Ex Parte Ribarov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

13465082 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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.
13/465,082 05/07/2012 Lubomir A. Ribarov PA19596US; 7241
67036-511US1
26096 7590 12/28/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
GONZALEZ QUINONES, JOSE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUBOMIR A. RIBAROV and JACEK F. GIERAS1
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as HAMILTON
SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 1.
2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed May 7, 2012
(Spec.), Final Office Action mailed May 29, 2014 (Final), the Appeal Brief
filed November 18, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer mailed
March 13, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed April 20, 2015 (Reply Br.).
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
STATEMENT OF CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—18 and 20—29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to an electrical machine. Figure 1 shows an
embodiment of the electrical machine and is reproduced below:
Figure 1 schematically illustrates an electrical machine in cross-section
The electrical machine 10 of Figure 1 is a permanent magnet machine
that includes a rotor 12, a stator 14, magnets 20, and sleeve 22. Spec. 117.
An air gap 30 exists between the stator 14 and sleeve 22. Spec. 118. “A
boundary layer control 32 is used to maintain a desired boundary layer
thickness in the air gap 30.” Spec. 119. In the Figure 1 embodiment, the
boundary layer control 32 comprises a suction feature, which comprises a
plurality of holes 34 formed in stator 14. Id.
2
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
According to the Specification, electrical machines such as miniature
turbine generators, dental hand-pieces, precision tools, ultra-high-speed
motors, etc. require “rotors that must be capable of operating at very high
speeds, i.e. speeds in excess of 250,000 rpm, while also maintaining
structural integrity.” Spec. 12. Cooling is a concern in these structures. Id.
There is a desire to minimize the air gap to avoid eddy current losses in the
conductive sleeve, but maintain a large enough air gap to provide the
necessary cooling between the rotor and stator. According to the
Specification, the boundary layer control (comprising the suction holes)
improves cooling of the electrical machine. Spec. 121.
Claim 1, reproduced from the Appendix of Claims within the Appeal
Brief and with reference numerals inserted from Figure 1, is further
illustrative:
1. An electrical machine comprising:
a stator [14];
a rotor [12] rotatable relative to the stator about an axis,
the rotor and stator being separated by an air gap [30];
at least one magnet [20] mounted for rotation with the
rotor; and
a boundary layer control [32] to control boundary layer
thickness in the air gap.
Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
3
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
A. Claims 1—7 as obvious over Weeber3 in view of Kori4;
B. Claim 8 as obvious over Weeber in view of Kori, and further in view
of Baba5 and Kuhn6;
C. Claims 9 and 10 as obvious over Weeber in view of Kori, further in
view of Seibicke7;
D. Claims 11—17, and 20 as obvious over Weeber in view of Seibicke;
E. Claim 18 as obvious over Weeber in view of Seibicke,8 and further in
view of Baba and Kuhn;
F. Claim 21 as obvious over Weeber in view of Seibicke, and further in
view of Kori;
G. Claim 22 as obvious over Weeber in view of Seibicke and Kori, and
further in view of Miura9;
H. Claim 23 as obvious over Weeber in view of Seibicke, and further in
view of Kuhn, Ackerman,10 and Baba;
3 Weeber et al., US 2004/0066099 Al, published Apr. 8, 2004 (“Weeber”).
4 Kori et al., US 2010/0194221 Al, published Aug. 5, 2010 (“Kori”).
5 Baba et al., US 2010/0119390 Al, published May 13, 2010.
6 Kuhn et al., US 2009/0004622 Al, published Jan. 1, 2009.
7 Seibicke, DE 10 2007 021 723 Al, published Nov. 11, 2008.
8 Although the Examiner omitted Seibicke from the statement of the
rejection, it is clear from the context of the rejection that the Examiner is
relying upon Seibicke in the same capacity as in the rejection of claims 11—
17, and 20. Appellants recognize that the Examiner is relying upon
Seibicke. Appeal Br. 8 § E. Thus, the error was harmless.
9 Miura et al., US 6,047,461, issued Apr. 11, 2000.
10 Zimmerman et al., US 2008/0080978 Al, published Apr. 3, 2008. The
Examiner and Appellants refer to this reference as “Ackerman,” thus, we
will do the same.
