Ex Parte Oohara

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2010

10604813 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KOUJI OOHARA
____________

Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,8131
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: June 11, 2010
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

Concurring Opinion filed by Administrative Patent Judge BAUMEISTER

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Shimano, Inc.
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 28-48. Claims 1-27 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a bicycle electrical control circuit that
provides power and control signals to bicycle components. (Abstract.) The
control circuit provides a control signal to multiple bicycle components and
a power stabilizing circuit stabilizes the power signal to at least one of the
bicycle components. (Abstract.)
Claim 28 is exemplary:
28. A bicycle electrical control apparatus comprising:
a programmed power/control circuit that receives power from a power
supply and outputs a composite signal having a power signal component and
a control signal component, wherein the control signal component contains
information such that the composite signal can be decoded to extract the
information contained in the control signal component;
a first electrical bicycle component that receives the composite signal
and is controlled by the information contained in the control signal
component of the composite signal;
a second electrical bicycle component that receives the composite
signal but is not controlled by the control signal component of the composite
signal; and
a power stabilizing circuit that receives the composite signal,
stabilizes power provided from the composite signal, and provides stabilized
power to the second electrical bicycle component.

Claims 28-32, 34-39, 41-46, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Spencer (U.S. Patent 6,047,230), Tarpenning
(U.S. Patent 6,181,344 B1), the Appellant’s admitted prior art (Spec.
¶ [0003]) (“APA”), and Schwaller (U.S. Patent 5,247,430).
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

3
Claims 33 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, Schwaller, and Gohda (U.S.
Patent 4,609,982).
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, Schwaller, and Tomita (Japanese
Publication 07-229909 A).
ISSUES
With respect to independent claim 28, Appellant argues that the
combination of applied references does not teach or suggest all the claimed
features. (App. Br. 3-6; see also Reply Br. 1-3.) In addition, Appellant
argues that no rational underpinning has been provided for combining
Spencer and the APA (App. Br. 5) and that the proposed modification would
increase the number of wires and complexity of the system (Reply Br. 2).
Appellant also argues that the applied references do not teach or
suggest the additional features of dependent claims 39 and 40. (App. Br. 6-
7; see also Reply Br. 3.)
Appellant’s arguments present the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, and
Schwaller teaches or suggests “a composite signal having a power signal
component and a control signal component, wherein the control signal
component contains information such that the composite signal can be
decoded to extract the information contained in the control signal
component,” as recited in claim 28?
2. Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining Spencer and the
APA?
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

4
3. Does the combination of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, and
Schwaller teaches or suggests “a second electrical bicycle component that
receives the composite signal but is not controlled by the control signal
component of the composite signal,” as recited in claim 28?
4. Does the combination of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, and
Schwaller teaches or suggests “a power stabilizing circuit that receives the
composite signal, stabilizes power provided from the composite signal, and
provides stabilized power to the second electrical bicycle component,” as
recited in claim 28?
5. Does the combination of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, and
Schwaller teaches or suggests “wherein the control signal component
comprises a speed indicating signal,” as recited in dependent claim 39?
6. Does the combination of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA,
Schwaller, and Tomita teaches or suggests “wherein the power/control
circuit includes a waveform shaping circuit that derives the speed indicating
signal from the output of an alternating current generator,” as recited in
dependent claim 40?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Spencer
1. Spencer “relates to an automatic transmission system for a human-
powered vehicle, such as a bicycle.” (Col. 1, ll. 16-17; fig. 1.) A
bicycle 10 includes an automatic transmission system 20. (Col. 5,
ll. 32-34; col. 6, ll. 18-19; fig. 2.) The automatic transmission
system 20 includes a controller 21, a shifter motor 29, a power
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

