Ex Parte Schulz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2017

13311951 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2017)

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.
13/311,951 12/06/2011 Uwe Schulz KOA0335PUSA (R 1880) 1916
22045 7590 11/15/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER GARDNER, SHANNON M
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1757
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UWE SCHULZ
and PAVLOS PLATANOS
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, JULIA HEANEY, and SHELDON M. McGEE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—3, 6—9, and 17—21 of
Application 13/311,951 under 35 U.S.C. §112,11 for failing to comply with
the written description requirement. Final Act. (September 4, 2015). The
Examiner also rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated. Id.
The Examiner further rejected claims 1—3, 6—9, and 18—21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious. Id. Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Kostal Industrie Elektrik GmbH is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
The ’951 Application describes a solar assembly having an electrical
connection and junction box and a solar cell module. Spec. 1 6. The
junction box design allows for more automated assembly of the components,
thereby contributing to cost savings and quality improvements. Id.
Claims 1 and 17 are representative of the ’951 Application’s claims
and are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief,
with emphasis added to limitations that are material to our analysis:
1. A solar assembly comprising:
an electrical connection and junction box having an electrically
conducting structure including an electrical conductor path;
a solar cell module having an electrical conductive strip; and
a flexible electric conductor materially bonded with the
conductor path in an electrically conducting manner and
materially bonded with the conductive strip in an electrically
conducting manner, without the conductive strip being bent to be
materially bonded with the electric conductor, such that the
conductor path electrically contacts the conductive strip via the
electric conductor.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 1 (emphasis added).
17. A solar assembly comprising:
an electrical connection and junction box having an
electrically conducting structure including an electrical
conductor path;
a solar cell module having an electrical conductive strip;
and
a flexible electric conductor materially bonded with the
conductor path in an electrically conducting manner and
materially bonded with the conductive strip in an electrically
2
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
conducting manner such that the conductor path electrically
contacts the conductive strip via the electric conductor.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 2 (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains2 the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—3 and 6—9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112,11 for
failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Answer 2.
2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Rueggen.3 Answer 2.
3. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Werner.4 Answer 2.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Werner as evidenced by Cohen.5 Answer 2.
5. Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Werner and Hacke.6
Answer 3.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 17—21 for failure to
comply with the written description requirement. Answer 3.
3 US 2011/0092094 Al, published April 21, 2011.
4 US 7,097,516 B2, issued August 29, 2006.
5 US 4,356,251, issued October 26, 1982.
6 US 2008/0216887 Al, published September 11, 2008.
3
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
6. Claims 18—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Rueggen and Hacke.
Answer 3.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1—3 and
6—9 under §112, 1 for failure to comply with the written description
requirement. In particular, the Examiner found that the ’951 Application’s
Specification fails to provide explicit support for claim 1 ’s limitation
requiring the flexible conductor to be materially bonded to the conductive
strip “without the conductive strip being bent to be materially bonded with
the electric conductor.” Final Act. 3. Claims 2, 3, and 6—9 are rejected by
virtue of their dependency from claim 1. Id.
The claim language that the Examiner found was not supported by the
written description is a negative limitation. Such limitations are adequately
supported when the Specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant
structure. See Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2012).
Here, Appellants argue that the ’951 Application’s Specification
provides adequate support for the negative limitation. Appeal Br. 4—5
(citing Spec. 1 5, Figure 1).
For the following reasons, we determine that the Examiner erred by
finding that the ’951 Application’s Specification does not provide adequate
support for the subject matter of claim 1. Answer 3—5.
With respect to the negative limitation at issue, we agree with
Appellants that Figure 1 shows “perfectly flat, non-bent conductive strips (2)
materially bonded with respective electrical conductors (5).” Appeal Br. 4.
4
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
Paragraph 5 of the ‘951 Application’s Specification explains why
Appellants use non-bent conductive strips in their invention. In particular,
the Specification describes the prior art junction box as including conductive
strips from the solar cell module that are bent to create contact with the
connector device in the junction box. Spec. 1 5. The Specification explains
that “[tjhis type of contacting requires extensive handling of the conductive
strips, which handling can only be automated to a small extent.” Id. See
also Reply Br. 1—3.