4
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
I. Claim 24 as obvious
view of Forney11;
J. Claim 25 as obvious
view of Ludwig12;
K. Claim 26 as obvious
of Miura;
L. Claim 27 as obvious
of Kuhn;
M. Claim 28 as obvious
of Fomey; and
N. Claim 29 as obvious
of Ludwig.
over Weeber in view of Seibicke, and further in
over Weeber in view of Seibicke, and further in
over Weeber in view of Kori, and further in view
over Weeber in view of Kori, and further in view
over Weeber in view of Kori, and further in view
over Weeber in view of Kori, and further in view
OPINION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons provided by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action and response to arguments in the
Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection A
The Examiner rejected claims 1—7 as obvious over Weeber in view of
Kori. Final 2—6. Appellants argue claims 1, 2, and 3 separately and claims
4—7 as a separate group. We select claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 as representative for
deciding the issues. Although we have considered the rejection of each of
11 Fomey et al., US 2004/0126273 Al, published July 1, 2004.
12 Ludwig et al., US 5,449,961, issued Sept. 12, 1995.
5
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
claims 2, 3, and 4 separately, the issues arising are sufficiently similar to
allow us to address them together.
Claim 1
There is no dispute that Weeber teaches an electrical machine shown
as including a stator 12 and a rotor 14 separated by an air gap 20. Compare
Final 2—3 with Appeal Br. 3^4. The Examiner finds that Weeber teaches a
boundary layer control to control boundary layer thickness in the air gap 20
as shown in Figure 6. Final 3 (pointing out the location of the boundary
layer control in annotated Figure 6). The Examiner acknowledges that
Weeber does not disclose including “at least one magnet mounted for
rotation with the rotor” as required by claim 1. Final 3. The Examiner finds
that Kori teaches magnets mounted for rotation with the rotor of an electrical
machine and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to include magnets as taught by
Kori in the electrical machine of Weeber. Final 4.
Appellants’ arguments raise two issues: (1) did the Examiner
reversibly err in finding a reason to use magnets in Weeber’s electrical
machine; and (2) did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that Weeber
teaches a structure that is “a boundary layer control to control boundary
layer thickness in the air gap” as required by claim 1?
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner reversibly erred
with regard to the disputed findings.
Weeber is directed to a forced air ventilation system for synchronous
electrical machines, such as generators and motors. Weeber 11. Weeber
specifically developed the air ventilation system for use in a
superconducting electromagnetic machine including a rotor having a
6
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
cryogenically cooled superconducting rotor coil winding surrounded by a
stator having stator coils magnetically coupled with the superconducting
rotor coil winding. Weeber 19. In the figures, Weeber shows the machine
10 as a generator, but it may also be an electric motor or other synchronous
electrical machine, i.e., other types of electrical machines with a rotor that
rotates within a stator. Weeber 124.
Weeber’s stator has cooling passages extending from an outer
periphery of the stator to an inner periphery of the stator. Weeber 19.
Cooling is accomplished by circulating cooling gas, such as air or hydrogen,
from or into the stator cooling passages using a stator-mounted fan. Weeber
17. In the embodiment of Figure 6, the stator cooling passages 32 may be
arranged in the stator to optimize stator cooling. Weeber 141. As shown by
the arrows 88 in Figure 6, fans 38 suck the cooling gas from the air gap 20
and through the cooling gas passages 32 in the stator. Weeber 142; Fig. 6.
Kori discloses a permanent magnet electrical rotating machine used in
a wind power generating system. Kori 13. Kori also discusses the need for
cooling. Kori 1 5. Kori uses cooling air flow channels (e.g., air flow
channel 6 in Fig. 1 that, in contrast to the holes of Weeber, do not extend all
the way through the rotor. Kori 133; Fig. 1. In another embodiment, Kori
uses a combination of air flow channels 6, axial ducts 8, and duct pieces 10,
11 for circulating cooling air. Kori, Figs. 4 and 5. In the embodiment of
Figure 16, Kori divides the permanent magnet 94 into packets so that the
output of the machine can be adjusted by adjusting the number of packets.
Kori 151.
7
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
Issue 1
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner reversibly erred
in finding a reason to use magnets in Weeber’s electrical machine. We
agree with the Examiner that those of ordinary skill in the art of electrical
machines would have understood that these types of machines routinely used
magnets in the manner taught by Kori. Ans. 2—3. Although Weeber uses a
winding to generate the necessary magnetic field (Weeber || 2, 9), using
magnets was known in the art as evidenced by Kori. Kori expressly
provides a reason to include packets of magnets, i.e., so that the output of the
machine can be adjusted. Kori | 51. A preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding of a reason to use magnets in an electrical
machine with the ventilation system of Weeber.
