Ex Parte Schütz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13462484 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
74523 1070
EXAMINER
CAILLOUET, CHRISTOPHER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/462,484 05/02/2012
23872 7590 05/31/2017
MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
P.O. BOX 9227
SCARBOROUGH STATION
SCARBOROUGH, NY 10510-9227
Udo Schiitz
05/31/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UDO SCHUTZ
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Oral argument was heard May 2, 2017.2
We AFFIRM.
1 PROTECHNA S.A. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed May 2, 2012
(Spec.), the Final Office Action mailed February 12, 2014 (Final Action),
the Appeal Brief filed October 14, 2014 (App. Br.), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed February 26, 2015 (Ans.), the Reply Brief filed April 23, 2015
(Reply), and the May 2, 2017 oral hearing transcript (“Tr.”).
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
The claimed subject matter relates to method for producing plastic
tanks for shipping and storage of liquids. App. Br. 24 (claim 1); Spec. 2.
An embodiment of a tank made by the method is shown in Figures 1 and 3,
which are reproduced below:
Rg. 1
Figure 1 shows a shipping and storage tank for liquids, and Figure 3 shows
the outlet region of the tank. Spec. 6. As shown in Figure 1, shipping and
storage tank 1 includes rectangular-solid shaped plastic tank 2 supported
within outer cage 14 on pallet-like support frame 17. Id. at 7. Plastic tank 2
has filling socket 7 in upper base 9 and tapping valve 10 connected to drain
outlet 11 in dome-shaped recess 12 in front wall 3 near lower base 13. Id.
The method is disclosed with reference to Figure 3 as follows:
The tank 2 is produced from a tubular parison by blow
molding, wherein ... a threaded socket 20 (Fig. 3) is formed on
the rear section 21 of a lower recess 12 of the front wall 3 of the
tank 2, which recess 12 receives the tapping valve 10. After the
2
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
tank 2 has cooled, its recess 12 is cut out inside ... the threaded
socket 20 with a cutting tool to produce the drain outlet 11 of
the tank 2. The finished preassembled tapping valve 10, whose
injection-molded plastic body 22 has an inlet socket 23 and an
outlet socket 24, is then welded by its inlet socket 23 to . . . the
threaded socket 20 of the tank 2 by a welding machine,
especially a heat-reflection butt-welding machine, during which
the tank 2 is centered and held in the welding machine by . . .
the threaded socket 20.
Spec. 7—8 (references to Figure 2 embodiment omitted).
Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below from Appellant’s Claims Appendix:
1. A method for producing plastic tanks for liquids,
especially for use as inner tanks for liquid shipping and storage
tanks with an outer jacket in the form of a cage or sheet
material and a pallet-like support frame, which are constructed
as rectangular-solid or cubic tanks with four sidewalls, an upper
base with a filling socket that can be closed with a cap, a lower
base, and a drain outlet in the lower section of a sidewall for
connection to a tapping valve, the method comprising:
producing the tanks from a tubular parison by blow
molding, wherein during the same blow molding a threaded
socket is formed on a rear section of a lower recess of the front
wall of the tank, which recess receives the tapping valve;
cutting out the recess of the tanks inside the threaded
socket with a cutting tool to produce the drain outlet of the
tanks; and
welding the finished preassembled tapping valve to the
threaded socket in a welding machine, wherein, for welding the
tapping valve to the tanks, centering the tanks and holding the
tanks in the welding machine opposite the tapping valve by the
threaded socket which is formed on the tank, wherein the
welding step includes welding the inlet socket of the tapping
valve to the threaded socket of the tanks by heat-reflection butt
welding.
3
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
2. A method for producing plastic tanks for liquids, the
method comprising:
producing at least one tank from a tubular parison via
blow molding, said at least one tank comprising a front wall,
said front wall comprising a lower recess, said lower recess
comprising a rear section, wherein a threaded socket is formed
on said rear section of said lower recess of said front wall
during said blow molding, said threaded socket being integrally
connected to said front wall, said threaded socket having a
threaded socket inner surface, said threaded socket inner
surface defining a threaded socket interior opening, said
threaded socket inner surface defining an inner threaded socket
dimension, said threaded socket comprising an outer flange
engaging surface;
providing a tapping valve comprising an inlet socket, said
inlet socket having an inner surface, said inner surface defining
an inner inlet socket dimension, said inner inlet socket
dimension being less than said inner threaded socket dimension,
said tapping valve comprising a tapping valve portion, said
tapping valve comprising an outer flange;
providing a cutting tool;
cutting out the recess of said at least one tank inside said
threaded socket with said cutting tool to produce a drain outlet
of said at least one tank;
providing a welding machine;
and centering said at least one tank and holding said at
least one tank by said threaded socket, opposite said tapping
valve, in said welding machine such that said outer flange
engages said outer flange engaging surface and welding said
inlet socket to said threaded socket in a region of said outer
flange and said outer flange engaging surface by heat-reflection
butt to define a butt-weld, said tapping valve portion being
arranged in said threaded socket interior opening, wherein said
tapping valve portion extends to a position beyond said butt­
weld and said outer flange, at least a portion of said tapping
valve portion engaging said threaded socket inner surface.