5
supply 30 and a display 31. (Col. 6, ll. 20-24; fig. 2.) The
controller 21 generates a shift control signal based on a wheel speed
sensor 23, a cadence sensor 24, a front derailleur position sensor 25, a
rear derailleur position sensor 26, a chain tension sensor 27, and a
clinometer 28. (Col. 6, ll. 21-23; col. 6, l. 66 to col. 7, l. 2.) “[The]
shifter motor 29 is coupled to rear derailleur 17, and is responsive to a
shift control signal by moving derailleur 17.” (Col. 7, ll. 2-4.) The
display 31 indicates wheel speed. (Col. 3, ll. 32-35.)
Tarpenning
2. Tarpenning “relates to hand-held computing devices.” (Col. 1,
ll. 12-13.) A hand-held computing device 30 (col. 3, ll. 42-48; fig. 5)
includes an LCD display 76 with a backlight that can be turned “on”
and “off” (col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 2; fig. 5).
APA
3. Appellant describes that “[t]echnology for communicating power and
control signals using integrated or composite signals has been
developed to reduce the number of wires required between the various
electrical components” and that “[s]ome electrical components
operate using both the power and control components of the signals,
whereas other electrical components may operate using only the
power component of the signals.” (Spec. ¶ [0003].)
Schwaller
4. Schwaller relates to “a light plant for bicycles having an electric
circuit . . . [including] a voltage limiting circuitry for the light
voltage.” (Col. 1, ll. 7-12.) The light plant includes a generator G or
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

6
a dynamo for the bicycle. (Col. 3, ll. 11-13.) To prevent
“overvoltages . . . generated at higher speeds, which would destroy
the light bulbs of the bicycles,” (col. 3, ll. 21-23; fig. 6) a switching
controller 1 stabilizes the voltage (col. 3, ll. 25-32, 34-36) when it
exceeds a rated voltage for the light bulbs (Abstract).
Tomita2
5. Tomita relates to bicycle speedometers. (¶ [0001].) A bicycle
includes a hub dynamo 1 that outputs an alternating current at
different frequencies depending upon bicycle speed. (¶ [0013];
fig. 3.) This output passes through a protective circuit 12 and a
waveform shaping circuit 12 [sic, 13] before being input into a
microcomputer 14. (¶ [0013].) The microcomputer 14 calculates
speed based on this input signal and displays the speed on a liquid-
crystal display part 15. (¶ [0014].)
ANALYSIS
Claims 28-32, 34-38, 41-46, and 48
With respect to the first and second issues, we are not convinced by
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 4-5; see also Reply Br. 1-2) that the
combination of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, and Schwaller does not teach
or suggest “a composite signal having a power signal component and a
control signal component, wherein the control signal component contains
information such that the composite signal can be decoded to extract the
information contained in the control signal component,” as recited in
claim 28 and that the APA has been improperly combined with Spencer.

2 Reference is made to the English-language translation supplied by the
USPTO.
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

7
The Examiner acknowledges that Spencer does not teach or suggest “a
composite signal having a power signal component and a control signal
component” and cited the APA for the disclosure of a composite signal for
communicating power and control signals. (Ans. 4.) The Examiner also
articulated that “it would be necessary for all of Spencer’s first bicycle
components to have a CPU, like Spencer’s gear shift driving component, to
receive the composite signal and decode the signal to extract the information
contained in the control signal component.” (Ans. 4-5.) Thus, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to combine the features of the
APA and Spencer “to reduce the amount of wires used in the system.”
(Ans. 4.) We agree with the Examiner.
Spencer teaches an automatic transmission system 20 for a bicycle
including a shifter motor 29 that receives a signal from a controller 21 to
move a rear derailleur 17. (FF 1.) Because the shifter motor 29 is capable
of receiving a signal from the controller 21, the shifter motor 29 implicitly
contains a CPU. (See FF 1.) The APA discloses the availability of
technology for communicating power and control signals using composite
signals to reduce the number of wires between electrical components.
(FF 3.) Because the APA discloses that some electrical components use
both power and control signals and that other electrical components use only
power signals, the APA implicitly teaches decoding the composite signal to
extract control signal information. (See FF 3.)
Thus, modifying Spencer to include the APA’s composite signal
having a power signal component and a control signal component would
have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that the APA’s composite signal would reduce the number of
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

8
wires between electrical components. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Modifying the CPU of Spencer’s shifter
motor 29 to decode the composite signal to extract control signal
information would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Indeed, this would have been no more than an exercise of common sense
since, in order to make use of the encoded control signal, it would need to be
decoded and the control signal information extracted (see id. at 420).
Appellant argues that Spencer does not teach or suggest “a composite
signal having a power signal component and a control signal component”
because Spencer “does not disclose composite signals, and . . . decode any
signal because there is no translation anywhere from code into an original
language or form.” (App. Br. 4.) However, as discussed previously, the
Examiner cited to the APA for the limitation “a composite signal having a
power signal component and a control signal component.” (Ans. 4; FF 3.)
Next, Appellant argues that “[n]o rational underpinning was provided
as to why one would believe that any wire saving in the Spencer, et al
system would offset the increased cost of an additional CPU for each
component.” (App. Br. 5.) However, as discussed previously, Spencer’s
shifter motor 29 implicitly teaches a CPU for receiving control signals from
the controller 21. (See FF 1.) Thus, Appellant has not factually established
that combining Spencer with the APA would impose an “increased cost of
an additional CPU for each component.” (App. Br. 5.) In other words, it
has not been shown that combining Spencer with the APA would require
any additional CPUs. Even if Appellant is correct that the combination of
Spencer and the APA would result in additional expense, this does not mean
that persons skilled in the art would not make the combination. See In re
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

9
Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983). As discussed previously,
modifying Spencer to include the APA’s composite signal would have been
obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
APA’s composite signal would reduce the number of wires between
electrical components.
Last, Appellant argues that “[t]he proposed system does not reduce
the number of wires required to feed the LCD display portion and the
backlight portion compared to the prior art . . . [but] increases the number of
required wires, not to mention the increased complexity of the system.”
(Reply Br. 2.) However, Appellant has not factually established, with
documentary evidence, that one of ordinary skill in the art would configure
the combination of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, and Schwaller, such that
the controller 21 is connected to the display 31 using an increased number of
wires. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported
objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir.
1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Therefore, the Examiner has not erred in finding that the combination
of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, and Schwaller teaches or suggests “a
composite signal having a power signal component and a control signal
component, wherein the control signal component contains information such
that the composite signal can be decoded to extract the information
contained in the control signal component,” as recited in claim 28.
With respect to the third issue, we are not convinced by Appellant’s
arguments (App. Br. 5-6) that the combination of Spencer, Tarpenning, the
APA, and Schwaller does not teach or suggest “a second electrical bicycle
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

10
component that receives the composite signal but is not controlled by the
control signal component of the composite signal,” as recited in claim 28.
The Examiner acknowledges that Spencer does not teach or suggest “a
second electrical bicycle component that receives the composite signal but is
not controlled by the control signal component of the composite signal,” and
cited Tarpenning for the disclosure of a hand-held computing device 30
including an LCD display 76 with a backlight that can be turned “on” and
“off.” (Ans. 4; FF 2.) Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to combine the backlight of the LCD display 76 and Spencer
“so that a user could be able to read the display at night.” (Ans. 4.) We
agree with the Examiner.
Spencer teaches an automatic transmission system 20 for a bicycle 10
including a display 31 for indicating wheel speed. (FF 1.) Tarpenning
teaches a hand-held computing device 30 including an LCD display 76 with
a backlight. (FF 2.) Combining Spencer and the APA with Tarpenning is
no more than the simple substitution of Tarpenning’s known LCD
display 76 with a backlight for Spencer’s known display 31, with no
unexpected results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Furthermore, because the
backlight of Tarpenning’s LCD display 76 receives only power (see FF 2),
one of ordinary skill would recognize that the backlight would not require
the APA’s control signal component of the composite signal.
Therefore, the Examiner has not erred in finding that the combination
of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, and Schwaller teaches or suggests “a
second electrical bicycle component that receives the composite signal but is
not controlled by the control signal component of the composite signal” as
recited in claim 28.
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

11
With respect to the fourth issue, we are not convinced by Appellant’s
arguments (App. Br. 6) that the combination of Spencer, Tarpenning, the
APA, and Schwaller does not teach or suggest “a power stabilizing circuit
that receives the composite signal, stabilizes power provided from the
composite signal, and provides stabilized power to the second electrical
bicycle component,” as recited in claim 28.
The Examiner acknowledges that Spencer does not teach or suggest “a
power stabilizing circuit that receives the composite signal, stabilizes power
provided from the composite signal, and provides stabilized power to the
second electrical bicycle component,” and cites Schwaller for a switching
controller 1 for a bicycle light to prevent overvoltages. (Ans. 5; FF 4.)
Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine
the switching controller 1 of Schwaller and Spencer to prevent overvoltages.
(Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner.
As discussed previously, Spencer teaches an automatic transmission
system 20 for a bicycle 10 including a display 31 for indicating wheel speed
(FF 1) and Tarpenning teaches an LCD display 76 with a backlight (FF 2).
Schwaller teaches a switching controller 1 for a bicycle to prevent
overvoltages at higher speeds that would exceed the voltage rating of bicycle
light bulbs. (FF 4.) Thus, modifying Spencer and Tarpenning to include
Schwaller’s switching controller 1 would have been obvious because a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Schwaller’s
switching controller 1 would improve the backlight for the LCD display 76
of Tarpenning by preventing overvoltages at higher bicycle speeds.
Furthermore, because the switching controller 1 of Schwaller regulates
voltage (FF 4), one of ordinary skill would recognize that the switching
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