Issue 2
Nor have Appellants persuaded us that the Examiner reversibly erred
in finding that Weeber teaches a structure that is “a boundary layer control to
control boundary layer thickness in the air gap” as required by claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Weeber’s structure is the same or equivalent
to the structure Appellants describe as the boundary layer control. Ans. 3^4.
As found by the Examiner (Ans. 3—4), Appellants’ Specification states that
the boundary control layer 32 “comprises a suction feature,” and “[i]n one
example, the suction feature comprises a plurality of holes 34 that are
formed in the stator 14.” Spec. 119. Appellants do not identify any other
structure that forms the “boundary layer control to control boundary layer
thickness in the air gap.” Appeal Br. 2—\\ Reply Br. 3. The structure of
Weeber is a plurality of cooling gas passages 32 in the stator through which
8
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
cooling gas passes from the air gap 20, is pulled through the stator passages
32 by fans 38, is cooled in a heat exchanger, and recirculated. Weeber
40-43; Fig. 6; see also Ans. 4. The cooling gas passages 32 reasonably
appear to have the same structure as the suction feature and plurality of holes
34 Appellants disclose as their “boundary layer control to control boundary
thickness in the air gap” structure. Compare Appellants’ Fig. 1 with
Weeber’s Fig. 6.
Structures such as machines and articles of manufacture must be
distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure, and where there is
reason to believe that the structure of the prior art 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 In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner’s
findings are reasonable and served to shift the burden to Appellants to show
that, in fact, the structure required by claim 1 is structurally distinguishable
from Weeber’s plurality of holes that convey cooling fluid from the air gap,
through the cooling passages 32 in a circulating fashion. Weeber || 40-43;
Fig. 6.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding.
Claims 2—4
Claims 2-4 further limit the boundary layer control structure of claim
1. Claim 2 requires the boundary layer control comprise a suction feature.
Claim 3 requires the suction feature of claim 2 comprise a plurality of
suction holes formed within an inner surface of the stator. Claim 4 requires
9
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
that the plurality of suction holes of claim 3 extend through a thickness of
the stator from the inner surface to the outer surface.
Appellants contend that the cooling passages 32 of Weeber are not
suction features or suction holes and are not capable of so functioning, but
Appellants provide no persuasive evidence that the cooling gas passages 32
of Weeber differ in structure from the passages 34 (suction holes) Appellants
disclose in their Specification.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings
with regard to each of claims 2-4.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1—7 as obvious over Weeber in
view of Kori.
Rejection B
The Examiner rejects claim 8 as obvious over Weeber in view of
Kori, and further in view of Baba and Kuhn. Final 6—7.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further requires the air gap have a
radial thickness that is greater than zero and less than 1.50 mm (0.06 inches)
and that the rotor be configured to rotate at speeds of at least 250,000 rpm.
The Examiner finds that Baba teaches providing an air gap of distance
range (about 0.3 mm to about 1 mm) within the range (greater than zero to
less than 1.50 mm) of claim 8. Final 6. Baba is directed to a permanent
magnet motor. Baba 11. Baba teaches providing an air gap 10 between
rotor 9 and stator 5 of about 0.3 mm to 1 mm, which allows for rotation
about the rotary shaft 6. Baba 128.
The Examiner finds that Kuhn teaches a rotor configured to rotate at
speeds of at least 250,000 rpm for providing an electric motor that works at
10
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
high speeds. Final 7. Kuhn is directed to an electric motor used in a dental
drill. Kuhn 11. Kuhn’s motor can rotate at speeds in the region of 10,000
to 300,000 rpm, preferably 75,000 to 250,000 rpm or at maximum up to
250,000 rpm. Kuhn 136.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an air gap within
the range of the claim and able to rotate at speeds of at least 250,000 rpm “to
allow for rotation about the rotation shaft and provide that the electric motor
works at high speeds.” Final 7.
