Ex Parte Manotas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

12712493 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121712,493 02/25/2010
52558 7590 06/20/2016
PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEM
COMPANY OF AMERICA
776 HWY 74 SOUTH
c/o Panasonic Legal
PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jesus Manotas JR.
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11123.1076US 2800
EXAMINER
GRANT, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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 JESUS MAN OT AS JR. 1
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is Panasonic
Automotive Systems Company of America, a division of Panasonic
Corporation of North America. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a power system for a vehicle,
vehicles comprising the power system, and associated methods. E.g., Spec.
i-f 1; Claims 1, 16. Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 23 (Claims
Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:
1. A vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle power system including a bi-directional inverter, the bi-
directional inverter having:
an alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC) inverter
configured to receive AC power from a power grid and
generate DC power on a DC bus operatively coupled to a
vehicle battery;
a DC to AC inverter configured to receive DC power from the
DC bus and generate AC power delivered to the power grid;
an energy management system operatively coupled to the AC
to DC inverter and the DC to AC inverter and configured to
selectively operate the bi-directional inverter in a charging
mode or a generation mode; and
a power line communications (PLC) coupler configured to
transfer electronic data between the energy management
system and a power plant network through the power grid;
wherein the energy management system is configured to
automatically generate a charge/generation schedule based, at
least in part, on electricity rates received from the power plant
network through the power grid.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Kaplan et al. (US 2008/0052145 Al, published Feb. 28, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
2. Claims 2-5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kaplan in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2008/0185197 Al,
published Aug. 7, 2008).
3. Claims 9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kaplan in view of Yamada (US 2008/0119982 Al,
published May 22, 2008).
4. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kaplan in view of Yamada and Nakamura.
5. Claims 15, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kaplan in view of Yamada and Kelty et al. (US
2009/0021385 Al, published Jan. 22, 2009).
6. Claims 16 and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kaplan in view of Gale et al. (US 2008/0203 973 A 1,
published Aug. 28, 2008).
7. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kaplan in view of Yamada and Gale.
ANALYSIS
Rejections 1and2
Concerning claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Kaplan
discloses a vehicle comprising "a vehicle power system including ... an
energy management system ... configured to automatically generate a
charge/ generation scheduled based, at least in part, on electricity rates
3
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
received from the power plant network through the power grid." Final Act.
5---6.
Concerning the limitations "an energy management system ...
configured to automatically generate a charge/generation schedule based, at
least in part, on electricity rates received from the power plant network
through the power grid," the Examiner relies on i-fi-143, 81, 93, and 114 of
Kaplan for teaching those limitations. Final. Act. 5-6. Paragraph 43 of
Kaplan describes an exemplary power aggregation system, of which
"electric resources 112" are a part. Paragraph 81 teaches that an electric
vehicle is considered to be an "electric resource 112." Paragraph 45 teaches
that "each participating electric resource 112 ... has a corresponding remote
intelligent power flow (IPF) module 134," which is administered by a
"centralized flow control center 102." The flow control center 102 includes
constraint optimizer 710. See Kaplan Figs. 1 & 7. Paragraph 93 teaches that
The constraint optimizer 710 combines information from the
prediction engine 704, the data warehouse 716, and the contract
manager 720 to generate resource control signals that will satisfy
the system constraints. For example, the constraint optimizer
710 can signal an electric vehicle 200 to charge its battery bank
202 at a certain charging rate and later to discharge the battery
bank 202 for uploading power to the power grid 114 at a certain
upload rate: the power transfer rates and the timing schedules of
the power transfers optimized to fit the tracked individual
connect and disconnect behavior of the particular electric vehicle
200 and also optimized to fit a daily power supply and demand
"breathing cycle" of the power grid 114.
A person of ordinary skill would understand those disclosures, as a whole, to
teach that the constraint optimizer 710 is responsible for generating a
charge/ discharge schedule based on various factors, and that the IPF module
134 implements the schedule.
4
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
The Appellant argues that "optimizer 710 is not part of a vehicle or a
vehicle power system." App. Br. 12. The Appellant argues that, "as shown
in Fig. 7 [of Kaplan], constraint optimizer 710 is part of flow control server
106, which, as shown in Fig. 1, is far removed at the top of the page from the
vehicles at the bottom of the page." Id.
We agree with the Appellant. The Examiner does not dispute that
optimizer 710 generates the charge/ discharge schedule, but instead argues
that the claim "only requires the optimizer to be part of the vehicle power
system, the claim does not require all the components to be contained inside
of the body of the vehicle." Ans. 4. The plain language of the claim,
however, makes clear that the vehicle power system is itself part of the
vehicle, as it recites "[a] vehicle, comprising: a vehicle power system
including a bi-directional inverter, the bi-directional invert having ... [an]
energy management system ... configured to automatically generate a
charge/ generation schedule .... " (emphasis added). The Examiner has
identified nothing in the Appellant's claims or Specification indicating that
claim 1 permits the charge/ generation schedule to be generated by a separate
component that is not part of the vehicle, such as a remote constraint
optimizer 710 which is part of a remote flow control center 102. See Kaplan
Figs. 1 & 7. Nor has the Examiner adequately explained why the constraint
optimizer 710, which appears to be both distinct from and remote from any
vehicle power system (which the Examiner does not clearly identify), should
be considered to be part of the vehicle power system. See id.
On this record, we are not persuaded that a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1. We are
therefore constrained to reverse the rejection.
5
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
Because claims 2-5, 7, and 8 (subject to Rejection 2) depend, directly
or indirectly, from claim 1, and the Examiner's rejection of those claims
does not remedy the error identified above, we likewise must reverse the
Examiner's rejection of those claims.
Rejection 3
The Appellant presents separate arguments for claims 9 and 13, which
we address in tum below. Claim 12 will stand or fall with claim 9, from
which it depends.
Claim 9. Independent claim 9 recites:
A vehicle comprising:
a battery configured to provide power to at least one vehicle
system;
an AC to DC inverter configured to receive AC power from a
power grid and generate DC power on a DC bus;
a DC to AC inverter configured to receive DC power from the
nc bus and generate AC pmver delivered to the pmver grid;
an energy management system operatively coupled to the AC to
DC inverter and the DC to AC inverter and configured to
selectively operate the bidirectional inverter in a charging mode
or a generation mode; and
a vehicle network communicatively coupled to the power grid
for communicating with the power plant network and the energy
management system, the vehicle network configured to provide
connectivity and electronic communications between a plurality
of media devices, the media devices including a DVD player, a
vehicle audio system, a rear view camera, a vehicle instrument
cluster and/or a navigation system;
wherein the energy management system is configured to
communicate with a power plant network through the power
grid.
6
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
The Examiner finds that Kaplan teaches each element of claim 9
except that "Kaplan does not expressly disclose the vehicle network
configured to provide connectivity and electronic communication between a
plurality of media devices." Final Act. 9. However, the Examiner finds that
"Yamada discloses the vehicle network configured to provide connectivity
and electronic communication between a vehicle instrument cluster ... and a
navigation system." Id. The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been
obvious ... to use a[] navigation system as taught by Yamada, in order to
have greater knowledge and control over the charging and discharging of the
vehicle of Kaplan, by using a system that monitors the vehicle usage and
travel." Id. at 9-10.
The Appellant argues that "the vehicle network of Yamada is not
communicatively coupled to a power grid, as required by claim 9 ," and that
"neither Kaplan nor Yamada discloses a vehicle network communicatively
coupled to a power grid for communicating with a power plant network and
an energy management system." App. Br. 17.
That argument is not persuasive because it does not address the
Examiner's rationale. The Examiner acknowledges that Yamada does not
teach coupling of the vehicle network to the power grid, but finds that the
combination of Yamada and Kaplan would have motivated a person of
ordinary skill in the art to communicatively couple a vehicle network to a
power grid to "track[] vehicle usage" and provide "greater control over the
charging and discharging of Kaplan's vehicle." Ans. 5. The Appellant's
argument provides no basis to reject the Examiner's findings.
Moreover, and notwithstanding the Examiner's finding that Kaplan
does not expressly disclose a vehicle network, see Final Act. 9, Kaplan does
7
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
disclose a vehicle network. Neither the Appellant nor the Examiner defines
"vehicle network." The Specification does not expressly define the term, but
it makes clear that the vehicle network is part of the vehicle itself, see Spec.
i-f 8, and that the "vehicle network ... may provide connectivity between a
variety of devices in the vehicle," such as "media devices ... , a vehicle
audio system, rear view camera, vehicle instrument cluster, global
positioning system (GPS) navigation system, a wireless network, and the
like," Spec. i-f 29. The broadest reasonable interpretation of "vehicle
network" consistent with the Specification is a network that provides
connectivity among devices in a vehicle.
