holder 10 can be “separately manufactured, and assembled using one or more methods known in the art such as by a snap fit arrangement, gluing with an adhesive, and securing with fastening means (e.g., screws).” Id., p. 8,11. 24—27. Reply Br. 5. Appellant also argues that while Barbera-Guillem discloses that the material composition of the walls/housing is not material to the invention, Barbera- Guillem discloses specific material requirements for constructing holder 10. In particular, Barbera-Guillem discloses that “[i]n a preferred embodiment, holder 10 may be generally molded from synthetic resinous material, such as plastic; and in a more preferred embodiment, the material comprises polyethylene or polypropylene.” Barbera-Guillem, p. 6,11. 18—21. Appellant also argues that Barbera-Guillem prefers materials to avoid prolonged exposure (for the cultured cells) to light, and argue that sheet metal does not provide this, and therefore, such a modification of Barbera- Guillem is not suggested by Barbera-Guillem. Reply Br. 5—6. However, we note that unpreferred embodiments must be taken into consideration also. See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) (“all disclosure of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered”). An appellant “must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” Cf. In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647 (CCPA 1967) and In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 164 (CCPA 1960). Additionally, the Examiner provides sufficient reasoning as to why the choice of material being sheet metal would have been obvious. Ans. 8—9. 12 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 We are thus unpersuaded by Appellant’s aforementioned arguments in this regard. Appellant additionally argues that Barbera-Guillem does not suggest the claim recitation of “bent angle brackets”. Reply Br. 7. The Examiner finds that Barbera-Guillem teaches this feature, and refers to items 50 and 32 of Barbera-Guillem in this regard. Ans. 8. Items 50 and 32 are shown in Figure 7, for example. Figure 7 is reproduced below. r 2 a? 13 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 Figure 7 is a drawing of the holder according to Barbera-Guillem. As Figure 7 shows, items 50 and 32 are not bent (this is contrasted with bent item 40 shown in Appellant’s Figure 8, reproduced, supra). The Examiner does not direct us to other evidence in Barbera-Guillem to support that items 50 and 32 are bent. See Answer generally. The Examiner also states that the process of making the cassette, which includes bending of the sheet metal is not given patentable weight. Ans. 9. However, this is not relevant for the claim term “bent angle brackets” as this is a structural feature of claim 13, as well as for claim 20. See In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, (CCPA 1979) (holding “interbonded by interfusion” to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as “welded,” “intermixed,” “ground in place,” “press fitted,” and “etched” are capable of construction as structural limitations.) In particular, the evidence supports that “bent angle bracket” is a coined term, and given the context of the Specification, we construe “bent angle bracket” as requiring the structure that would result from bending sheet metal as described in the Specification. Spec. 173. Hence, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument on this issue regarding claims 13 and 20, and reverse Rejection 5 regarding these claims. With regard to claim 25, Appellant argues that the claim phrase of “at least one storage cassette having a back wall and two side walls standing perpendicular to the back wall, wherein the side walls and the back wall are formed by sections of a single piece of sheet metal bent towards one another” is not suggested by Barbera-Guillem for the reasons set forth on pages 13—14 of the Reply Brief. However, in this instance, we agree with the Examiner that this phrase involves a product by process limitation that does not distinguish the claim from the teachings of Barbera-Guillem. 14 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Moreover, claim 25 does not recite “bent angle brackets” as discussed above. Thus, in the instant case, Appellant has not demonstrated how the claimed storage cassette is structurally different in an unobvious way. Appellant also reiterates the argument that the choice of the material being sheet metal is not suggested by Barbera-Guillem. Reply Br. 15. However, for the reasons, discussed, supra, with regard to claim 13, we are unpersuaded by this line of argument. In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 5 with respect to independent claims 13 (including its dependent claims 14, 16, 17, and 18) and independent claim 20, but we affirm the rejection with respect to claim 25. Rejection 6 Rejection 6 involves the rejection of claims 19, 26, and 27 as being obvious over Barbera-Guillem in view of Gonska.4 Appellant separately argues claims 19, 26, and 27, discussed below. Reply Br. 18—21. 