Ex Parte SHADE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2018

13563919 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/563,919 08/01/2012
26868 7590
Hasse & Nesbitt LLC
8837 Chapel Square Drive
Suite C
CINCINNATI, OH 45249
06/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
W. Norm SHADE
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ACI-006MR 5483
EXAMINER
LEE, CHEE-CHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2018 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):
uspatent@hn-iplaw.com
patent@hn-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte W. NORM SHADE
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
W. Norm Shade (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's final decision (entered Sept. 15, 2015, hereinafter "Final
Act.") rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 8-13, 15-17, and 21. 1 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Claims 2, 5-7, 14, and 18-20 have been canceled or withdrawn from
consideration. Final Act. 44--46, 48 (Claims App.).
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates generally to the control of pressurized-
fluid flow through a piping system using a branching device that regulates
the pressure and flow pulsations of complex pressure waves without causing
significant system pressure losses. Spec. i-f 2.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent. Claim 11, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
11. In a pulsation attenuation network, a branching device
compnsmg:
a. a main inlet;
b. a main outlet;
c. an internal attenuating conduit;
d. a branching outlet;
e. a branching inlet;
f. a first divider adapted to divide the flow of fluid from the
main inlet into the internal attenuating conduit and the
branching outlet; and
g. a second divider adapted to join the flow of fluid from the
branching inlet and the internal attenuating conduit into
the main outlet, wherein each of the main inlet, the main
outlet, the branching outlet and the branching inlet include
a flanged joint for coupling the branching device to the
pulsation attenuation network.
Appeal Br. 46 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 8-13, and 15-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the inventor regards as the invention.
2
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
II. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper
dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of
the claim upon which it depends.
III. The Examiner rejected claims 11-13, 15, and 21under35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yamamoto (US 4,600,076,
iss. July 15, 1986).
IV. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamamoto.
V. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 8-13, and 15-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Luxton (US 3,568,791,
iss. Mar. 9, 1971).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner determines an insufficient antecedent basis exists for
the limitation "the flow of fluid from the main inlet" recited in independent
claims 1 and 11. Final Act. 3--4. It is uncertain, the Examiner asserts,
whether Appellant is or is not positively claiming the fluid and the flow of
fluid. Ans. 26. Appellant responds, "the flow of fluid through ... [the]
inlets, outlets and conduits is an inherent aspect of the inventive device,"
which a skilled artisan would readily understand because the claimed
branching device is for directing fluid flow. Appeal Br. 41.
The Specification states, "[ t ]he present invention relates in general to
the control of the flow of pressurized fluids through industrial and
commercial piping systems that include one or more reciprocating (piston-
3
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
type) compressor cylinders." Spec. i-f 2. The purpose of the claimed
branching device is to create "a junction within a pulsation attenuation
network that significantly controls the pressure pulsation waves created by
reciprocating compressor cylinders without causing significant pressure
losses in the system." Id. i-f 14. Consistent with this disclosure, the
preambles of claims 1 and 11 contextualize the claimed branching device as
being "[i]n a pulsation attenuation network." Appeal Br. 44, 46 (Claims
App.). Claims 1 and 11 each recite a divider that either divides or joins "the
flow of fluid." Id.
A claim lacking explicit antecedent basis is not necessarily indefinite
when the scope of the claim is reasonably certain to those of ordinary skill in
the art. Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. International Trade Comm 'n, 435
F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure§ 2173.05(e) (9th Ed. Rev. 7, Nov. 2015) (same). Regarding the
Examiner's concern of whether the claims are positively claiming the fluid
and the flow of fluid, we note the claims provide clear indicators for the use
of functional language to describe the divider structures. Specifically,
claim 1 states, "a first divider for dividing the flow of fluid" and "a second
divider for joining the flow of fluid;" claim 11 states, "a first divider adapted
to divide the flow of fluid" and "a second divider adapted to join the flow of
fluid." Appeal Br. 44, 46 (Claims App.). Accordingly, we do not share the
Examiner's concern. When viewed in context of the claims, and in light of
the Specification, we are not persuaded a skilled artisan would find
ambiguity with the scope of the claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-13, and 15-17 as indefinite.
Rejection II
4
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
The Examiner sets forth why the Examiner considers claims 3, 4, 8-
10, 12, 13, and 15-17 do not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, fourth paragraph. Final Act. 3. Appellant does not present any
arguments contesting this rejection. See Appeal Br. 42. Thus, Appellant has
waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Rejection III
The Examiner finds Yamamoto discloses the limitations claims 11-
13, 15, and 21 recite and, thus, is anticipating. Final Act. 4---6. Appellant
asserts Yamamoto cannot anticipate because it lacks an enabling disclosure
of the "dividers" independent claim 11 recites and, as a result, "Yamamoto
does not demonstrate that the public was in possession of the claimed
subject matter before the date of invention." Appeal Br. 14. Appellant
relies on this assertion to argue also for the patentability of claims 12, 13, 15,
and 21. Id. at 14--17. Appellant does not challenge further the Examiner's
finding Yamamoto discloses the other limitations, or combinations thereof,
that claims 11-13, 15, and21 recite. See id. at 12-17. For the following
reasons, Appellant's challenge is not persuasive.
