Ex Parte Niknezhad

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12828143 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/828,143 06/30/2010
22145 7590 06/30/2016
KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP
16755 VON KARMAN AVENUE
SUITE 275
IRVINE, CA 92606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sidney Niknezhad
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.
1129-038.101 6268
EXAMINER
FOSTER, NICHOLAS L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
KOS_Docketing@koslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIDNEY NIKNEZHAD
Appeal 2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
Technology Center 3600
Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, LISA M. GUIJT, and MARK A. GEIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sidney Niknezhad (Appellant) 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22. An oral hearing was
conducted on June 24, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bal Seal Engineering, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A seal assembly comprising a locking ring and a singularly
formed seal body comprising two cavities each defined in part by
a sealing lip for sealing against a surface; wherein the two sealing
lips each includes a tip that points in an opposite direction from
one another; and wherein a spring comprising a plurality of coils
is located in at least one of the two cavities.
THE REJECTIONS 3
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Balsells '904 (US 5,979,904; iss. Nov. 9, 1999).
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Balsells '838 (US 6,161,838; iss. Dec. 19, 2000), or alternatively, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Balsells '838.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Balsells '904 or Balsells '838.
2 Appellant's Claims Appendix as included in the Appeal Brief is incorrect,
in that it presumes a proposed amendment to claim 5, which accompanied
the Appeal Brief on August 12, 2013, would be entered. As explained by
the Examiner, the Amendment was not proper under 37 C.F.R. § 41.33(b}-
(c). See Adv. Act. (dated Aug. 23, 2013). Therefore, it is not admitted.
Accordingly, the claims, as amended on November 28, 2012, are the claims
subject to appeal. Therefore, quotations to the claims refer to the
Amendment dated November 28, 2012 ("Amendment").
3 Figures 1---6 have been objected to by the Examiner, however, the
objection is not subject to this appeal. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1078 (BP AI) (precedential) (for a discussion of petitionable matters versus
appealable matters).
2
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
OPINION
Claim 5-35 US.C. § 112,firstparagraph
Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1. The Examiner finds that
claim 5 recites "a locking ring" in addition to the locking ring recited in
claim 1, and determines that because the Specification does not disclose
more than one locking ring, claim 5 fails to comply with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Final Act. 4.
Appellant attempted to amend the recitation in claim 5 of "a locking ring" to
"the locking ring," however, that amendment is not admitted. Adv. Act.
(dated Aug. 23, 2013). Because Appellant does not present any arguments
in response to the Examiner's rejection, we summarily sustain this rejection.
See Appeal Br. 8-33; Reply Br. 4--19.
Claims 1 and 3 -Anticipation by Balsells '904
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
inside flange 18 of the body portion of seal ring 12, as disclosed in Balsells
'904, corresponds to one of the claimed sealing lips, and that "the unlabeled
portion proximate reference line 24" of the body portion of seal ring 12, as
disclosed in Balsells '904, corresponds to the other claimed sealing lip, and
that both of these structures from Balsells '904 "are capable of being
installed and/or used such that they contact a surface." Final Act. 5; Ans. 3-
4. In particular, the Examiner finds that the unlabeled portion proximate
reference line 24 is "shaped as a lip" (Ans. 4), and that "[the] lip (proximate
24) may be installed such that it contacts a radial wall of a housing, given a
step shaped shaft may contact the shaft, or given sufficient pressure acting
3
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
on it, would expand in order to contact a constant diameter shaft" (Final Act.
5). 4
Appellant argues that the Examiner's findings are unsupported,
speculative, and/or incorrect. Appeal Br. 10-14. Appellant submits that
Balsells '904 describes the unlabeled portion proximate reference line 24 as
"smooth cylindrical exterior surface 24," such that (sealing) contact "would
require installing the seal assembly off-axis or slanted or forming a seal with
a side surface that is NOT a sealing lip." Id. at 9, 10 (citing Balsells '904,
col. 3, 11. 34--35). Moreover, Appellant contends that contact alone is not
enough-"a surface that merely touches a shaft or surface without more is
not considered a sealing lip." Reply Br. 7. Appellant also submits that
Balsells '904 does not ascribe any sealing functions to this portion, nor does
Balsells '904 disclose any biasing force that would allow this portion of the
seal ring body to be capable of functioning as a seal within seal assembly 10.
Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 7. Appellant concludes that (1) the Examiner's
finding that the unlabeled portion proximate reference line 24 could contact
a radial wall of a housing to form a seal is incorrect, because such a
configuration would not result in the unlabeled portion proximate reference
line 24 (a bottom surface of seal body 14 with a tapered comer) contacting
(or sealing against) the radial (vertical) wall (Appeal Br. 11); (2) the
Examiner's finding that the use of a step shaped shaft could create a surface
4 The Examiner alternatively finds that the claim limitation "sealing lip for
sealing against a surface" is a recitation of intended use "given little
patentable weight." Ans. 3. However, the sealing function of the lip is
required by the use of the claim term "sealing lip" and not by the recitation
of intended use "for sealing against a surface." Therefore, the sealing
function of the lip is entitled to patentable weight.
4
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
for sealing contact with the unlabeled portion proximate reference line 24 is
speculative and would result in undesirable high friction (id. at 12-13); and
(3) the Examiner's finding that pressures could expand the unlabeled portion
proximate reference line 24 to cause sealing contact with a surface is
incorrect because, for example, pressure would also act from below the
unlabeled portion proximate reference line 24 (id. at 13-14).
We agree with Appellant that Balsells '904 lacks sufficient support for
the Examiner's finding that the unlabeled portion proximate reference line
24 of the body portion of seal ring 12 is disclosed as a sealing lip, as
claimed. The Examiner's finding that such portion of surface 24 may
contact another surface is not a finding that such surface 24 is in sealing
contact with another surface. Balsells '904 describes flanges 18, 20 as
sealing against a shaft and housing, respectively, but is silent with respect to
any sealing contact between the smooth cylindrical exterior surface 24 of
body portion 14 of seal ring 12 and any other surface. Balsells '904, col. 3,
11. 42--46. In addition, the Examiner's finding that the unlabeled portion
proximate reference line 24 is capable of sealing, for example, against a
hypothetical radial wall or stepped shaft, or in certain pressurized
environments, is based on unfounded assumptions and speculation
concerning structures not expressly disclosed in Balsells '904. Moreover,
the unlabeled portion proximate reference line 24 is not disclosed in Balsells
'904 as being capable of sealing. The structure of Balsells '904 would have
to be modified by or supplemented with some other undisclosed structure in
order for such portion of surface 24 to be a sealing lip. Therefore, we cannot
find by a preponderance of the evidence that the unlabeled portion proximate
reference line 24 is a sealing lip.
5
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 as anticipated by Balsells '904, and claim 3 depending
therefrom.
Claims 1-22-Anticipation by Balsells '838
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
seals 498, 500 of Balsells '838 disclose "a singularly formed seal body," as
claimed, because when installed, seals 498, 500 "are a single functional
piece." Final Act. 6 (citing Balsells '838, Fig. 32). The Examiner also finds
that seals 498, 500 of Balsells '83 8 are "singularly formed" because the
claim term "singularly formed" includes "a body [] regardless of how many
distinct pieces [are] formed into one single unit." Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that claim 1, which requires "a singularly formed
seal body," is not anticipated by two separate seal bodies, as disclosed by
Balsells '838. Appeal Br. 18 (citing Balsells '838, col. 4, 11. 20-24, see also
id., Figs. 32, 33); Reply Br. 12-13. Moreover, Appellant submits that the
claim term "singularly formed" cannot be interpreted to mean one single unit
formed from distinct pieces. Reply Br. 12-13. In support, Appellant points
to the Specification, which states that "seal body 13 is singularly made or
formed, i.e., a unitary formed body" (Spec. i-f 24) and that "seal body 13 may
be singularly formed ... or made from two or more components and
assembled into an integral unit" (Spec. i-f 25 (emphasis added)). Id. at 13.