4 As stated in footnote 1, supra, claim 31 depends upon claim 28, and claim 28 is not rejected over Barbera-Guillem (see Rejection 5). We agree with 15 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 With regard to claim 19, Appellant reiterates the argument that Barbera-Guillem does not suggest walls that are formed by sections of a single piece of sheet metal bent towards one another. This line of argument is not found persuasive for the reasons stated in our previous analysis regarding Rejection 5 (product-by-process limitation). Appellant also argues that Barbera-Guillem in view of Gonska does not suggest a first region of the back wall forming a spacer that delimits at least one second region of the back wall that is set back with respect to the first region. Reply Br. 19—20. The Examiner’s findings regarding this claim feature is set forth on pages 12—13 of the Answer. The Examiner refers to Gonska’s Figure 2 for suggesting this claim feature. However, the Examiner does not adequately explain how Gonska’s Figure 2 indicates such a claim feature. The Examiner appears to recognize this by stating that “[although not explicitly stated in Gonska, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the spacer for the laboratory object and that delimits the second region of the back wall by bending so that it is recessed or set back”. Ans. 12—13. Under the circumstances stated herein, it is apparent that the only teaching or suggestion for modifying Barbera- Guillem in view of Gonska to achieve the here claimed invention derives from the Appellant’s own Specification rather than the applied prior art. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner’s rejection is improperly based upon improper hindsight reasoning. See W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 Appellant that therefore the rejection of claim 31 is in error, and we therefore reverse that rejection. Reply Br. 21. 16 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 (1984) (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher.”). We thus reverse Rejection 6 with respect to claim 19. Because claim 27 similarly recites a spacer delimiting at least one second region of the back wall as a recess or set back area structured to receive the at least one holder element, we also reverse Rejection 6 with respect to claim 27. With regard to claim 26, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the implementation of the extendible scoop of Gonska into the device of Barbera-Guillem is in error because there is no suggestion that an extendible scoop would be able to provide the required tug on the cell culture device of Barbera-Guillem to overcome the locking means of Barbera-Guillem. Reply Br. 20-21. Absent supporting evidence, the Appellant’s assertion amounts to a mere conclusory statement that is entitled to little, if any, probative weight. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 6 with respect to claims 19 and 27. We affirm Rejection 6 with respect to claim 26. Rejection 7 Claims 21—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barbera-Guillem in view of Helwig. The Examiner’s position is set forth on pages 13—14 of the Answer. With regard to claim 21, Appellant argues that the combination of Barbera-Guillem in view of Helwig fails to suggest walls formed by sections 17 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 of a single piece of sheet metal bent towards one another (as recited in claim 19). Reply Br. 23. This line of argument is not found persuasive for the reasons stated in our previous analysis regarding Rejection 5 (product-by process limitation). Appellant also argues that the combination of Barbera-Guillem in view of Helwig does not suggest the equation recited in claim 21. Id. However, this line of argument does not address the Examiner’s stated position in the record. The Examiner states that selection of the value of L, A, and B (such as in the claimed formula) is an obvious design choice based upon requirements such as needed support of the laboratory object while still being accessible to the scoop. Ans. 14. As such, we are unpersuaded by arguments not addressing the merits of the rejection. We thus affirm Rejection 7 with regard to claim 21. With regard to claim 22, Appellant argues that there is no suggestion to modify Barbera-Guillem by implementing the supports of Helwig because Barbera-Guillem involves a one-piece integrally formed injection molded piece. However, as discussed, supra, Barbera-Guillem is not so limited, and teaches that the individual walls of holder 10 can be “separately manufactured, and assembled using one or more methods known in the art such as by a snap fit arrangement, gluing with an adhesive, and securing with fastening means (e.g., screws).” Barbera-Guillem, p. 8,11. 24—27. As such, we are unpersuaded by such argument. With regard to claims 23 and 24, these claims depend upon claim 13, either directly or indirectly, and because the rejection of claim 13 is reversed (see discussion of Rejection 5, supra), the rejection of claims 23 and 24 is also reversed. 18 Appeal 2015-005631 Application 13/304,098 In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 7 with regard to claims 23 and 24. We affirm Rejection 7 with respect to claims 21 and 22. DECISION We reverse Rejection 1 with regard to claims 14, 17, 25, and 29. We affirm Rejection 1 with regard to claims 13, 16, 18, 28, and 30. We affirm Rejection 2. We reverse Rejection 3. We reverse Rejection 4. We reverse Rejection 5 with respect to claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 20, but we affirm the rejection with respect to claim 25. We reverse Rejection 6 with respect to claims 19, 27, and 31. We affirm Rejection 6 with respect to claim 26. We reverse Rejection 7 with regard to claims 23 and 24. We affirm Rejection 7 with respect to claims 21 and 22. TIME PERIOD 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). ORDER AFFIRMED-IN-PART 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation