Ex Parte Semmes

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2011

11323362 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2011)

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.
11/323,362 12/29/2005 Phyllis Dawn Semmes 5310
32211 7590 01/14/2011
Mark S. Hubert
2300 SW First Avenue
Suite 101
Portland, OR 97201
EXAMINER
PATEL, VINOD D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PHYLLIS DAWN SEMMES
____________

Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

2
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 1
final decision rejecting claims 1 and 4-20.2 The Examiner rejects under 35 2
U.S.C. § 103(a): 3
claim 1 as being unpatentable over McCann (US 4
2,612,585, issued Sep. 30, 1952) and Shields (US 5,591,365, 5
issued Jan. 7, 1997); 6
claims 4 and 5 as being unpatentable over McCann, 7
Shields and Masao (US 6,294,758 B1, issued Sep. 25, 2001); 8
claim 6 as being unpatentable over McCann, Shields, 9
Masao and Bayless (US 4,967,057, issued Oct. 30, 1990); 10
claims 7-15 as being unpatentable over McCann, Shields, 11
Masao and Wyatt (US 6,967,309 B2, issued Nov. 22, 2005); 12
claim 16 as being unpatentable over Fairlie (US 13
4,245,149, issued Jan. 13, 1981) and Shields; 14
claim 17 as being unpatentable over Fairlie, Shields and 15
Bayless; 16
claim 18 as being unpatentable over Fairlie, Shields and 17
Wyatt; and 18
claims 19 and 20 as being unpatentable over Fairlie, 19
Shields, Bayless and Masao. 20

2 The Appellant argues that the finality of the Office Action mailed
January 4, 2007 is premature. Prematureness of a final rejection is
reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. See MANUAL OF PATENT
EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 1002.02c(3)(a) (Rev. 2, May 2004). Matters
reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 are not within the
jurisdiction of the Board. Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1078 (BPAI
2010).
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

3
The Appellant has cancelled claims 2 and 3. We have jurisdiction over the 1
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
We AFFIRM. 3
Claim 1 recites: 4
1. An electric foot warmer comprising: 5
a resilient, flexible, planar base; 6
at least one electrically conductive member 7
adapted for the electrically resistive generation of 8
radiant heat, distributed therein said planar base 9
and wherein said conductive member is selected 10
from the set of conductive members consisting of 11
resistive ribbons, cables or strips; 12
an electrical power cord, 13
a control cable; and 14
a control unit to regulate the flow of 15
electricity to said electrically conductive member; 16
wherein said cord is connected to said 17
control unit, said control unit is connected to said 18
control cable and said control cable is connected to 19
said planar base, and wherein said base has a 20
multiple parallel sheet ply construction, wherein 21
said adjacent plies are of dissimilar materials. 22
23
ISSUES 24
Only issues and findings of fact contested by the Appellant have been 25
considered. See Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075-76. In view of the Examiner 26
findings and conclusions, and the Appellant’s arguments, this appeal raises 27
the following issues: 28
First, is Shields, Masao or Wyatt non-analogous art? 29
(See Br. 11 and 13). 30
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

4
Second, does McCann fail to anticipate claim 1 because it 1
fails to disclose either a heating element embedded in a first 2
layer of a heating system or a two layer lower heating system 3
comprising an insulated lower layer and a reflective layer? (Br. 4
9). 5
Third, does McCann teach away from the combination of 6
a power switch and a motion sensing device with an electric 7
foot warmer? (Br. 10). 8
Fourth, do the evidence and technical reasoning 9
underlying the rejections of claims 4 and 5 adequately support 10
the conclusion that there would have been a reason for one of 11
ordinary skill in the art to combine a motion sensor with an 12
electric foot warmer? (Br. 11). 13
Fifth, does Fairlie disclose a resilient, flexible, planar 14
base having a cross sectional three layer construction including 15
a top layer made of a heat resistant, waterproof, polymer; and at 16
least one electrically conductive member distributed therein 17
said first layer of said planar base? (Br. 13). 18
19
FINDINGS OF FACT 20
The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a 21
preponderance of the evidence. 22
23
McCann 24
1. McCann discloses an electric heating pad 12 for radiantly 25
warming the feet and lower legs. (McCann, col. 1, ll. 1-5). 26
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