12
controller 1 would not require the APA’s control signal component of the
composite signal.
Appellant argues that “Schwaller does not use composite signals
anywhere, and certainly not as an input to switching controller (1).” (App.
Br. 5.) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cited the APA for
disclosing the composite signal. (Ans. 4-5; FF 3.)
Therefore, the Examiner has not erred in finding that the combination
of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, and Schwaller teaches or suggests “a
power stabilizing circuit that receives the composite signal, stabilizes power
provided from the composite signal, and provides stabilized power to the
second electrical bicycle component,” as recited in claim 28.
We conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting independent
claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner also has not erred in
rejecting claims 29-32, 34-38, 41-46 and 48, which depend from claim 28,
for the reasons previously discussed with respect to claim 28.
Claim 39
Regarding the fifth issue, we are not convinced by Appellant’s
argument (App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3) that the combination of Spencer,
Tarpenning, the APA, and Schwaller does not teach or suggest “wherein the
control signal component comprises a speed indicating signal,” as recited in
dependent claim 39.
Spencer teaches an automatic transmission system 20 for a bicycle
including a shifter motor 29 that receives a signal from a controller 21 based
on readings from one of many sensors, including a wheel speed sensor 23.
(FF 1.) In other words, the reading from the wheel speed sensor 23 that is
transmitted to the controller 21 and the shifter motor 29 corresponds to the
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

13
claimed “speed indicating signal.” Thus, Spencer teaches “wherein the
control signal component comprises a speed indicating signal.”
Appellant argues that Figures 11 and 14 of Spencer do not disclose
speed indicating signals. (App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3.) However, as
discussed previously, Spencer teaches that the controller 21 receives signals
from the wheel speed sensor 23.
Appellant also argues that “Spencer, et al neither discloses nor
suggests a composite signal having a power signal component and a control
signal component . . . so Spencer, et al cannot be said to disclose or suggest
a speed indicating signal that is part of such a composite signal.” (App.
Br. 6.) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cited the APA for
disclosing a composite signal. (Ans. 4-5; FF 3.)
Therefore, the Examiner has not erred in finding that the combination
of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, and Schwaller teaches or suggests
“wherein the control signal component comprises a speed indicating signal,”
as recited in claim 39.
We conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 40
Regarding the sixth issue, we are not convinced by Appellant’s
argument (App. Br. 6-7; see also Reply Br. 3-4) that the combination of
Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, Schwaller, and Tomita does not teach or
suggest “wherein the power/control circuit includes a waveform shaping
circuit that derives the speed indicating signal from the output of an
alternating current generator,” as recited in dependent claim 40.
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

14
The Examiner acknowledges that Spencer does not teach or suggest
“wherein the power/control circuit includes a waveform shaping circuit that
derives the speed indicating signal from the output of an alternating current
generator,” and cites Tomita for a waveform shaping circuit 12 that receives
an alternating current from a hub dynamo 1 to calculate speed. (Ans. 6-7;
FF 5.) The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine
the waveform shaping circuit 12 of Tomita and Spencer because “Tomita
teaches a method known in the art that would allow for accurate control of
the gear shift driving component via his speedometer and waveform shaping
circuit.” (Ans. 7.) We agree with the Examiner.
Spencer teaches an automatic transmission system 20 for a bicycle 10
including a wheel speed sensor 23. (FF 1.) Tomita teaches a bicycle
speedometer with a waveform shaping circuit 12 that receives an alternating
current from a hub dynamo 1 and uses a microcomputer 14 to calculate
speed. (FF 5.) Thus, the combination of Spencer and Tomita is nothing
more than combining Spencer’s known wheel speed sensor 23 with Tomita’s
known waveform shaping circuit 12 for the calculation of speed from an
alternating current, with no unexpected results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Appellant argues that “Tomita’s microcomputer (14) does not output
the shaped signals from waveform shaping circuit (13) as control signals,
and there is no reason for Spencer, et al’s controller (21) to output
waveform-shaped signals to display (31) or to shifter motor (29).” (App.
Br. 7.) However, the Examiner does not cite Tomita for the disclosure of
outputting control signals. (Ans. 6-7.) Instead, Spencer teaches that the
shifter motor 29 receives a signal from the controller 21 based on readings
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