The Examiner argues that Appellants cannot rely upon the disclosure
provided by Figure 1 because the ‘951 Application’s Specification states:
“The figures are not necessarily to scale; some features may be
exaggerated or minimized to show details of particular
components. Therefore, specific structural and functional details
disclosed herein are not to be interpreted as limiting, but merely
as a representative basis for teaching one skilled in the art to
variously employ the present invention.” Given that features of
Figure 1 “may be exaggerated or minimized,” surface distortion
(e.g.[,j bends/buckles/wrinkles/topographical textures) of
conductive strips (2) may not be visually represented in the
Figure. Therefore Appellant’s Figure 1 cannot be relied upon to
establish that the conductive strips (2) are not bent.
Answer 5 (quoting Spec. 114).
The Examiner’s argument is not persuasive. A claim limitation
complies with the written description requirement if the specification
conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor
was in possession of the invention as of the application’s filing date.
Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122
(Fed. Cir. 2008). In this case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
lookat Figure 1, would have seen a depiction of a conductive strip that is free
from bends. This depiction, when combined with the Specification’s
5
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
explanation that the prior art’s use of a bent conductive strip precluded
automation of the assembly process and a person of ordinary skill in the art’s
knowledge of automated assembly’s advantages, is sufficient to demonstrate
and support claim 1 ’s use of the negative claim limitation.
We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 1 for lack of written
description support. Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of claims 2,
3, and 6—9.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claim 17 as anticipated by
Rueggen. Final Act. 4 (citing Rueggen Figs. 1 & 2). “‘[Anticipation’”
requires lack of novelty of the invention as claimed. The invention must
have been known to the art in the detail of the claim; that is, all of the
elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior
reference, arranged as in the claim.” Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf
Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In rejecting claim 17, the Examiner found, in relevant part that
Rueggen describes
[a] flexible electric conductor materially bonded with the
conductor path in an electrically conducting manner and
materially bonded with the conductive strip in an electrically
conducting manner such that the conductor path electrically
contacts the conductive strip via the electric conductor (strip
6
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
conductors, 4[,] contact tongues, 11 [,] of conductor rails, 8[,] for
electrical connection between 4 and 6).
Final Act. 4 (referencing Rueggen Figs. 1 & 2). Thus, in the Examiner’s
rejection, Rueggen’s conductor rails 7 and 8 correspond to the claimed
flexible electric conductor.7
Appellants argue that this rejection should be reversed because the
Examiner erred by finding that Rueggen describes an assembly including “a
flexible electric conductor materially bonded with the conductor path in an
electrically conducting manner.” Appeal Br. 8—11. In particular, Appellants
argue that Rueggen describes neither a flexible conductor nor a conductor
materially bonded with the conductor path. Id.', see also Reply Br. 3. We
address these arguments seriatim.
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that
Rueggen describes a flexible electric conductor that is materially bonded
with the conductor path in an electrically conducting manner. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellants’ argument is based upon a misunderstanding of the Examiner’s
rejection. In the rejection, the combination of conductor rails 7 and 8 in
Rueggen corresponds to the claimed flexible electric conductor, while wire 6
corresponds to the claimed electrical conductor path. In Rueggen, wire 6 is
connected to conductor rail 8 by a solder connection through connecting
element5. Rueggen 125. Thus, Rueggen describes a flexible electric
conductor that is materially bonded to the conductor path. Appellants’
argument regarding the connection between conductor rail 7 and conductor
7 We recognize that the Final Action does not include reference number 7 in
the statement of the rejection. The rejection, however, uses the plural
“conductor rails.” Thus, we conclude that the Examiner's omission of
reference 7 from the statement of the rejection was an inadvertent error.
7
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
rail 8 is irrelevant because the claim does not require the flexible electric
conductor to have a unitary construction.
Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that
Rueggen describes a flexible electric conductor. Appeal Br. 10-11. As
discussed above, the Examiner found that the combination of Rueggen’s
conductor rails 7 and 8 corresponds to the claimed flexible electric
conductor. Final Act. 4. Rueggen states that conductor rails 7 and 8 are
fabricated from sheet metal in the form of bent punched components.
Rueggen 122. Appellants argue that this fabrication means that conductor
rails 7 and 8 are not flexible as that term is used in the claims of the ’951
Application. Appeal Br. 10-11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. We begin by
determining the meaning of the claim term “flexible.” Oakley, Inc. v.
Sunglass Hut Int 7, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that
anticipation and obviousness require comparison of the properly construed
claims to the available prior art). During prosecution, the PTO gives the
language 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 any definitions or other
enlightenment provided by the written description contained in the
applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054—55 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
In this case, than ’951 Application’s Specification does not contain a
definition of the term “flexible.” Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood “flexible” to have its ordinary meaning, which is
“capable of being bent or flexed.” See, e.g., Flexible - definition of flexible
by The Free Dictionary, The Free Dictionary (November 7, 2017 5:11 pm),
8
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/flexible; Flexible \ Define Flexible at
Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com (November 7, 2017 5:10 pm),
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/flexible.
Applying this claim construction, we determine that the Examiner did
not err by finding that Rueggen describes a flexible electric conductor. As
discussed above, Rueggen describes conductor rails 7 and 8 as being
fabricated from sheet metal in the form of bent punched components.
Rueggen 122. Appellants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand sheet metal as being flexible as that term is used in the
’951 Application is not persuasive. In that regard, we note that the ’951
Application’s Specification itself describes parts fabricated from sheet metal
as being flexible. Spec. 122 (“In the illustrated embodiment, conductor
paths 3 of the conducting structure of the junction box are fabricated as
flexible stamped parts from a sheet material having good electrical
conductivity, for example, from hot dip tinned sheet copper.” (emphasis
added)).
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claim 17 as
anticipated by Rueggen.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 8 as unpatentable
over Werner. Final Act. 5— 7.
Appellants argue that this rejection should be reversed because the
Examiner erred by finding that Warner describes or suggests each of claim
1 ’s limitations. Appeal Br. 11—14. Appellants do not present separate
arguments for reversal of the rejection with respect to claim 8, which
depends from claim 1. See id. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the claims subject to this rejection and so limit our
9
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
discussion. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). Dependent claim 8 will
stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed
because Werner does not describe or suggest the claim limitation that
requires the solar assembly to comprise “a flexible electric conductor
materially bonded with the conductor path in an electrically conducting
manner and materially bonded with the conductive strip in an electrically
conducting manner.” Appeal Br. 12—14. We address each of Appellants’
arguments below.
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that
Werner describes or suggests an assembly having a flexible conductor that is
materially bonded with the conductor path in an electrically conducting
manner. Id. at 12.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Werner describes a
flexible electric conductor that is connected to the conductor path in an
electrically conducting manner. Final Act. 6. The Examiner acknowledges
that “[t]he prior art fails to explicitly teach the electric conductor (41/45)
being materially bonded with the conductor path (20) and materially bonded
with the conductive strip (30).” Id. The Examiner continues:
However, a skilled artisan reading the reference as a whole
would readily appreciate that in the interconnection of these
electrically conductive parts, the electric conductor (41/45) is
materially bonded with the conductor path (20) and the
conductive strip (30) with well-known and commonly used
methods (soldering, resistance welding, etc.) as these are well-
known connection techniques for a connection/circuit board.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to materially bond these
10
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
components as mechanical means for attachment provides
stability to the device.
Id. (emphasis added).