Appellant concludes that because the Specification distinguishes between a
singularly formed body and one made from two or more components, the
claim term "singularly formed" cannot be interpreted to mean one single unit
formed from distinct pieces as proposed by the Examiner. Id.
6
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
We agree with Appellant. During examination, claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the
Specification makes clear that forming the seal body singularly means
making the seal body as a unitary body, as opposed to making the seal body
from two or more components assembled into an integral unit. Spec. iii! 24,
25. Because the Examiner's finding requires the claimed seal body to be
formed from seals 498, 500 of Balsells '838, which are not a unitary unit but
two components assembled together into an integral unit, the Examiner's
finding lacks support. In addition, that seals 498, 500 may function together
when placed end-to-end does not transform them into a singularly formed
seal, as claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 2-8 depending therefrom as anticipated by
Balsells '838.
Independent claim 9 and dependent claims 10-15
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Balsells '83 8 discloses forming a
seal body comprising two cavities each defined in part by a sealing lip, as
required by claim 9. Final Act. 9 (citing Balsells '838, Fig. 32). The
Examiner further finds that Balsells '83 8 discloses engaging a locking ring
to the seal body so that the locking ring defines part of one of the two
cavities. Id. (citing Balsells '838, Fig. 32).
First, Appellant argues that although Balsells '83 8 "shows two
locking rings forming part of two cavities, claim 9 recites ... a single
locking ring 'defines part of one of the two cavities."' Appeal Br. 20. The
Examiner correctly responds that because claim 9 uses the transitional term
7
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
"comprising," claim 9 does not limit the structure of the claimed seal
assembly to a single locking ring, but rather allows structures (such as a
second locking ring) in addition to the claimed locking ring, as long as at
least one locking ring meets the recitations of claim 9. Ans. 9. Notably,
claim 9 does not recite "a single locking ring" but only "a locking ring."
Thus, Appellant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the subject
matter claimed. In addition, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's finding that at least one of the locking rings, as shown in Figure
32 of Balsells '838, defines part of one of the two cavities, as required by
claim 9.
Second, Appellant argues that Figure 32 of Balsells '838 "does not
disclose 'forming a seal body comprising two cavities each defined in part
by a sealing lip."' Appeal Br. 20. Rather, Appellant contends that Balsells
'838 discloses two seal bodies each having a single cavity. Id. Appellant
contends that "by reciting 'a seal body comprising two cavities each defined
in part by a sealing lip,' claim 9 describes a body with two sealing lips in a
different manner than reciting the words 'singularly formed seal body'
recited in claim 1," but that "[the] end result [is] nonetheless the same."
Reply Br. 13.
Although claim 1 requires the seal body to be "singularly formed,"
claim 9 only requires "forming a seal body" and does not further limit the
formation of the seal body as singularly formed or made from two or more
components that are assembled into an integral unit, as discussed supra with
respect to claim 1. Further, an ordinary definition of the claim term "form,"
consistent with the Specification, is "to serve to make up or constitute"
(WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 893 (1993)), and as noted supra,
8
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
the Specification discloses that "seal body 13 may be singularly formed ...
or made from two or more components and assembled into an integral unit"
(Spec. i-f 25 (emphasis added)); see also Spec. i-f 36 ("[V]arious seal bodies
may be formed using multiple components, ... while still maintaining a
double direction seal characteristic."). Thus, we are not apprised of error in
the Examiner's finding that together seals 498, 500 of Balsells '838 are two
components that serve to make up or constitute a seal body, and therefore
disclose "forming a seal body," as recited in claim 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 9. Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 10-15, which depend from claim 9, and therefore, we
also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 10-15.
Independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-22
Regarding independent claim 16, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
seals 498, 500 of Balsells '838 "when installed ... are integrally formed,"
and therefore disclose "an integrally formed seal body," as recited in claim
16. Final Act. 10. Appellant argues that claim 16 requires that "the seal is
constructed of a single piece." Appeal Br. 21. Appellant further contends
that "[ t ]he integration or integrally formed components are between the first
material and the second material, which the claim language clarifies as
between the seal body and the locking ring." Reply Br. 14.
Claim 16 recites, in relevant part, "[a] seal assembly comprising an
integrally formed seal body made of a first material ... ; [and] a locking ring
... made of a second material and attached to the seal body .... "
Amendment 5. Thus, we do not agree with Appellant's interpretation of
claim 16, stated supra, that "integrally formed" defines the relationship
9
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
between the seal body and locking ring, which are limited to "being
attached." Rather, the claim term "integrally formed" modifies the seal
body. We also do not agree with Appellant's contention, stated supra, that
the claim term "integrally formed" means that the seal body is "constructed
of a single piece." An ordinary definition of the term "integral," in light of
the Specification, is "of, relating to, or serving to form a whole" (WEBSTER'S
THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 1173 (1993)). Thus, we are not apprised of
error in the Examiner's finding that seals 498, 500 of Balsells '838 serve to
form a whole seal body.
Appellant also argues that claim 16 requires a single locking ring,
which is not anticipated by the disclosure in Balsells '83 8 of two locking
rings. Appeal Br. 21-22. We disagree for the reasons stated supra with
respect to claim 1, noting independent claim 16 also uses the transitional
term "comprising."
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 16. Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 18-22, which depend from claim 16, and therefore,
we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 18-22.
Dependent claim 17
Regarding dependent claim 17, the Examiner finds Balsells '83 8
discloses, in Figure 32, "the locking ring has several notches and has
multiple portions that can be considered cantilevered" (Final Act. 11) and
further that "each locking ring has a cantilever beam and [] a notch for
receiving [an] inner end of the ring" (Ans. 10). Appellant argues that Figure
32 "shows two different locking rings," but "does not disclose a notch or a
cantilever beam on the locking ring located adjacent a notch, nor is any
10
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
analogous feature shown." Appeal Br. 22. Appellant contends that Balsells
'83 8 "discloses a locking ring with a gap formed between the housing and
the outer edge of the cantilever portion of the locking ring," which is
"outside of the scope of claim 17." Reply Br. 15.
Claim 1 7 recites, "wherein the locking ring comprises a cantilever
beam and a notch." Amendment 5. Claim 1 7 does not require the cantilever
beam to be adjacent to the notch, as argued by Appellant, and Appellant
does not specify with any particularity why the cantilever beams of each
locking ring in Figure 32 of Balsells '838, which appear to have a notch or
indentation in their surfaces, does not meet the limitations of claim 1 7.
Thus, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's finding that Figure 32
of Balsells '83 8 depicts at least one notch and a cantilever beam.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17.
Claims 1-22 - Obviousness over Balsells '838
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2---8
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Balsells '83 8
discloses the limitations of claim 1, except that Balsells '83 8 "fails to
specifically disclose that the seal body is made of only one continuous
unitary piece of material." Final Act. 14. The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious "to have made the two piece seal body of Balsells
['838] [as] a singular unitary body as it has been held that the use of a one
piece structure instead of a multi-piece structure is merely a matter of
obvious design choice." Final Act. 15 (citation omitted).
Appellant argues that "the two seals [of Balsells '83 8] are sequentially
mounted inside the chamber to reduce friction and drag[,] and to facilitate
assembly," and that
11
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
[i]f the two separate seals were to be installed as a single unit,
then the surface contact of the locking ring of the first seal press
fit against the gland housing and the surface contact of the
locking ring of the second seal press fit against the gland housing
would generate too high of a force to simultaneously push the
two seal units inside the sealing chamber.