4
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
App. Br. 24—26.
References
Van Nuffel US 6,441,071 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
Andrew US 6,550,514 B1 Apr. 22, 2003
Cassina US 2003/0173358 A1 Sept. 18, 2003
Schutz US 2004/0124387 A1 July 1, 20043
Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
1. Claim 1 as unpatentable over Cassina, Van Nuffel, and Andrew.
Final Action 2—5.
2. Claims 2—9 as unpatentable over Cassina, Van Nuffel, Andrew,
and Schutz. Id. at 6—9.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence presented in this Appeal and each
of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error, and we find that a preponderance of evidence supports the
Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s claims is
unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the rejections of the
appealed claims based on the Examiner’s findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and rebuttals to Appellant’s arguments, as expressed in the Final Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
3 US 2004/0124387 A1 identifies the inventor as “Udo Schutz,” which
appears to be the same person as Appellant, “Udo Schutz.” We refer to
US 2004/0124387 A1 as “Schutz.”
5
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
Independent Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Cassina teaches a method for manufacturing
a container for storage and transportation of liquids, including the limitations
recited in the preamble of claim 1. Final Action 2—3 (citing Cassina
Abstract, Fig. 1, || 67—76). The Examiner finds that Cassina teaches
producing the container by blow molding and that Van Nuffel teaches the
use of a tubular parison for blow molding containers. Id. at 2-4 (citing Van
Nuffel, 17:3—6). The Examiner finds that Cassina does not teach the cutting
step of claim 1, but that cutting would have been an obvious way to form a
drain opening in the container. Id. at 4 (citing Cassina 174). The Examiner
finds that Cassina does not teach the welding step of claim 1, but that heat-
reflection butt welding is a well-known method for connecting two pieces of
piping. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to use
well known welding techniques to form a piping connection between
Cassina’s threaded pipe union 11 and Cassina’s discharge valve 12. Id. at 4—
5 (citing Andrew, Abstract, 1:43—45, 1:49—57).
Regarding the welding step of claim 1, Appellant argues that the
references as a whole do not teach or suggest welding an inlet socket of a
tapping valve to a threaded socket of a tank by heat-reflection butt welding.4
4 The term, “heat-reflection butt welding,” is not defined or explained in
Appellant’s Specification. Appellant agrees that, as used in art, the term
“butt welding” refers to a method for joining two pipes having the same
diameter. Tr. 8:23—9:3. Appellant also agrees that, as used in the claims, the
term “butt welding” is not limited to joining same diameter pipes. Id. at
9:4—11. Accordingly, the term, “heat-reflection butt welding,” has a broader
meaning in the claims than it does in the art, and the issue on appeal is
whether the cited prior art would have suggested welding as a method for
6
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
App. Br. 7. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s determination that it would
have been obvious to weld Cassina’s discharge valve 12 to Cassina’s
threaded pipe union 11. Id. at 8—9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. A preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s determination that it would have been
obvious to use welding instead of a threaded connection to connect
Cassina’s discharge valve 12 to Cassina’s pipe union 11. Final Action 4—5.
Cassina discloses that tank 1 is provided with unloading opening 9
equipped with threaded pipe union 11 and that discharge valve 12 is screwed
onto pipe union 11. Cassina, Fig. 1, || 74, 76. Cassina discloses that each
of these parts may be made of plastic. Id. at 68, 74, 75, 79. Cassina thus
discloses that two pieces of plastic piping—pipe union 11 and discharge
valve 12—are attached via a threaded connection. Andrew discloses
welding as a method for connecting plastic pipes. Andrew, 1:27—37.