5
2. McCann’s heating pad 12 includes upper and lower layers 10, 1
11. The upper and lower layers 10, 11 are made from a dense, 2
nonconductive material such as a polymeric material. (McCann, col. 3, 3
ll. 13-19 and 30-33). 4
3. McCann’s heating pad 12 includes a low temperature heating 5
cable 14 disposed between the top and bottom layers 10, 11. (McCann, 6
col. 3, ll. 40-41). 7
4. Figures 2 and 3 of McCann depict an electrical power cord 8
connected to the heating cable 14 through a cable connector and anchor 18. 9
(See McCann, col. 4, ll. 11-16). 10
5. McCann teaches arranging the heating cable 14 such that the 11
resistance, due to the wire gauge and cable length, prevents the temperature 12
of the cable 14 from rising above a designed maximum temperature. 13
(McCann, col. 3, ll. 48-53). 14
6. McCann further teaches that arranging the heating cable 14 to 15
prevent the temperature of the cable 14 from rising above a designed 16
maximum temperature permits the use of an economical heat source which 17
is not dependent on the use of a thermostatic control. Despite this, McCann 18
expressly acknowledges that a smaller type of screw-adjusted thermostat 19
might be used. (McCann, col. 3, ll. 55-69). 20
7. McCann teaches employing a sheet of reflective insulating 21
material 17 such as aluminum foil between the top and bottom layers 10, 11. 22
The reflective insulating material 17 prevents the dissipation of heat 23
downwardly toward the ground. (McCann, col. 4, ll. 23-37). 24
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

6
Shields 1
8. Shields discloses a heating apparatus 8 including a heating mat 2
10. (Shields, col. 3, ll. 56-62). 3
9. Shield’s heating mat 10 is similar in structure and function to 4
McCann’s heating pad 12. Like McCann’s heating pad 12, Shields’ heating 5
mat 10 includes an electric heating cable 18 substantially enclosed within an 6
exterior casing 38. (Shields, col. 4, ll. 47-49). The exterior casing 38 of the 7
heating mat 10 is formed from a flexible, lightweight plastic material. 8
(Shields, col. 4, ll. 34-37). The electric heating cable 18 of Shields’ heating 9
mat 10 is connected to an electric cord 20 by way of a controller 12. 10
(Shields, col. 3, l. 64 – col. 4, l. 2). Shields’ heating mat 10 uses electrical 11
power to generate and radiate heat. (Shields, col. 4, ll. 20-26). 12
10. Shields is not nonanalogous art. More specifically, Shields is 13
within the Appellant’s field of endeavor. This is borne out by the similarity 14
in structure and function between Shield’s heating mats 10 and the claimed 15
subject matter. The Examiner’s findings at page 5, lines 10-17, which we 16
adopt and incorporate by reference, demonstrate this similarity. 17
11. The controller 12 associated with Shields’ heating mat 10 18
includes a control knob 28 with which to select a desired operation mode. 19
(Shields, col. 4, ll. 9-12). The control knob 28 acts as a power switch 20
capable of switching between “off” and active operation modes. (Shields, 21
col. 5, ll. 19-23). Figure 1 of Shields depicts the electric cord 20 as being 22
connected to the controller 12 and the controller 12 as being connected to a 23
cord leading to the electric heating cable 18. 24
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

7
Masao 1
12. Masao describes a heat radiator 1. (Masao, col. 10, ll. 22-23). 2
13. Masao’s heat radiator 1 is similar in structure and function to 3
McCann’s heating pad 12. Masao’s heat radiator 1 includes a heat source 2; 4
an insulator 3 covering the heat source 2 in the direction designed to face the 5
human body; and an insulator 4 covering the heat source 2 in the opposite 6
direction. (Masao, col. 10, ll. 24-29). Figures 7 and 10 depict electrical 7
power cords connected to electrodes 5. Masao’s heat radiator 1 uses electric 8
power to generate heat and warm an outer surface of the insulator 3. 9
(Masao, col. 11, ll. 1-7). 10
14. Masao teaches a heat radiator 1 such as a floor heating panel 11
12h, a heating carpet 12j or a heated toilet mat 12m, including a heat source 12
controller 29, 31c, and a human body detecting apparatus 28, 34. Masao’s 13
controller 29, 31c energizes the heat generating sheet 2 of the heat radiator 1 14
only when the human body detecting apparatus 28, 34 detects the presence 15
of a person. This mode of operation reduces energy consumption because 16
the heat radiator 1 only operates when a person is present. (Masao, col. 19, 17
ll. 36-48 and col. 20, ll. 4-18). 18
15. Masao is not nonanalogous art. Masao itself states that its 19
disclosure applies to heated floor panels and heated carpets, which perform 20
functions similar to electric foot warmers. (Masao, col. 6, ll. 24-29; col. 19, 21
ll. 21-26; and figs. 28 and 29). In addition, Masao is reasonably pertinent to 22
a problem with which the Appellant was involved. One problem with which 23
the Appellant was involved was automatically controlling an electrical 24
heating element. (See Spec. 3, ll. 11-14 (“It is a further object of this 25
invention to provide an improved under desk safety foot warmer that will 26
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