Appeal Br. 26 (citing Balsells '838, col. 2, 11. 32-38 ("[a] separable metal
retainer provides means for fixing the plastic ring [(or seal body)] and spring
within the housing bore and around the shaft with the separable metal
retainer having a surface of revolution having a radius suitable for press
fitting into the housing.")). Appellant maintains that "once a 'press fit' is
formed between the metal retainer or locking ring and the gland housing, it
is extremely difficult to push the seal further into the housing to mount the
second seal," and that "[a]s such, individual seals are used to facilitate
mounting the stack of two or more spring energized seals into the gland."
Id. at 28.
The Examiner responds that "there is no evidence that [the] seal
assembly [of Balsells '838] has to be in two pieces because it would be
impossible to install otherwise" and that "one could merely push harder
during installation." Ans. 11. The Examiner reasons that friction fit,
stronger static sealing, and the elimination of human error due to fewer
pieces are all well-known trade-offs that make the Examiner's proposed
modification an obvious design choice. Id.
Based on the preponderance of the evidence before us, we agree with
Appellant. The Examiner proposes modifying seals 498, 500 of Balsells
'838 (which are described as abutting and which each have a metal retainer)
to be "a singularly formed seal body," resulting in a singularly formed seal
body secured by two metal retainers. In other words, the Examiner's
12
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
modification does not also eliminate one of the metal retainers. Because
Balsells '83 8 recognizes that a critical function of the metal retainers is "for
fixing the plastic ring [(or seal body)] within the housing bore and around
the shaft ... [by] press fitting" (Balsells '838, col. 2, 11. 32-35), we are
persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner's design choice
rationale, which is based on using a one-piece structure instead of a multi-
piece structure, is conclusory and falls short of providing rational reasoning
as to why a person skilled in the art would be motivated to modify seal
bodies 498, 500, to create a seal assembly having a singularly formed seal
body and two retaining rings, and thus, impacting the installation of the now
single seal cartridge by press fitting.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 2-8 depending therefrom as unpatentable
over Balsells '838. 5
Independent claim 9 and dependent claims 10-15
Regarding independent claim 9, although the Examiner finds that
Balsells '83 8 "fails to specifically disclose that the seal body is made of only
one continuous unitary piece of material" (Final Act. 17), claim 9 only
requires "forming a seal body," as discussed supra. Moreover, because we
5 The Examiner separately stated a rejection of claim 2 (which depends
from independent claim 1) under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over
Balsells '83 8, wherein the Examiner apparently applied the findings as
stated in the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Balsells '838. Final Act.
13-14. Because we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Balsells '838, as discussed supra, and because the Examiner's
reliance on Balsells '838 for rejecting claim 2 does not cure the deficiencies
in the Examiner's findings with respect to claim 1, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Balsells '838.
13
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 as anticipated by Balsells '838,
we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over
Balsells '838, anticipation being the epitome of obviousness. In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Appellant does not
present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 10-15 depending
from independent claim 9 (Appeal Br. 32), and therefore, we also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 10-15 as unpatentable over Balsells '838.
Independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-22
Regarding independent claim 16, although the Examiner finds that
Balsells '83 8 "fails to specifically disclose that the seal body is made of only
one continuous unitary piece of material" (Final Act. 19), claim 16 only
requires "an integrally formed seal body," as discussed supra. Moreover,
because we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 as anticipated by
Balsells '838, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 as
unpatentable over Balsells '83 8, anticipation being the epitome of
obviousness. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d at 1385. Appellant does not present
separate arguments for the patentability of claims 17-22 depending from
independent claim 16 (Appeal Br. 32), and therefore, we also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 17-22 as unpatentable over Balsells '838.
Claim 2 - Obviousness over Balsells '904
Claim 2 depends from independent claim 1. Because we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Balsells '904,
as discussed supra, and because the Examiner's reliance on Balsells '904 for
rejecting claim 2 does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's findings
with respect to claim 1, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 2 as unpatentable over Balsells '904.
14
Appeal2014-003652
Application 12/828,143
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Balsells '904 is REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Balsells '838 is REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 9-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Balsells '838 is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Balsells '904 is REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Balsells '838 is REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 9-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Balsells '838 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15