Andrew teaches that welding forms a joint as strong as the plastic pipe itself
and is “very economical” compared to other ways of joining pipe, such as a
threaded connection. Id. at 1:38-45. Thus, Andrew teaches that welding is
an advantageous alternative to a threaded connection for joining two pieces
of plastic pipe. The combined teachings of Cassina and Andrew support the
Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to use welding
instead of a threaded connection to connect a discharge valve to the outlet of
a tank.
connecting a valve to the outlet of a tank, such as Cassina’s threaded pipe
union 11 and the inlet of Cassina’s discharge valve 12.
7
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
Although Andrew discloses welding as a method for joining “lengths
of pipe” (Andrew, 1:28), its teachings are not limited to pipes of any
particular size or length. Appellant argues that “it is not clear how it would
be possible to grasp a bulky member of the tank to carry out a butt-welding
process to form a welded connection between the tank and the tapping
valve.” App. Br. 8. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error in the
Examiner’s determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art
(“POSITA”) would have been able to use a known welding technique, such
as that disclosed in Andrew, to connect a valve to the outlet of a tank. The
Examiner’s determination is supported by Andrew, which provides a far
more detailed disclosure of the welding process than does Appellant’s
Specification. Compare Andrew 1:49—2:36, with Spec. 8.5
Appellant argues that welding a tapping valve to a threaded socket
would contradict the teachings of Andrew, which discloses welding as a
substitute for a threaded connection. App. Br. 9. Appellant’s argument
relies on claim l’s recitation that one of the welded parts is a threaded
socket. As Appellant concedes, however, the threads play no role in forming
a connection between the threaded socket of the tank and the inlet socket of
the tapping valve. Tr. 8:8—22; see App. Br. 24 (claim 1). Accordingly, the
claimed method makes the same substitution as taught by Andrew: a welded
connection is substituted for a threaded connection. Andrew teaches
5 We note that the problem posed by Appellant—how ... to grasp a bulky
member of the tank to carry out a butt-welding process” (App. Br. 8)—is not
solved by Appellant’s Specification, which lacks a detailed explanation of
how a heat-reflection butt-welding machine can be used to weld threaded
socket 20 to inlet socket 23 of valve 10. See Spec. 8.
8
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
welding as a known method for connecting two pieces of plastic pipe.
Andrew, 1:26—37. Appellant does not provide persuasive argument or
evidence that Andrew’s welding method is not suitable for joining a
threaded pipe to a pipe. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument does not
identify error in the Examiner’s determination that the teachings of Andrew
and Cassina would have led to the claimed subject matter.
Next, Appellant argues that that a POSITA would not apply welding
when there is already a threaded coupling and that the proposed substitution
would change Cassina’s removable connection to a permanent connection.
App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4—5. We find, however, that claim 1 encompasses the
very substitution that is admittedly taught by Andrew (App. Br. 9): a welded
joint is substituted for Cassina’s threaded screw connection. Appellant also
argues that a threaded connection “is the more economical approach for
connecting the components.” Id. Appellant directs us to no evidence to
support this argument, which is contradicted by the express teachings of
Andrew. Andrew, 1:42-45 (“butt-fusion is very economical compared to
joining pipe in other ways such as by the use of couplings by which pipe is
threaded together”).
Regarding the cutting step of claim 1, Appellant argues that “[t]he
references as a whole do not provide any teaching or suggestion for cutting
out a recess of a tank inside a threaded socket with a cutting tool to produce
a drain outlet of the tank.” App. Br. 9. According to Appellant, “the
openings of Cassina could have been formed by a process that does not
involve the use of a cutting tool, such as molding.” Id. at 10. Appellant
directs us to no evidence to dispute the Examiner’s determination that a
POSITA would have been aware that a cutting tool could be used to form an
9
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
opening in a plastic container, such as opening 9 in Cassina’s tank 1. Final
Action 4. On this record, we find that the cutting step of claim 1 is among a
finite number of identified, predictable ways of forming an opening in a
plastic tank, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of
successfully forming a discharge opening in the tank by using this method.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply Brief and at the oral
hearing that there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited references to form
a tank and a threaded socket in the same blow molding process. Reply Br.
2—3; Tr. 2:23—7:18. That argument is untimely and will not be considered.
37 C.F.R. §41.41 (b)(2).6
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
6 Even if we were to consider Appellant’s belated argument, it is not
persuasive. Van Nuffel discloses: “As is known, blow molding processes
for preparing bottles, containers, instrument panels and like structures
involve the steps of extrusion of an expandable parison, expansion or
blowing of the parison to the desired shape and cooling.” Van Nuffel, 17:3—
7. A “desired shape” includes a container mouth, such as Cassina’s threaded
pipe unions 10 and 11 or the threaded socket of Appellant’s container.