8
automatically turn off when the user has not been present for a preset period 1
of time.”)). Masao addresses the problem of automatically turning off an 2
electrical heating apparatus, albeit for economic rather than safety reasons. 3
(See Masao, col. 19, ll. 36-48 and col. 20, ll. 4-18). 4
5
Wyatt 6
16. Wyatt discloses a heating pad 1210. (Wyatt, col. 16, ll. 27-29). 7
Wyatt’s heating pad includes temperature sensors 1260, 1262 which sense 8
the surface temperature of the heating pad 1210. If the surface temperature 9
of the heating pad 1210 exceeds a selected temperature, a control unit 120 10
shuts off the power to the heating pad 1210 until the surface temperature 11
cools down to the selected temperature. (Wyatt, col. 18, ll. 27-46). Wyatt’s 12
heating pad 1210 also includes thermostats 1204, 1206 to prevent the 13
heating pad 1210 from exceeding a selected temperature range. (Wyatt, col. 14
18, ll. 47-53). 15
17. Wyatt is not nonanalogous art. More specifically, Wyatt is 16
within the Appellant’s field of endeavor. This is borne out by the similarity 17
in structure and function between Wyatt’s heating pad 1210 and the claimed 18
subject matter. Wyatt’s heating pad 1210 includes an electric heating 19
element 1250 substantially enclosed within a casing defined by first and 20
second foam portions 1240, 1242. (Wyatt, col. 16, ll. 29-32). The first and 21
second foam portions 1240, 1242 of the heating mat 1210 are formed from a 22
flexible, lightweight plastic material. (See Wyatt, col. 16, ll. 32-41). The 23
electric heating element 1250 of Wyatt’s heating pad 1210 is connected to a 24
utility cord 1230 by way of power lines 1231, 1232 and bus bars or leads 25
1253, 1255. (Wyatt, col. 16, ll. 42-45 and col. 17, ll. 34-40). Wyatt’s 26
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

9
heating pad 1210 uses electrical power to generate and radiate heat. (Wyatt, 1
col. 16, ll. 56-63). 2
3
Fairlie 4
18. Fairlie discloses a flexible heating element. (Fairlie, col. 2, 5
ll. 22-24). 6
19. Fairlie’s heating element includes a glass fibre fabric 1 bonded 7
to a top thermal plastic sheet 7 by heat fusion or adhesive lamination. 8
(Fairlie, col. 2, ll. 22-24, 38-44 and 48-55; id., fig. 1). 9
20. Resistance wires 5a, 5b for electrical resistance heating of the 10
heating element are intermatted or interwoven into the glass fibre fabric 1. 11
Consequently, the resistance wires 5a, 5b are distributed in the combination 12
of the glass fibre fabric 1 and the top thermal plastic sheet 7. 13
14
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 15
A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if 16
“the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the 17
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious 18
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the 19
art to which said subject matter pertains.” In order to establish a prima facie 20
case of obviousness, an examiner must undertake the factual inquiries listed 21
in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966): 22
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art 23
are to be determined; differences between the prior 24
art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; 25
and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art 26
resolved. Against this background the obviousness 27
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is 28
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