15
from one of many sensors, including the wheel speed sensor 23. (FF 1;
Ans. 6-7.)
Next, Appellant argues that “Tomita’s microcomputer (14) does not
output the shaped signals from waveform shaping circuit (13) as control
signals that can be decoded to reconstruct the signals at a different location.”
(Reply Br. 4.) However, as discussed previously, Spencer teaches that the
shifter motor 29 receives a signal from the controller 21 based on readings
from one of many sensors, including the wheel speed sensor 23 (FF 1) and
the Examiner cited the APA for disclosing a composite signal (Ans. 4-5;
FF 3).
Finally, Appellant argues that “[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion
anywhere [in Spencer] to generate and output a composite power/control
signal that has a control signal component that is a speed indicating signal
derived by a waveform shaping circuit from the output of an alternating
current generator . . . such that the composite signal can be decoded to
extract the original language or form of the speed indicating signals.”
(Reply Br. 4.) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cites Tomita
for the disclosure of a power/control circuit including a waveform shaping
circuit that derives the speed indicating signal from the output of an
alternating current generator (Ans. 7; FF 5) and cites the APA for the
limitation “a composite signal having a power signal component and a
control signal component” including decoding the composite signal to
extract control signal information (Ans. 4-5; FF 3).
Therefore, the Examiner has not erred in finding that the combination
of Spencer, Tarpenning, the APA, Schwaller, and Tomita teaches or
suggests “wherein the power/control circuit includes a waveform shaping
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

16
circuit that derives the speed indicating signal from the output of an
alternating current generator,” as recited in claim 40.
We conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 33 and 47
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claims 33 and 47 separately (App. Br. 6), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant summarily alleges that
these claims “derive patentability from their combination with their
respective parent claims.” (App. Br. 6.) Thus, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 33 and 47 for the reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 28, from which claims 33 and 47 depend.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of fact and analysis above, we conclude that the
Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 28-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 28-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

17
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge, CONCURRING:
With respect to at least independent claim 28, the combination of only
the APA (see Spec. ¶¶ [0001]-[0003]) and Schwaller is sufficient to affirm
the Examiner’s rejection. I do not reach the question of whether the
Examiner erred in further basing that rejection on Spencer and Tarpenning.
More specifically, Appellant has already acknowledged that it was
known (1) to “communicat[e] power and control signals using integrated or
composite signals . . . to reduce the number of wires required between [a
bicycle’s] various electrical components;” (2) how to separate the
components of the composite signal so as to power components that do not
use both components to operate; and (3) that it was recognized that using
such composite signals sometimes caused the problem of an illumination
device flickering (Spec. ¶ [0003]). Also, Appellant does not dispute the
Examiner’s position that Schwaller teaches a power stabilizing circuit that
prevents bicycle lights from flickering (see e.g., App. Br. 5:25-27)
(acknowledging that Schwaller discloses a power stabilizing circuit).
Restated, the APA discloses every element of claim 28 except for the power
stabilizing circuit. But that missing element is taught by Schwaller, and
Schwaller further provides requisite motivation to combine its teachings
with the APA, to solve the known light-flickering problem. Furthermore,
based upon this rationale for rejecting independent claim 28, I see no error in
the Examiner relying on the other cited references for the further details of
the dependent claims such as the Examiner’s reliance on Spencer for
teaching dependent claim 42’s recitation of a gear shift mechanism having a
plurality of gear ratios (see Ans. 5).
For the foregoing reasons, then, I concur.
Appeal 2009-007794
Application 10/604,813

18

bim

DELAND LAW OFFICE
P.O. BOX 69
KLAMATH RIVER, CA 96050-0069