Furthermore, Appellant agrees (Tr. 3:9—17, 4:13—23) that a POSITA would
have known how to perform the recited blow molding step based upon the
Specification’s disclosure and drawings, which provide no greater level of
detail regarding blow molding than the cited prior art. Compare Spec. 7
(“The tank 2 is produced from a tubular parison by blow molding, wherein
. . . a threaded socket 20 (Fig. 3) is formed on the rear section 21 of a lower
recess 12 of the front wall 3 of the tank 2, which recess 12 receives the
tapping valve 10.”), with Van Nuffel, 17:3—7 (quoted above) and Cassina,
Fig. 1,174 (tank 1 with threaded pipe unions 10 and 11).
10
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
Independent Claim 2
The Examiner rejects claim 2 for the same reasons as claim 1, plus
additional reasons. Final Action 6. The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious in view of the teachings of Schutz to provide a tapping
valve having an inlet orifice that is smaller in diameter than the discharge
orifice of the tank’s threaded socket, thereby allowing the inlet orifice to fit
within the discharge orifice and forming an overlapping piping connection.
Id. at 6—7 (citing Schutz Figure 1).
To the extent that Appellant repeats the same or similar arguments for
claim 2 as for claim 1, those arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set
forth above. Appellant advances a number of additional arguments for
distinguishing Schutz from the subject matter of claim 2. App. Br. 11, 12,
14 (arguing that Schutz does not disclose butt welding, that Schutz does not
disclose a cutting tool, and that Schutz does not disclose a portion of the
valve housing that extends beyond a butt weld). Appellant’s arguments fail
to identify error in the rejection because they focus on Schutz alone and do
not address the combined teachings of the cited references. In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”).
Appellant argues that none of the cited references discloses centering
the tank and holding the tank by a threaded socket in a welding machine.
App. Br. 11—12. Appellant does not, however, address the Examiner’s
11
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
determination that “butt-welding of plastic pipe is typically carried out by a
machine that has facilities for grasping the end portions of the plastic
members.” Final Action 4—5 (citing Andrew, 1:49—52). Nor does Appellant
address the Examiner’s determination that “[a]fter the two end portions have
been grasped, the ends are then centered, i.e., arranged so that they are in
alignment suitable for welding.” Id. at 5 (citing Andrew, 1:52—57). The
Examiner’s position is supported by the cited disclosures of Andrew and
support the Examiner’s conclusion that the claim limitations are taught or
suggested by the cited art. The Examiner’s conclusion is further supported
by Cassina Figure 1, which shows discharge opening 9 and pipe union 11
positioned near the bottom of the tank midway between two tank
sidewalls—the same position as drain outlet 11 and threaded socket 20 in
Appellant’s Figure 1. The combined teachings of Cassina and Andrew
suggest that, by grasping and centering Cassina’s pipe union 11 in a welding
machine, as taught by Andrew (Andrew, 1:52—57), the tank will also be
centered.
Next, Appellant argues that the cited references do not teach or
suggest “a threaded socket comprising an outer flange engaging surface and
a tapping valve comprising a tapping valve portion that has an outer flange
that engages the outer flange engaging surface in a welding machine and an
inlet socket of the tapping valve is welded to the threaded socket in a region
of the outer flange and the outer flange engaging surface.” App. Br. 12.
Appellant’s argument fails to address the combined teachings of the cited
references, contrary to applicable law. In re Young, 927 F.2d at 591; In re
Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Appellant does not dispute that Schutz discloses a
tapping valve comprising an outer flange, where the tapping valve is
12
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
attached by a threaded connection to a threaded socket of a tank in a region
of the outer flange. Schutz, Fig. 1, || 16, 18 (inlet connection 7 has collar
20 and is fastened to outlet connection 15 of liquid container 16). Appellant
agrees that Andrew discloses welding as a substitute for a threaded
connection. App. Br. 9. Appellant fails to identify error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combined teachings of Cassina, Andrew, and Schutz
would have suggested to use welding instead of a threaded connection to
attach a tapping valve having an outer flange like Schutz’s to the outlet of a
tank like Cassina’s. This combination is supported by the same rationale
and evidence as discussed above for claim 1. Final Action 4—5; Andrew,
1:38—45. Appellant does not persuade us that this combination fails to teach
or suggest welding “in a region of’ an outer flange. Compare Schutz Fig. 1
(inlet connection 7 is fastened to outlet connection 15 in a region of collar
20), with Spec., Fig. 3 (inlet socket 23 is attached to threaded socket 20 in a
region of outer flange (not numbered in Figure)).7
Next, Appellant argues that, in Schutz, sealing ring 19 prevents the
flange of valve housing 2 from engaging outlet connection 15 and that
adaptor ring 17 prevents valve housing 2 from engaging an inner surface of
outlet connection 15, in contrast to limitations of claim 2. App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 8—9. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error
because it focuses on Schutz alone and fails to address the combined
teachings of the cited references. In re Young, 927 F.2d at 591; In re Merck,
800 F.2d at 1097. The Examiner relies on Schutz to teach a tapping valve
7 We note that Appellant’s Specification does not identify the location of the
weld in Figure 3.