10
determined. Such secondary considerations as 1
commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, 2
failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give 3
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of 4
the subject matter sought to be patented. 5
The text of § 103(a), as well as the nature of the Graham inquiries, 6
presupposes that there will be differences between the prior art and the 7
claims at issue. Every reference on which the Examiner relies need not 8
describe “equivalent elements” to the claimed subject matter in order for the 9
combined teachings of the references to support a conclusion of 10
obviousness. 11
In addition, the examiner must articulate some “reasoning with some 12
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re 13
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This reasoning must show that 14
“there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion 15
claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A]ny 16
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and 17
addressed by the patent [that is, the claimed subject matter] can provide a 18
reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. 19
Consequently, a patent examiner need not look to the problem or problems 20
which the Appellant sought to solve with the claimed subject matter when 21
articulating the reason for combining the prior art elements. Id. 22
A reference teaches away from the subject matter of a claim only if “a 23
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged 24
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a 25
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re 26
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Prior art does not teach away 27
from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a 28
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

11
similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits or otherwise 1
discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 2
(Fed. Cir. 2004). 3
The established precedent of our reviewing Court sets up a two-fold 4
test for determining whether art is nonanalogous: “First, we decide if the 5
reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we 6
proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the 7
particular problem with which the inventor was involved.” In re Deminski, 8
796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986). One determines whether a prior art 9
reference is within the same field of endeavor as the subject matter of a 10
claim by comparing the structure and function of the claimed subject matter 11
to that of the subject matter disclosed in the reference. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 12
1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 13
A claim under examination is given its broadest reasonable 14
interpretation consistent with the underlying specification. In re Am. Acad. 15
of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Properties of 16
preferred embodiments described in the specification which are not recited 17
in a claim do not limit the reasonable scope of the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. 18
v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Arguments for 19
patentability not based on the limitations actually recited in the claims are 20
not persuasive. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). 21
22
ANALYSIS 23
First Issue 24
Based on comparisons of the structure and function of the claimed 25
subject matter to the structure and function of the devices described by 26
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

12
Shields and Wyatt, Shields and Wyatt are within the Appellant’s field of 1
endeavor. (FF 10 and 17). Without addressing whether Masao is within the 2
Appellant’s field of endeavor, Masao is pertinent to a problem with which 3
the Appellant was involved. (FF 15). Shields, Wyatt and Masao are not 4
non-analogous art. 5
6
Second Issue 7
Claim 1 does not recite a heating element embedded in a first layer or 8
a two layer lower heat system comprising an insulated lower layer and a 9
reflective layer. Even assuming, for purposes of this appeal only, that the 10
Appellant is correct as a factual matter in arguing that McCann fails to 11
describe these features (see Br. 9), McCann’s failure to describe these 12
features would not imply that the subject matter of claim 1 would not have 13
been obvious from the teachings of McCann and Shields. Self. The 14
Examiner has provided the factual findings required by Graham and has 15
articulated reasoning adequate to support the conclusion that the subject 16
matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. (See Ans. 4-5). The Appellant 17
does not contest the findings or reasoning necessary to support the prima 18
facie conclusion that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. 19
(See Br. 9). 20
21
Third and Fourth Issues 22
The Examiner concludes with regard to the rejections of claims 4 and 23
5 that it would have been obvious to modify McCann’s electric foot warmer 24
by adding a power switch as taught by Shields and a motion sensor as taught 25
by Masao to the electrical circuit heating McCann’s device. The Examiner 26
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

13
has articulated reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art might have 1
modified McCann’s electric foot warmer in this fashion. (See Ans. 5 and 7). 2
In addition, the devices disclosed by Shields and Masao are sufficiently 3
similar to the electric foot warmer disclosed by McCann that it would have 4
been obvious to apply to McCann’s foot warmer known techniques such as 5
the use of a power switch and a motion sensor previously applied to control 6
the devices of Shields and Masao. (See FF 9, 11, 13 and 14). Although the 7
reasons articulated by the Examiner for adding the motion sensor relate to 8
reduced electric consumption rather than the safety concerns identified by 9
the Appellant, the reasons adequately support the Examiner’s conclusion of 10
obviousness. See KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[A]ny need or problem 11
known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the 12
patent [that is, the claimed subject matter] can provide a reason for 13
combining the elements in the manner claimed.”). 14
McCann teaches a solution to the problem of preventing the 15
temperature of the electric resistive element heating a heating pad from 16
rising above a designed maximum temperature which does not use a 17
thermostat for temperature control. (FF 5 and 6). McCann says nothing 18
concerning the use of a power switch or a motion sensing device with an 19
electric foot warmer. In particular, McCann does not criticize or disparage 20
the use of a power switch or a motion sensing device to control the amount 21
of energy consumed by a warming pad. McCann’s disclosure of one means 22
of preventing the temperature of the electric resistive element heating a 23
heating pad from rising above a designed maximum temperature does not 24
teach away from the use of other control mechanisms for other purposes. 25
26
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