As written, the Examiner’s analysis is internally inconsistent, in that
after acknowledging that the prior art does not teach material bonding of the
electric conductor to the conductor path, the Examiner then asserts that the
electric conductor is materially bonded with the conductor path. When read
in context, however, we conclude that the Examiner intended to state that a
skilled artisan reading Werner as a whole would appreciate that the electric
conductor could be materially bonded with the conductor path and the
conductor strip. This is consistent with the Examiner’s Answer, where the
Examiner states that
[a] skilled artisan would readily appreciate the substituting of one
known connection technique (clamping) for another known
connection technique (soldering/welding/adhesive gluing).
Further, one would recognize that solder/weld/glue has the
advantage of a stronger connection point with a disadvantage of
a permanent connection and that clamping has the advantage of
easy snap-in assembly/disassembly with the disadvantage of a
weaker connection point. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have
[been] motivated to select any appropriate bonding technique
based on the desired application of the final device and would
have been willing to accept the consequent loss of [the] easy
assembly/disassembly benefit that comes with the selection of
solder/weld/glue for application^] where a strong connection
point is a desired characteristic of the device.
Answer 7.
In response, Appellants argue that modifying Werner’s mechanical
connection by replacing the clamp with soldering, welding, or gluing would
defeat Werner’s intended purpose. Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue that
Werner’s intended purpose is “to be able allow [sic, to allow] the two sets of
11
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
connecting elements to join one another when the connecting box is joined
to the solar panel.” Id.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
intended purpose of Werner’s assembly is to provide an electrical
connection box for use on a backside-connected solar panel array. The
Examiner’s proposed replacement of Werner’s with a clamped connection
with a materially bonded connection does not prohibit this use, nor does it
preclude the use of automated assembly procedures because welding robots
are well known in the art.
Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that
Werner describes or suggests that the flexible conductor is materially
bonded with the conductive strip in an electrically conducting manner.
Appeal Br. 13.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error for the reasons
discussed above.
Third, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that
Werner describes or suggests the use of a flexible electric conductor to
connect the conductor path with the conductive strip. Appeal Br. 13—14.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Although Werner
does not expressly describe the material from which fixed contacts 41 are
fabricated, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
that fixed contacts 41 would most likely be constructed of metal because
they need to be electrically conductive. As discussed above, the proper
interpretation of the claim term “flexible” is sufficiently broad that it
encompasses thin metal parts such as fixed contacts 41. Furthermore, a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a small
degree of lateral flexibility (as opposed to axial compressibility) would be
12
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
desirable to compensate for small amounts of misalignment between fixed
contacts 41 and second contact elements 20.
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1
and 8 of the ’951 Application.
Rejection 4. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 9 should be
reversed by virtue of claim 9’s dependence from claim 1. Appeal Br. 14.
Because we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1, we also affirm the
rejection of claim 9.
Rejection 5. Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, and
7 should be reversed by virtue of these claims’ dependence from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 14. Because we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Werner, we cannot reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6,
and 7 as unpatentable over the combination of Werner and Hacke on that
basis.
Appellants also present separate, additional arguments for
patentability of claims 2 and 7. Id. at 14—16. We address these arguments
below.
Claim 2. Claim 2 specifies that the flexible electric conductor of
claim 1 is a woven wire mesh belt.
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner found that Hacke describes “known
electrical conductor configuration [sic, configurations] such as conductor
strips or wire mesh (abstract) comprising tin-coated (tinned) copper
(paragraph [0049]).” Final Act. 8. Appellants argue that the rejection of
claim 2 as unpatentable over the combination of Werner and Hacke should
be reversed because the Examiner erred by concluding it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Hacke’s woven wire
belt as the claimed flexible electric conductor. Appeal Br. 14—15.
13
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
We determine that the Examiner has not adequately demonstrated that
the subject matter of claim 2 is unpatentable over the combination of Werner
and Hacke. In particular, we note that Hacke describes the use of a woven
wire mesh as the interconnecting structure with the solar cell. Hacke 150.
In this use, the woven wire mesh corresponds to claim 1 ’s electrical
conductive strip and not to the flexible electric conductor. The Examiner
has not explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have been motivated to use Hacke’s woven wire mesh as
the flexible electric conductor. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”); In reRouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within
the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification
of the prior art to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not been
explained).