Appellants contend the Examiner is engaging in hindsight
reconstruction of the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants
characterize Kuhn’s motor as a different type of motor than that of Weeber
based on a disclosure in Weeber discussing generators with lower rotor
speeds, such as speeds of 3600 rpm. Id. But, as pointed out by the
Examiner, Weeber’s disclosure is not so limited. Ans. 7—8. Weeber is
concerned with ventilation systems used in electrical machines, which can
encompass both generators and motors. Weeber 11. Weeber mentions
conventional generators with rotor speeds of 3600 rpm or 1800 rpm in the
context of a discussion of rotor-mounted fans versus stator-mounted fans.
Weeber || 20—21. Although Weeber mentions such lower-rpm generators,
Weeber suggests that the ventilation system can be used in other electrical
machines with stators and rotors, such as electric motors. Weeber 124.
Those of ordinary skill in the electrical machine art would have understood
that the ventilation system would have been useful in a range of electrical
machines for its purpose of cooling.
11
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
Appellants further contend that “there is nothing found in Baba to
suggest that a motor with such a small gap size is capable of operating at an
operational speed of at least 250,000 rpm.” Appeal Br. 6. But looking at the
evidence as a whole, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s rejection. The gap size, as evidenced by Baba is
sized to allow the rotor to rotate within the stator. The gap would have been
optimized for that purpose by taking into account cooling system design and
the speed of rotation. The speed of rotation is, as evidenced by Kuhn,
known to be achievable in electric motors with rotors and stators and is
selected based on the speed needed in the intended use of the motor. “The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellants do not provide
evidence that their result would have been unexpected to those of ordinary
skill, or that the optimization was more than routine and outside the
capabilities of the ordinary artisan.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claim 8 as obvious over Weeber in view of Kori,
and further in view of Baba and Kuhn.
Rejection C
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 10 as obvious over Weeber in view
of Kori, further in view of Seibicke. Final 8—9. Appellants argue claims 9
and 10 as a group. We select claim 9 as representative. Claim 9 reads:
“The electrical machine according [to claim] 1, wherein a cooling fluid is
pumped through the air gap and is discharged via a check valve.”
12
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
In terms of structure, claim 9 further impliedly requires a check valve.
“[Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch &Lomb Inc^, 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
The Examiner finds that Weeber teaches pumping a cooling fluid 88
through an air gap 20 as shown in Figure 6, but is silent about discharging
the cooling fluid via a check valve. Final 8. The Examiner finds Seibicke
teaches discharging cooling fluid via a check valve 11 as shown in Figure 1.
Id.
Appellants contend that Seibicke does not discharge fluid as claimed.
Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5. This argument is not persuasive because it is not
clear what structure is missing from the combination suggested by Weeber
and Seibicke. Seibicke discloses a check valve 11 in ventilation system of
an electrical machine. Figure 1 of Seibicke shows an arrow depicting the
discharge of the cooling gas of the ventilation system through the check
valve. Weeber teaches pumping the cooling air through the air gap 20 and
cooling gas passages 32. Adding the check valve of Seibicke to the
ventilation system of Weeber would result in a ventilation system that
pumps cooling fluid through the air gap and gas passages of Weeber and
discharges the cooling fluid through the check valve as taught by Seibicke.
Appellants have not persuaded us of a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 10 as obvious over Weeber in
view of Kori, further in view of Seibicke.
13
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
Rejection D-G
The Examiner rejects claims 11—17 and 20 as obvious over Weeber in
view of Seibicke; rejects claim 18 as obvious over Weeber in view of
Seibicke, and further in view of Baba and Kuhn; rejects claim 21 as obvious
over Weeber in view of Seibicke, and further in view of Kori; and rejects
claim 22 as obvious over Weeber in view of Seibicke and Kori, and further
in view of Miura.
Appellants do not advance any arguments against these rejections
over and above the arguments we addressed above. Thus, Appellants have
not identified a reversible error in these rejections for the reasons we have
already stated. Thus, we sustain these rejections.
Rejection H
The Examiner rejects claim 23 as obvious over Weeber in view of
Seibicke, and further in view of Kuhn, Ackerman, and Baba. Final 17—19.
Claim 23 reads:
23. The electrical machine according to claim 11, wherein the
rotor is configured to rotate at speeds in excess of 250,000 rpm,
and wherein the rotor is configured to operate at temperatures in
excess of 290 degrees Celsius (554 degrees Fahrenheit), and
wherein the air gap has a radial thickness that is greater than
zero and less than 1.50 mm (0.06 inches).