14
Fifth Issue 1
The Examiner finds that Fairlie discloses a resilient, flexible, planar 2
base having a cross sectional three layer construction as recited in claim 16. 3
The Examiner further finds a first layer of the base, represented by reference 4
numerals 1 and 7 in Figure 1 of Fairlie, is made of a heat resistant, 5
waterproof, polymer. (Ans. 10-11 and 22). These findings are supported by 6
the language of claim 16 and the disclosure of Fairlie. (See FF 19 and 20). 7
Claim 16 recites that the “top layer is made of a heat resistant, 8
waterproof, polymer.” The Appellant does not formally define the term 9
“made of” in the Specification. Neither the Examiner nor the Appellant cites 10
to any dictionary definition of the term “made of.” Neither the Examiner 11
nor the Appellant cites to any source indicating that the term “made of” is a 12
term of art either in the Appellant’s field of endeavor or in the drafting of 13
patent claims. Although the Appellant uses the term “made of” when 14
describing preferred embodiments of the claimed subject matter, the 15
Appellant points to no language in the Specification clearly disclaiming a 16
broad reading of the term “made of.” 17
Since an artifact may be “made” or fabricated using more than one 18
starting material and since claim 16 includes no language excluding other 19
materials from the top layer, the term “top layer . . . made of a heat resistant, 20
waterproof, polymer” does not exclude a top layer made using both a 21
polymer sheet and another material such as glass fiber fabric as starting 22
materials. In other words, the Examiner’s reading of the term “top layer . . . 23
made of a resistant, waterproof, polymer” as being sufficiently broad to 24
encompass the combination of Fairlie’s glass fibre fabric 1 and the top 25
thermal plastic sheet 7 is reasonable. Fairlie discloses resistance wires 5a, 26
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

15
5b distributed in the first layer defined by the glass fibre fabric 1 and the top 1
thermal plastic sheet 7. (FF 20). 2
3
CONCLUSIONS 4
Shields, Masao and Wyatt are not non-analogous art. 5
McCann discloses both a heating element embedded in a first layer of 6
a heating system and a two layer lower heating system comprising an 7
insulated lower layer and a reflective layer. 8
McCann does not teach away from the combination of a power switch 9
and a motion sensing device with an electric foot warmer. 10
The evidence and technical reasoning underlying the rejections of 11
claims 4 and 5 adequately support the conclusion that there would have been 12
a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a motion sensor with 13
an electric foot warmer. 14
Fairlie discloses a resilient, flexible, planar base having a cross 15
sectional three layer construction including a top layer made of a heat 16
resistant, waterproof, polymer; and at least one electrically conductive 17
member distributed therein said first layer of said planar base. 18
The evidence and technical reasoning on which the Examiner relies 19
are more persuasive than the Appellant’s arguments. We sustain the 20
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 as being unpatentable over 21
McCann and Shields; of claims 4 and 5 as being unpatentable over McCann, 22
Shields and Masao; of claim 6 as being unpatentable over McCann, Shields, 23
Masao and Bayless; of claims 7-15 as being unpatentable over McCann, 24
Shields, Masao and Wyatt; of claim 16 as being unpatentable over Fairlie 25
and Shields; of claim 17 as being unpatentable over Fairlie, Shields and 26
Appeal 2009-007740
Application 11/323,362

16
Bayless; of claim 18 as being unpatentable over Fairlie, Shields and Wyatt; 1
and of claims 19 and 20 as being unpatentable over Fairlie, Shields, Bayless 2
and Masao. 3
4
DECISION 5
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 4-20. 6
7
AFFIRMED 8
9
10
11
12
Klh 13
14
15
16
MARK S. HUBERT 17
2300 SW FIRST AVENUE 18
SUITE 101 19
PORTLAND, OR 97201 20