Ex Parte Ruge

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 14, 2012

11412410 (B.P.A.I. May. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS RUGE

____________

Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1-11, 13-271. We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to scene splitting for perspective
presentations. A controlling device distributes a set of objects to be rendered
to the rendering devices. The controlling device splits up the 3D scene to be
rendered into a set of 3D sub-scenes and each rendering device determines a
2D image in response to the 3D sub-scene assigned to it, and in response to a
rendering viewpoint. Each rendering device determines a 2D image of the
3D rendering, as seen from that rendering viewpoint and sends the
determined 2D image to a compositor. The compositor combines that 2D
image with the 2D images from rendering devices in “front” of it with
respect to the rendering viewpoint. Spec. 5-6.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed
limitation in italics):
A method, including steps of:
allocating information representing a three-dimensional
scene among a set of sub-scenes;
generating a two-dimensional sub-image for each sub-
scene, responsive to a rendering viewpoint; and
combining the two-dimensional sub-images, responsive
to the rendering viewpoint;
wherein the steps of combining include determining a
partial ordering of the sub-images responsive to the rendering
viewpoint; and combining any overlapping sub-images in
response to the partial ordering.

1 Claim 12 has been cancelled.
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

3
Claims 1-11 and 13-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by A distributed-data implementation of the perspective shear-
warp volume rendering algorithm for visualization of large astronomical
cubes, Brett Beeson et al., 2003 (“Beeson”).
ISSUES
Did the Examiner incorrectly find that Beeson describes:
“the steps of combining include determining a partial ordering of the
sub-images responsive to the rendering viewpoint; and combining any
overlapping sub-images in response to the partial ordering,” as recited in
independent claim 1;
“the steps of combining overlapping sub-images include steps of
coupling the sub-images in a hierarchy responsive to the partial ordering;
and combining overlapping sub-images substantially concurrently and
substantially independently,” as recited in dependent claim 14;
“the steps of combining overlapping sub-images include steps of
coupling the sub-images using a switch responsive to the partial ordering;
and combining overlapping sub-images substantially concurrently and
substantially independently,” as recited in dependent claim 15;
“the compositing device includes more than one computing device
taking on the role of a portion of the compositing device; the portions of the
compositing device include a switch responsive to the partial ordering,” as
recited in dependent claim 25; and
“the complete two-dimensional image is transmitted to another
computing device for additional processing,” as recited in dependent claim
27?
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action (“FOA”) and Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief presented in
response to the Answer. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions and
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Claims 1-11, 13, 16-24 and 26
Appellant asserts that the following descriptions in Beeson simply fail
to suggest “wherein the steps of combining include determining a partial
ordering of the sub-images responsive to the rendering viewpoint; and
combining any overlapping sub-images in response to the partial ordering”
(emphases omitted) (alterations in original):
A. “‘an efficient method of calculating lines of sight through the data
volume, and therefore providing sets of voxels ordered back to front is
required’” (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3, citing sec. 2, ¶ 1);
B. “‘sub-volumes of the data may be volume rendered independently and
then composited together to produce the same result as if the entire volume
had been rendered at once’ such that ‘rendering [is]... the operation of
producing a single output image from multiple input voxels and compositing
[is the]... operation of producing a single output image from multiple input
images’” (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-4, citing sec. 2.1, ¶ 1);
C. “‘compositing separately rendered images and deriv[ing] the over
operator, so named for the placement of a rendered foreground image over a
rendered background image’” (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-4, citing sec. 2.1, ¶
1);
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

5
D. “‘[m]ost implementations of the S-W algorithm store the volume in
one order and re-order the data when the viewing angle demands a new
storage order’, where ‘[t]he S-W algorithm is used to render... each sub-
volume independently’ and where ‘[t]he over operator is... used... to
composite the rendered images’ (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 9-10, citing sec. 3, ¶
1; sec. 3.4.2, ¶ 2);
E. “‘[v]olume rendering is often used to explore data - the user will
modify the transfer function and move the viewpoint in order to identify and
visualize different features of the data,’ that ‘[t]he rendered image is
displayed in the main window of the interface,’ and that ‘[i]n the interface,
the user can drag the mouse to rotate the volume, or rather, to move the
camera around the volume’” (App. Br. 12-13, citing sec. 4.1, ¶¶ 1, 4, 5).
F. “‘a VR operator is required which, given a set of voxels ordered back
to front will produce an integrated quantity representative of that set of
voxels’ and that ‘an efficient method of calculating lines of sight through the
data volume, and therefore providing sets of voxels ordered back to front is
required,’” and “‘[t]o enable distributed data VR, we need to ensure that
sub-volumes of the data may be volume rendered independently and then
composited together to produce the same result as if the entire volume had
been rendered at once’” (Reply Br. 5, citing sec. 2.1, ¶ 1);
G. “‘[a] volume is rendered by mapping each scalar voxel to a colour and
opacity (see below) and accumulating integrated colour and opacity values
along multiple conceptual viewing rays through the volume,’ and that ‘sub-
volumes of the data may be volume rendered independently and then
composited together to produce the same result as if the entire volume had
been rendered at once’” (Reply Br. 6, citing sec. 2.1, ¶ 1);
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