Because we have reversed the rejection of claim 2, we also reverse the
rejection of claims 3 and 6 which depend therefrom.
Claim 7. Claim 7 specifies that the flexible electric conductor is
materially bonded to the conductor path and to the conductive strip by
resistance welding. The Examiner concluded that claim 7 adds product-by­
process limitations. Final Act. 8—9. The Examiner found that the structural
limitations of claim 7 are met by the prior art and that Appellants have not
demonstrated that resistance welding results in a product that is structurally
different from the prior art. Id. In view of these findings, the Examiner
14
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
concluded that the subject matter of claim 7 is unpatentable over the
combination of Werner and Hacke. Id.
Appellants argue that this rejection should be reversed:
The arguments set forth in section IV.C(3) above in
regards to a comparison of independent claim 1 compared to
Werner are incorporated with the term “resistance welded” being
used in place of the term “materially bonded.” In view of the
foregoing, claim 7 is separately patentable over Werner in view
of Hacke.
Appeal Br. 16.
As discussed above, these arguments are not persuasive of reversible
error. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over the
combination of Werner and Hacke.
Rejection 6. Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 18—21
should be reversed by virtue of their dependence from claim 17. Appeal Br.
16. Because we have affirmed the rejection of claim 17 as anticipated by
Rueggen, we cannot reverse the rejection of claims 18—21 as unpatentable
over the combination of Rueggen and Hacke on that basis.
Appellants also present separate, additional arguments for the
patentability of claims 18 and 21. Id. at 16—18. We address these arguments
below.
Claim 18. Claim 18 specifies that the flexible electric conductor of
claim 17 is a woven wire mesh belt.
In rejecting claim 18, the Examiner found that Hacke describes
“known electrical conductor configurations such as conductor strips or wire
mesh (abstract) comprising tin-coated (tinned) copper (paragraph [0049]).”
Final Act. 9. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 18 as unpatentable
over the combination of Rueggen and Hacke should be reversed because the
15
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
Examiner erred by concluding that it would have been obvious to use
Hacke’s woven wire belt as the claimed flexible electric conductor. Appeal
Br. 17-18.
We reverse this rejection for the reasons expressed in connection with
our reversal of the rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over the combination
of Werner and Hacke. Because we have reversed the rejection of claim 18,
we also reverse the rejection of claims 19 and 20, which depend therefrom.
Claim 21. Claim 21 specifies that the flexible electric conductor is
materially bonded to the conductor path and to the conductive strip by
resistance welding. The Examiner concluded that claim 21 adds product-by­
process limitations. Final Act. 9—10. The Examiner found that the structural
limitations of claim 21 are met by the prior art and that Appellants have not
demonstrated that resistance welding results in a product that is structurally
different from the prior art. Id. In view of these findings, the Examiner
concluded that the subject matter of claim 21 is unpatentable over the
combination of Rueggen and Hacke. Id.
Appellants argue that this rejection should be reversed:
The arguments set forth in section IV.B(3) above in
regards to comparison of independent claim 17 compared to
Rueggen are incorporated with the term “resistance welded”
being used in place of the term “materially bonded.” In view of
the foregoing, claim 21 is separately patentable over Rueggen in
view of Hacke.
Appeal Br. 18.
As discussed above, these arguments are not persuasive of reversible
error. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 21 as unpatentable over the
combination of Rueggen and Hacke.
16
Appeal 2016-007496
Application 13/311,951
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1—3
and 6—9 for failure to comply with the written description requirement. With
respect to the prior art rejections, we affirm the rejection of claim 17 as
anticipated by Rueggen. We also affirm the rejections of claims 1, 7—9, and
21 as unpatentable pursuant to § 103. Finally, we reverse the § 103
rejections of claims 2, 3, and 6 as unpatentable over the combination of
Werner and Hacke and of claims 18—20 as unpatentable over the
combination of Rueggen and Hacke.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17