13
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
having an inlet orifice that is smaller in diameter than the discharge orifice
of the tank’s threaded socket, not for its teaching of an adaptor ring or
sealing ring. Final Action 6—7. When welding is substituted for a threaded
connection, the two plastic parts would abut and engage one another, with
no intervening adaptor ring or sealing ring. See Andrew 2:20—21 (“the
molten ends of the pipes abut each other”).
Next, Appellant argues that the cited references do not teach or
suggest “a portion of a tapping valve that extends to a position beyond a
butt-weld and an outer flange of the tapping valve.” App. Br. 13—14. In re
Young, 927 F.2d at 591; In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive because it fails to address whether the limitation
is taught or suggested by the cited references, when combined. More
specifically, Appellant fails to address whether the combination of Cassina,
Andrew, and Schutz teaches that a portion of a tapping valve extends beyond
a weld and an outer flange, when a welded connection is substituted for the
threaded connection of Schutz.
Next, Appellant argues that Andrew only discloses welding identical
diameter pipes, and that the cited references do not teach or suggest welding
as a method for connecting two parts, where an inner dimension of one part
is less than an inner dimension of the other part. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument for two reasons. First,
Appellant concedes that, Figure 3 of the Specification depicts parts having
the same diameter at the point of connection (Tr. 10:15—11:20), which is the
relevant portion of the pipe for purposes of applying Andrew’s welding
technique. Second, Appellant’s argument underestimates the level of
ordinary skill in the art. If a POSITA would have known how to use a heat-
14
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
reflection butt-welding machine to weld Appellant’s tapping valve 10 to
threaded socket 20 based on the disclosure in Appellant’s Specification (Fig.
3, Spec. 8), then a POSIT A also would have known how to use a heat-
reflection butt-welding machine, as disclosed in Andrew (Andrew 1:49—
2:36), to weld valve inlet 7 to threaded socket 15, as disclosed in Schutz
(Schutz Fig. 1), notwithstanding that the inner diameter of the valve inlet is
less than the inner diameter of the threaded socket. See Tr. 9:12—10:14,
11:21—12:2 (agreeing that Specification’s disclosure of butt welding and
depiction of overlapping pipes in Figure 3 is sufficient to permit a POSIT A
to use that technique to join pipes of different diameters).
Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that there is no
teaching or suggestion in the cited references to form a threaded socket
during blow molding to produce a threaded socket that is integrally
connected to the front wall of the tank. Reply Br. 6. That argument is
untimely and will not be considered. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).8
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Independent Claim 5
The Examiner rejects independent claim 5 for the same reasons as
claims 1 and 2. Final Action 9.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 5 are essentially the same as
its arguments for claims 1 and 2. Compare App. Br. 16—19 (addressing
claim 5), with id. at 7—14 (addressing claims 1 and 2).
8 Even if we were to consider Appellant’s belated argument, it is not
persuasive for the reasons discussed in footnote 6 above.
15
Appeal 2015-005423
Application 13/462,484
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 for the same reasons
as discussed above for claims 1 and 2.
Dependent Claims 3, 4, and 6—9
Appellant’s arguments regarding dependent claims 3, 4, and 6—9 are
essentially the same as its arguments for claims 1 and 2. Compare App. Br.
14—15, 19—22 (addressing claims 3, 4, and 6—9), with id. at 7—14 (addressing
claims 1 and 2).
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, and 6—9 for the
same reasons as discussed above for claims 1 and 2.
CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DECISION
The weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejections are sustained.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—9 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).
AFFIRMED
16