6
H. “‘two distinct approaches to applying a VR [(Volume Rendering)]
operator to a volume of data: ... [a] pixel-order renderer ... [where] [f]or each
pixel, a list of contributing voxels is compiled and sorted according to
distance from the image plane and then the VR operator is applied working
from the back to the front of the list’ and ‘[a] voxel-order renderer... [which]
loops through the data volume and projects each voxel onto the image
plane” (Reply Br. 6-7, citing sec. 2.2);
I. “Figure 1 of Beeson illustrates a ‘shear warp for parallel… and
persepective… projections’” and “‘[t]he S-W [(Shear-Warp)] factorization...
algorithm shears the volume space and warps the image space, so that the
viewing rays are parallel to a fundamental axis of the data volume’ and that
‘[i]n the transformed space, voxels and pixels align, and a VR system can
traverse the volume and the image in order’” (Reply Br. 7-8, citing Figure 1;
sec. 2.2);
J. “‘[m]ost implementations of the S-W algorithm store the volume
in one order and re-order the data when the viewing angle demands a new
storage order,’ and that ‘[a]s real-time re-ordering is not feasible for sub-
volumes larger than a few Mvox, our implementation stores the three
alternatively-ordered copies of the sub-volume data on each rendering node,’
which ‘substantially improve[s] the interactive response of the system during
rapid changes to the viewing angle,’” and “‘[t]he S-W algorithm is used to
render... each sub-volume...’” (Reply Br. 8, citing secs. 3, 3.4.2);
K. “‘distributed data volume renderer is constructed using the S-W
algorithm... and the over operator:’ where ‘[t]he data volume is divided into
two or more sub-volumes,’ ‘[t]he S-W algorithm is used to render... each
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

7
sub-volume independently with the same camera and projected onto the
same image plane,’ and ‘[t]he over operator is then used again, this time to
composite the rendered images, proceeding from back to front according to
the position of the sub-volumes in the original volume,’” and “‘[t]he S-W
algorithm store[s] the volume in one order and re-order[s] the data when the
viewing angle demands a new storage order’” (Reply Br. 11-12, citing secs.
3, 3.4.2); and
L. “‘[the renderers] apply an appropriate shear to their (sub-volume of)
data,... use the over operator to generate a projected, volume rendered image
and then warp this into the required image plane,’ where ‘[t]he rendered
images are then sent progressively up the tree where compositors use the
same over operator to combine the b images of adjacent sub-volumes
rendered (or composited) by their children, using ordering information from
their positions’” (Reply Br. 12, citing sec. 3.3).
Appellant’s arguments are conclusory and unpersuasive as they
merely reproduce various portions of Beeson’s description and the disputed
claim limitation (with bolding, underlining and italics), and make general
allegations that the reproduced portions of Beeson’s description simply fail
to suggest the disputed claim limitation. Appellant does not meaningfully
explain why the aforementioned portions of Beeson’s description do not
meet the disputed limitation of claim 1. Merely reciting the language of the
claims (with bolding, underlining and italics) and asserting that the prior art
reference does not disclose or teach each claim limitation is insufficient. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

8
(“[W]e hold 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.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”).
Appellant also disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation of “partial
ordering”, but does not present arguments particularly pointing out the
supposed error in the Examiner’s interpretation. Reply Br. 4. Instead,
Appellant reproduces the claim language and asserts that the Appellant’s
Specification and figures merely provide examples and should not be
construed as limiting. Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner’s interpretation of “partial ordering” is incorrect.
Moreover, “the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellant does not direct us to an explicit definition of “partial ordering” in
the Specification. Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the
English Language, © 1989, defines “order” as “to arrange methodically or
suitably”. Consistent with the dictionary definition, we broadly and
reasonably construe the claimed “partial ordering” as a partial methodical or
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