In view of that interpretation, Kaplan's disclosure of "an intra-vehicle
communications mechanism that enables communication with other vehicle
components," Kaplan i-f 122, teaches or suggests a vehicle network. Kaplan
also teaches "logging select vehicle operation data for later analysis and
consumption," id. i-f 137, and the use of a GPS, id. i-f 154. Kaplan also
teaches "data collection" that "can include distance driven and both
electrical and non-electrical fuel usage, to allow derivation and analysis of
overall vehicle efficiency." Id. i-f 201. Such data can be "display[ed] on an
in-vehicle user interface." Id. Kaplan also discloses the use of "intelligent
charging" in which the system "learns the vehicle behavior and adapts the
charging timing automatically." Id. i-f 202. A person of ordinary skill would
recognize a GPS and a display that includes a user interface to be "media
devices," as recited by claim 9, that constitute "other vehicle components"
that would be connected via the "intra-vehicle communications mechanism"
taught by Kaplan. It would have been obvious to configure Kaplan's vehicle
network, in addition to its energy management system, to receive electronic
8
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
communications from the power plant network through the power grid to
facilitate and/or enhance the functions described above.
The arguments presented by the Appellant do not persuade us that the
Examiner committed reversible error in rejecting claim 9.
Claim 13. Claim 13 depends from claim 9 and recites:
The vehicle of claim 9, comprising a user interface
communicatively coupled to the vehicle network wherein the
user interface may be used to initiate the charging mode and the
generation mode through the energy management system, and
wherein the user interface is configured to display information
received from the power plant network, the information
including an electricity rate schedule.
The Examiner finds that Kaplan teaches a "user interface [that] may
be used to initiate the charging mode and the generation mode through the
energy management system ... and wherein the user interface is configured
to display information received from the power plant network, the
information including an electricity rate schedule .... " Final Act. 10 (citing
Kaplan i-fi-178, 93, 95 & Fig. 22).
The Appellant argues that "Kaplan does not disclose a schedule of
rates of monetary costs of electricity. Thus, Kaplan does not disclose or
suggest a user interface displaying information received from a power plant
network, the information including an electricity rate schedule, as recited by
claim 13." App. Br. 18.
Even if we were to agree that Kaplan does not expressly disclose the
display of an electricity rate schedule on a user interface, the Examiner
rejects claim 13 as obvious over Kaplan in view of Yamada-not as
anticipated by Kaplan. "[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
9
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." See KSR Int'! Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007). As explained above, Kaplan
teaches "data collection" that "can include distance driven and both
electrical and non-electrical fuel usage, to allow derivation and analysis of
overall vehicle efficiency." Kaplan i-f 201. Such data can be "display[ed] on
an in-vehicle user interface." Id. Kaplan also discloses the use of
"intelligent charging" in which the system "learns the vehicle behavior and
adapts the charging timing automatically." Id. i-f 202. Paragraph 93 teaches
battery charging based on "charging rate[s]," "upload rate[s]," and "power
transfer rate[s]." Paragraph 184 teaches that "vehicle owners can experience
reduced charging cost by avoiding peak time rates." Kaplan also teaches the
use of "real-time energy prices" in connection with its power aggregation
system. Id. i-fi-1 64, 88.
As a whole, those disclosures teach or suggest the display of data on a
user interface and the scheduling of charging times based on real-time
energy prices in order to reduce charging costs. In view of those disclosures,
it would have been obvious to use the in-vehicle user interface to display
information received from the power plant network, including an electricity
rate schedule. The Appellant's arguments focus on whether Kaplan
expressly teaches the disputed limitation and do not meaningfully explain
why the disputed limitation would not have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in light of Kaplan's teachings as a whole.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
10
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
Rejection 4
The Appellant presents arguments with respect to claim 2, which we
did not address above due to its dependence from claim 1, the rejection of
which we reverse. The Appellant renews those arguments with respect to
claim 11, which recites subject matter similar to that of claim 2. See App.
Br. 18-19. Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and recites:
The vehicle of claim 9, comprising a first PLC coupler
configured to transfer electronic data between the energy
management system and the power grid and a second PLC
coupler configured to transfer electronic data between the vehicle
network and the power grid.