Appeal Br. 16.
Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s findings with regard to the
temperature limitation of claim 23. Appeal Br. 10.
Again, we emphasize that “apparatus claims cover what a device is,
not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard, 909 F.2d at 1468. We must
14
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
consider the temperature limitation in terms of how it limits the structure of
the claimed electrical machine. There is only one mention of the operating
temperature in the Specification. According to the Specification,
The subject electrical machine is capable of operating at
very high speeds, i.e. in excess of 250,000 rpm, and at very
high temperatures, i.e. in excess of 290 degrees Celsius (554
degrees Fahrenheit). Using boundary layer control vastly
improves cooling and allows the air gap to be minimized to
increase power density.
Spec. 121. The Specification conveys that the “boundary layer control,”
which Appellants describe as the plurality of suction holes 34 shown in
Figure 1, allows the electrical machine to operate at the high temperatures
with a minimal air gap. Weeber teaches the same or similar type of plurality
of suction holes (cooling passages 32) for cooling a stator and circulates the
cooling fluid in a similar manner as the structure disclosed by Appellants in
their Specification. There is no clear difference in structure between the
electrical machine of claim 23 and that suggested by the prior art as a whole
and, particularly, no patentably distinguishable difference once one takes
into account the routine optimization that those of ordinary skill in the art
would have undertook to obtain high speed electrical machines operating at
speeds known in the art with known air gaps as taught by Kuhn and Baba.
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner reversibly erred
in rejecting claim 23. We sustain the rejection.
Rejection I
The Examiner rejects claim 24 as obvious over Weeber in view of
Seibicke, and further in view of Forney.
15
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
Claim 24 depends from claim 11 and further requires that “the
boundary layer control is configured to provide a flow condition having a
Taylor Number (Ta) that is less than 41.3.”
Again, according to the Specification, the “boundary layer control”
comprises a plurality of circumferentially spaced suction holes 34 traversing
the stator. Spec. H 6, 7, 19; Fig. 1.
The Specification does not disclose how the structure of the plurality
of suction holes affects the Taylor number. According to Appellants’
Specification, a Ta of less than 41.3 describes laminar Couette flow. Spec.
126. Couette flow is the type of fluid flow between the two concentric
cylinders (rotor and stator) while the inner cylinder (rotor) is in motion.
Spec. 123. The Specification states that Couette flow depends on the radial
width of the gap, the radius and peripheral velocity of the rotor, and the
kinematic viscosity of the fluid. Spec. 126; see also Forney 116.
Weeber teaches a plurality of holes through which cooling fluid
circulates in the same or similar manner as disclosed by Appellants.
Compare Weeber H 40-43; Fig. 6 with Spec. H 17—19; Fig. 1. The purpose
is also the same or similar: to cool. Weeber H 40-43 with Spec. 121. A
preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Weeber’s structure,
with passages 32, is not structurally distinguishable from the claimed
structure, with boundary layer control comprising a plurality of suction
holes. A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s rejection.
We sustain the rejection.
16
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
Rejection J
The Examiner rejects claim 25 as obvious over Weeber in view of
Seibicke, and further in view of Ludwig. Final 21.
Claim 25 depends from claim 11 and requires “the rotor, stator, and
boundary layer control receive input signals from an electronic engine
control of a multi-spool gas turbine engine.”
The Examiner relies upon Ludwig as evidence that receiving input
signals as recited in the claim would have been obvious to those of ordinary
skill in the art. Final 21. Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal Br. 11. Instead, Appellants discuss a portion of the Ludwig
reference not relied upon by the Examiner. Id. Moreover, the origin of an
input signal does not modify the structure of the electric machine of the
claim. Appellants have not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection. We sustain the rejection.
Rejections K-N
The Examiner rejects claim 26 as obvious over Weeber in view of
Kori, and further in view of Miura; claim 27 as obvious over Weeber in view
of Kori, and further in view of Kuhn; claim 28 as obvious over Weeber in
view of Kori, and further in view of Forney; and claim 29 as obvious over
Weeber in view of Kori, and further in view of Ludwig.
Appellants do not advance any arguments against these rejections
over and above the arguments we addressed above. Thus, Appellants have
not identified a reversible error in these rejections for the reasons we have
already stated. We sustain these rejections.
17
Appeal 2015-005287
Application 13/465,082
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED
18