9
suitable arrangement. For this additional reason, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner’s interpretation of “partial ordering” is unreasonable.
Appellant further contests the Examiner’s finding that:
[i]n this case, the rendered image is achieved by determining
the partial ordering of sub-images associated with that
respective viewpoint in relation to the volumetric data as
specified by the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that such a viewpoint setting control takes into
consideration the ordering and overlap sub-images correctly in
order to achieve the correct rendering result for a given
viewpoint. Thus, a partial ordering is determined and
overlapped images are combined in response to the specified
viewpoint and ordering.

App. Br.11, 13-14; Reply Br. 12-13; See FOA 13; Ans. 19-20. Appellant
argues that the Examiner improperly relies on Official Notice to reject
Appellant’s claims. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 12-13.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument and agree with the
Examiner that no Official Notice is taken by the Examiner. Ans. 20. Rather,
the Examiner offers an explanation as to how one with ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would understand Beeson’s description.
Appellant does not provide a meaningful explanation or objective evidence
to show that the Examiner’s explanation is incorrect or unsupported by
Beeson’s description.
For all these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-
11, 13, 16-24 and 26 as anticipated by Beeson.
Claim 14
Claim 14, dependent from claim 1, recites: “the steps of combining
overlapping sub-images include steps of coupling the sub-images in a
hierarchy responsive to the partial ordering; and combining overlapping sub-
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

10
images substantially concurrently and substantially independently.”
Appellant asserts that the following descriptions in Beeson simply fail to
suggest the limitation recited in claim 14 (emphases omitted) (alterations in
original):
A. “‘[a] simple example rendering tree having b=2 [b=configurable
branching factor] and n=3 [n-level tree] is shown in Figure 2’ and that ‘[t]he
rendering tree contains compositors (branch nodes) and renderers (leaf
nodes),’” and “‘to enable distributed data VR, we need to ensure that sub-
volumes of the data may be volume rendered independently and then
composited together to produce the same result as if the entire volume had
been rendered at once,’” and “‘[t]he rendered images are then sent
progressively up the tree where the compositors use the same over operator
to combine the b images of adjacent sub-volumes rendered (or composited)
by their children, using ordering information from their positions’ such that
‘[t]he head compositor node produces the final rendered image’” (App. Br.
14-15; Reply Br. 13-15, citing Fig. 2; sec. 2.1, ¶ 1; secs. 3.1, 3.2);
B. “‘S-W factorization... applied to volume rendering’ where the
‘algorithm shears the volume space and warps the image space, so that the
viewing rays are parallel to a fundamental axis of the data volume,’ and
where ‘[i]n the transformed space, voxels and pixels align, and a VR system
can traverse the volume and the image in order,’” and “the ‘distributed data
volume renderer is constructed using the S-W algorithm’ such that ‘[t]he
data volume is divided into two or more sub-volumes’ where ‘each [sub-
volume is] a three-dimensional array of voxels,’ and that ‘[t]he S-W
algorithm is used to render... each sub-volume independently,’ where ‘[t]he
over operator is then used... to composite the rendered images, proceeding
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

11
from back to front according to the position of the sub-volumes in the
original volume’” (App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 15-16, citing sec 2.2, ¶ 3; sec.
3, ¶ 1); and
C. “‘[w]ith the rendering tree installed and configured, VR can proceed,’
where ‘[t]he requested viewing angle and image plane are parameterized and
passed all the way down the rendering tree to the renderers’” and “‘[the
renderers] apply an appropriate shear to their (sub-volume of) data,... use the
over operator to generate a projected, volume rendered image and then warp
this into the required image plane,’ where ‘[t]he rendered images are then
sent progressively up the tree where compositors use the same over operator
to combine the b images of adjacent sub-volumes rendered (or composited)
by their children, using ordering information from their positions’” and
“‘[t]he S-W algorithm is used to render... each sub-volume independently’,
where ‘[t]he S-W algorithm store[s] the volume in one order and re-order[s]
the data when the viewing angle demands a new storage order’” (Reply Br.
17, citing secs. 3, 3.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2).
Appellant’s arguments are again conclusory and unpersuasive as they
merely reproduce various portions of Beeson’s description, and the disputed
claim limitation (with bolding, underlining and italics), and make general
allegations that the reproduced portions of Beeson’s description simply fail
to suggest the limitation of claim 14. Appellant does not meaningfully
explain why the aforementioned portions of Beeson’s description do not
meet the limitation of claim 14. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii); see also
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357; cf. Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Appellant also disagrees with that the Examiner’s interpretation of the
disputed limitation of claim 14, but does not present arguments particularly
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