The Examiner relies on Kaplan for the teaching of a PLC coupler
coupled to an energy management system, described above (see, e.g.,
Kaplan Fig. 8), and on Nakamura i-fi-18 and 13 for the teaching of a PLC
coupler coupled to a vehicle network. Final Act. 5-7 (discussing claims 1
and 2), 10-11 (discussing claim 11). Those paragraphs ofNakamura
describe communications between a hybrid vehicle and an apparatus
external to the vehicle "by [a] communication device through the electric
power line." Nakamura i-f 13. Such an arrangement has the benefit of
allowing "various pieces of information [to] be exchanged between the
hybrid vehicle and the apparatus external to the vehicle without additionally
providing a communication cable." Id. i18. Paragraph 13 teaches that
"[ w ]hen the communication with the apparatus external to the vehicle is
being performed ... , the control unit outputs the instruction to the electric
motor to stop the electric motor." The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would
have been obvious ... to combine the teachings of Nakamura, and provide a
11
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
second PLC in the vehicle in order to allow communication directly to the
power plant from the vehicle of Kaplan and Yamada." Final Act. 11.
The Appellant argues that "Nakamura does not disclose anything
more than Kaplan discloses," and that, "because electric power is
transmitted to and from the external apparatus ... it may be assumed that
some type of power management controller of the hybrid vehicle
communicates with the external apparatus." App. Br. 14--15. The Appellant
further argues that the "'control unit' disclosed in paragraph 13 of Nakamura
is analogous to the 'energy management system' recited in Appellant's
claim 1," and that "[t]here is nothing in paragraph 13 of Nakamura that is
analogous to the 'vehicle network' recited in Appellant's claim 2." Id. at 15.
Those arguments do not persuade us of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. Nakamura discloses a network that provides
connectivity between at least the electric motor of the vehicle and the control
unit. Nakamura i-f 13. The Appellant's limited argument does not provide a
persuasive explanation as to why the network of Nakamura described above
does not constitute a "vehicle network" under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of that term consistent with the Specification, discussed above.
On this record, we agree with the Examiner that Nakamura discloses a PLC
coupler communicatively coupled to a vehicle network.
While the Examiner did not find that Nakamura discloses two PLC
couplers, or that Nakamura's PLC coupler is configured to receive electronic
communications from the power plant network through the power grid, other
than the arguments discussed above the Appellant does not meaningfully
challenged the Examiner's conclusion that "[i]t would have been obvious ...
to combine the teachings of Nakamura, and provide a second PLC in the
12
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
vehicle in order to allow communication directly to the power plant from the
vehicle of Kaplan and Yamada." Final Act. 11. In that regard, and as
explained above, we note that Kaplan itself teaches or suggests a vehicle
network, e.g., Kaplan i-fi-1122 (an intra-vehicle communications mechanism
that enables communication with other vehicle components), "logging select
vehicle operation data for later analysis and consumption," id. ,-r 137, and the
use of a GPS, id. ,-r 154. Kaplan also teaches "data collection" that "can
include distance driven and both electrical and non-electrical fuel usage, to
allow derivation and analysis of overall vehicle efficiency." Id. ,-r 201. Such
data can be "display[ ed] on an in-vehicle user interface." Id. Kaplan also
discloses the use of "intelligent charging" in which the system "learns the
vehicle behavior and adapts the charging timing automatically." Id. ,-r 202.
Thus, it would have been obvious to configure Kaplan's vehicle network to
receive electronic communications from the power plant network through
the power grid to facilitate and/or enhance the functions described above. It
would have been obvious to achieve that through the use of either the same
PLC coupler used by the energy management system or by a separate PLC
coupler, as suggested by Nakamura, communicatively coupled to the vehicle
network. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007)
(use of a known element according to its established function typically does
not result in nonobvious subject matter).
The arguments presented by the Appellant do not persuade us that the
Examiner committed reversible error in concluding that claim 11 would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
13
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
Rejection 5
The Appellant presents arguments only for claim 15. Claims 23 and
24, which depend from claim 15, will stand or fall with claim 15. Claim 15
depends from claim 9 and recites:
The vehicle of claim 9, wherein a global positioning system
(GPS) navigation system is communicatively coupled to the
vehicle network and configured to send travel data to the energy
management system, the travel data including a distance of a
prior trip, a driving time of a prior trip, electricity usage of a prior
trip, an average speed of a prior trip, a vehicle usage period of a
prior trip, and/or information about a future trip received from a
trip-planning feature of the navigation system, wherein the
energy management system is configured to automatically
determine a charge/generation schedule based, at least in part, on
the travel data.