12
pointing out the supposed error in the Examiner’s interpretation. Reply Br.
17. Instead, Appellant merely reproduces the limitation of claim 14 (with
underlining and bolding) and asserts that the Appellant’s Specification and
figures should not be construed as limiting, but are merely examples. Reply
Br. 17. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s interpretation
of the limitation of claim 14 is incorrect.
For these reasons, in addition to those addressing claims 1-11,
13, 16-24 and 26, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 as
anticipated by Beeson.
Claim 15
Claim 15, dependent from claim 1, recites: “the steps of combining
overlapping sub-images include steps of coupling the sub-images using a
switch responsive to the partial ordering; and combining overlapping sub-
images substantially concurrently and substantially independently.”
Appellant asserts that the following descriptions found in Beeson simply fail
to suggest the limitation recited in claim 15 (emphasis omitted) (alterations
in original):
A. “‘parameters of the rendering tree can be tuned to suit various
configurations of processor speed, physical network topology and network
bandwidth availability’ where ‘[t]he rendering tree contains compositors
(branch nodes) and renders (leaf nodes)’ such that the ‘rendering tree
[includes]... a configurable branching factor b’” (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br.
18-19, citing sec. 3.1);
B. “‘[t]he rendering tree contains compositors (branch nodes) and
renders (leaf nodes),’ where ‘[t]he connections between nodes represent
socket connections,’” and “‘most implementations of the S-W algorithm
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

13
store the volume in one order and re-order the data when the viewing angle
demands a new storage order,’” (App. Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 19-21, citing
sec. 3.1, ¶ 1; sec. 3.4.2 ¶ 2) ;
C. “‘[i]mages are sent from renderers to compositors and from
compositors to compositors, quickly consuming network bandwidth,’ where
‘[t]o improve transfer speed, each image can be window encoded before it is
sent upwards to a compositor’ by ‘computing the bounding box of nonblank
pixels and only sending this sub-image,’ which is performed ‘by projecting
each comer of the volume into the image plane,’” and “‘[v]ery often the sub-
volume rendered by a renderer or composited by a compositor will only
project to a small part of the final image, so substantial savings can be made
using window-encoding,’” and “‘[p]erformance can... be improved
considerably by only compositing the non-blank image sections,’ where
‘this is accomplished by using the window encoding information already
computed for the network transfer of images and choosing not to decode the
full-size images’ such that ‘the rendering tree composites only sub-images of
sub-volumes’” (App. Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 19-21, citing secs. 3.4.3, 3.4.4);
and
D. “‘[t]he rendered images are then progressively sent up the tree where
compositors use the same over operator to combine b images of adjacent
sub-volumes rendered (or composited) by their children, using ordering
information from their positions’” (Reply Br. 21-22, citing sec. 3.3).
Appellant’s arguments are conclusory and unpersuasive since they
reproduce various portions of Beeson’s description, and the disputed claim
limitation (with bolding, underlining and italics), and make general
allegations that the reproduced portions of Beeson’s description simply fail
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

14
to suggest the limitation of claim 15. Appellant does not meaningfully
explain why the aforementioned portions of Beeson’s description do not
meet the limitation of claim 15. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii); see also
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357; cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Appellant also disagrees with the following Examiner’s findings
regarding Beeson’s description:
[i]n figure 2, the switch is movement within the rendering tree
for processing of a given section of graphics data. In figure 2,
the data travels between each rendering node to the compositors
up the network chain. Sub-images are switched when the
processing changes in either the bottom "renderers" or later in
the "compositors" layer. For example, this switch may be due to
a viewpoint change where a layer that was previously in the
front of the scene is now in back of the scene. Any change in
the way these "renderers" are ordered or combined in the
"compositors" between image frames constitutes the claimed
"using a switch responsive to the partial ordering". This is
because according to the reference, images are sorted prior to
compositing in relation to the viewpoint in order to achieve a
back to front compositing.
Reply Br. 21-22; see Ans. 21-22. Appellant further asserts that “[c]learly
changing the way the renderers are ordered . . . simply fails to even suggest
‘coupling the sub-images using a switch responsive to the partial ordering’”
as recited in claim 15. Reply Br. 22 (emphasis in original).
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive since they are conclusory,
reproduce the limitation of claim 15 with underlining and bolding, and do
not meaningfully explain the supposed error in the Examiner’s findings.
Moreover, we note that Appellant’s Specification discloses that a “switch”
refers to “an arrangement in which the controlling device and the rendering
devices are coupled . . . .” (Spec. 12, ll. 4-5). Appellant does not offer a
meaningful explanation as to why the Examiner’s interpretation of the
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