The Examiner finds that Yamada teaches a GPS that "includes the
travel data including a distance ... , a driving time ... , electricity usage ...
," and other information. Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds that Kelty
discloses a GPS system that is "communicatively coupled to the vehicle
network and configured to send travel data to the energy management
system, wherein the energy management system is configured to
automatically determine a charge/generation schedule, based, at least in part,
on the travel data." Id. at 12. The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill ... to use the GPS as taught by
Kelty, in the system of Kaplan and Yamada, in order to monitor and adjust
the cost of electricity depending upon where you are driving to." Id.
The Appellant argues that Kelty's GPS device "is only capable of
providing a current location of the vehicle." App. Br. 20.
14
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
That argument is not persuasive. As noted above, the Examiner
makes specific findings about Kelty i-f 36, see Final Act. 12, and, in the
Answer, further explains that "Kelty's system clearly shows that the charge
is based upon travel between first and second home, which charge is
dependent upon the predetermined distance between the two locations."
Ans. 6; see also Kelty i-f 36. The Appellant's argument fails to address those
findings and asserts, with no persuasive elaboration, that Kelty does not
teach the limitation recited by claim 15. See App. Br. 20. That argument
does not show reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. Cf In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (even ifthe examiner failed to make a
prima facie case, the Board would not have erred in framing the issue as one
of reversible error because "it has long been the Board's practice to require
an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections"); In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art").
Moreover, the Examiner does not rely on Kelty alone in rejecting
claim 15. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references."). The Examiner
also relies on Yamada as disclosing the collection of travel data. See Final
Act. 11. The Appellant's argument, which focuses on Kelty, does show
reversible error in the obviousness combination proposed by the Examiner.
Further, and as explained above, Kaplan teaches "logging select
vehicle operation data for later analysis and consumption," Kaplan i-f 137,
15
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
and the use of a GPS, id. if 154. Kaplan also teaches "data collection" that
"can include distance driven and both electrical and non-electrical fuel
usage, to allow derivation and analysis of overall vehicle efficiency."
Id. if 201. Kaplan also discloses the use of "intelligent charging" in which
the system "learns the vehicle behavior and adapts the charging timing
automatically." Id. if 202. In view of those disclosures and the portions of
Yamada and Kelty cited by the Examiner, claim 15 would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Rejection 6
The Appellant requests reversal of Rejection 6 because independent
"claim 16 recites subject matter substantially similar to the subject matter of
claim 1." App. Br. 21. Claim 1, however, stands rejected as anticipated by
Kaplan, while independent claim 16 stands rejected as obvious in view of
Kaplan and Gale. The Appellant presents no arguments directed to the
Examiner's obviousness rationale. See id. ~v1oreover, independent claim 16
is directed to a method, not a vehicle, and it does not include the limitation
"wherein the energy management system is configured to automatically
generate a charge/generation schedule based, at least in part, on electricity
rates ... ,"which was the basis for our reversal of the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claim 1, discussed above. While the Appellant
emphasizes claim 16's recitation of"a rate of monetary cost of electricity,"
see App. Br. 21, for reasons discussed above, that recitation does not impart
patentable distinction to claim 16. See, e.g., Kaplan if 64 (discussing real-
time energy prices), if 88 (same), if 93 (discussing charging rate, upload rate,
and power transfer rate), if 184 (discussing peak time rates). On this record,
16
Appeal2014-009661
Application 12/712,493
we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim
16.
Claim 21 is also subject to Rejection 6, but it depends from claim 1.
See App. Br. 21. Because the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 does not
remedy the error identified above concerning claim 1, we must reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
The Appellant presents no arguments for the other claims subject to
Rejection 6, all of which depend from claim 16. Because we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claim 16, we likewise affirm the Examiner's
rejection of those claims.
Rejection 7
The Appellant requests reversal of the Examiner's rejection of claim
22, subject to Rejection 7, for the same reasons discussed above with respect
to claim 13. See App. Br. 21. Because we affirm the Examiner's rejection
of claim 13, we likewise affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 22.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 9, 11-13, 15, 16,
18-20, and 22-24.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2-5, 7, 8, and
21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17