15
movement of data between the rendering nodes and compositors as shown in
Beeson’s Figure 2 does not meet the claimed “switch” (i.e., the coupling
between the controlling device and rendering device).
For these reasons, in addition to those addressing claims 1-11,
13, 16-24 and 26, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 as
anticipated by Beeson.
Claim 25
Claim 25, ultimately dependent from independent claim 19, recites:
“the compositing device includes more than one computing device taking on
the role of a portion of the compositing device; the portions of the
compositing device include a switch responsive to the partial ordering.”
Similar to the arguments addressing claim 14, Appellant asserts that the
following descriptions in Beeson simply fail to suggest the limitation recited
in claim 25 (emphases omitted) (alterations in original): “‘[a] simple
example rendering tree having b=2 [b=configurable branching factor] and
n=3 [n-level tree] is shown in Figure 2’ and that “‘[t]he rendering tree
contains compositors (branch nodes) and renderers (leaf nodes)’” (App. Br.
20-21; Reply Br. 22-23, citing Fig. 2, sec. 3.1); and “‘[t]he rendered images
are then sent progressively up the tree where the compositors use the same
over operator to combine the b images of adjacent sub-volumes rendered (or
composited) by their children, using ordering information from their
positions’ such that ‘[t]he head compositor node produces the final rendered
image’” (App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 22-24, citing sec. 3.2).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments since they merely
reproduce various portions of Beeson’s description, and the limitation of
claim 25 (with bolding, underlining and italics), and make general
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

16
allegations that the reproduced portions of Beeson’s description simply fail
to suggest the limitation of claim 25. Appellant does not meaningfully
explain why the aforementioned portions of Beeson’s description do not
meet the limitation of claim 25. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii); see also
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357; cf. Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
For these reasons, in addition to those addressing claims 1-11,
13, 16-24 and 26, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 as
anticipated by Beeson.
Claim 27
Claim 27, ultimately dependent from claim 19 recites: “the complete
two-dimensional image is transmitted to another computing device for
additional processing.” Appellant asserts that the following descriptions in
Beeson simply fail to suggest the limitation recited in claim 27 (emphases
omitted) (alterations in original):
A. “‘[a] user interface... [is] de-couple[d] from the rendering tree,’ where
‘computation on the workstation is kept to the minimum necessary to display
the rendered image and to control rendering parameters’” and “‘the
workstation will communicate (only) with the head compositor via standard
ethernet’” (App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 24-25, sec 4.1, ¶ 1; Fig. 5); and
B. “‘[a] user interface is required, which we have chosen to de-couple
from the rendering tree for the very important reason that the user may not
be in the same physical location as the cluster that is available to render their
data (see Figure 5)’ and that ‘the user’s workstation may well be slow
compared to available cluster nodes, and so computation on the workstation
is kept to the minimum necessary to display the rendered image and to
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

17
control rendering parameters such as the transfer function and viewing
angle’” (Reply Br. 25-26, citing sec. 4.1).
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive as they reproduce various
portions of Beeson’s description and the limitation of claim 27 (with
bolding, underlining and italics), and make general allegations that the
reproduced portions of Beeson’s description simply fail to suggest the
limitation of claim 27. Appellant does not meaningfully explain why the
aforementioned portions of Beeson’s description do not meet the limitation
of claim 27. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii); see also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357;
cf. Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
In addition, we note that the recitations in claim 27 constitute a
statement of intended purpose or use that does not further limit the structure
of the apparatus recited in claims 19 and 26 over the prior art.
For these reasons, in addition to those addressing claims 1-11,
13, 16-24 and 26, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 as
anticipated by Beeson.
In the event of further prosecution, we direct the Examiner’s attention
to the recitation of a method in claim 27, which is dependent from apparatus
claims 19 and 26.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Beeson.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Appeal 2009-013944
Application 11/412,410

18
AFFIRMED

msc