A patent claim "cannot be anticipated by a prior art reference if the
allegedly anticipatory disclosures cited as prior art are not enabled." Elan
Pharms., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Medical Educ. And Research, 346 F.3d
1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "The standard for what constitutes proper
enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation under
section 102, however, differs from the enablement standard under section
5
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
112. In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403 (Cust. & Pat.App.1969)." Rasmusson v.
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
"[S]ection 112 'provides that the specification must enable one skilled in the
art to 'use' the invention whereas [section] 102 makes no such requirement
as to an anticipatory disclosure.' Hafner, 410 F.2d at 1405." Id. Thus,
"proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for
purposes of anticipation .... [T]he proper issue is whether the [prior art] is
enabling in the sense that it describes the claimed invention sufficiently to
enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the invention." Impax
Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(emphasis added).
Yamamoto discloses "[a] device for attenuating pulsation of a fluid in
a piping system." Yamamoto Abstract. "In the piping system[ s] of an
industrial plant, there is generally ... armature equipment as pumps,
compressors, fuel burners, flow meters, etc., which are in practice likely to
become a source of pulsation." Id. at 1:16-19. Yamamoto teaches, "a
device which is specifically adapted to attenuate pulsation of a fluid passing
through the piping system equipped with the armature." Id. at 1: 11-13.
Yamamoto seeks to provide an improved means for preventing the problem
of pulsation in the piping system that is simple in construction and low in
production costs. Id. at 2:5-13. These goals are accomplished allegedly by
a device Yamamoto "briefly summarize[ s ]" as comprised of fluid-branching
pipes, which form a bypass route, extending from the length of the piping
system wherein pulsation occurs and a plurality of friction elements being
arranged in a dispensed fashion within the fluid-branching pipes. Id.
at 2:14--24; see also id. at 4:26-57.
6
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
The Examiner finds the first and second "divider" that claim 11
recites are shown in Figure 2 of the piping system Yamamoto illustrates.
Final Act. 5, 11. The Examiner annotates Figure 2 to identify the portions of
the piping system that show the claimed first and second "divider," which is
reproduced below. Ans. 17.
Pt1lsafron wave {fluid
fio1N) produces by
the cornpr~s~or 1 is
divided here at the
Ff G. 2 second d!vlder
3
·~-~.D~vided pulsation
viave:s are rejoin· here
at the second d!vki-er
Yamamoto describes above Figure 2 as "a schematic view showing the
general arrangement of the piping system incorporating a fluid-branching
pipe." Yamamoto 2:30-32. The Examiner finds Figure 2 depicts, "two
dividers comprising a first divider for dividing the flow of fluid from the
main inlet into the internal attenuating conduit and the branching outlet, and
a second divider for joining the flow of fluid from the branching inlet and
the internal attenuating conduit into the main outlet." Ans. 16. The
Examiner further determines this figure enables "a divider," as claim 11
recites, because the dividers identified in Figure 2 "divide[] the flow of fluid
from the main inlet into the internal attenuating conduit and the branching
7
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
outlet, and rejoin[] the flow of fluid from the branching inlet and the internal
attenuating conduit into the main outlet." Id. at 18
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner's determinations and argues
undue experimentation would be necessary to create the first and second
claimed dividers, if an ordinarily skilled artisan used the Yamamoto
disclosure "as a guide." Appeal Br. 14. Yamamoto, according to Appellant,
"teaches division of flow via a 'T' connection that does not include dividers;
flow is then returned via another 'T' connection placed later in the main
line." Id. Appellant argues this "arrangement does not work for the present
invention, as the turbulent flow created at the 'T' connection causes pressure
drop and a wave reflection that changes the pulsation characteristic, thus
defeating the purpose of cancelling pulsations." Id.
Appellant asserts the dividers of the present invention, in contrast,
"exist in the physical form of a tongue or splitter" and "initiate the
separation and recombination of natural gas or other fluid flow" entering and
exiting the main pipeline. Id. at 13 (citing Spec. i-fi-1 51, 54, Fig. 2). The
profiles of these dividers, according to Appellant, give the claimed
branching device the ability to control pressure and flow pulsations of
complex pressure waves passing through industrial piping systems without
causing significant system pressure losses. Id. (citing Spec. i-fi-154, 71, 72).
Specifically, the aerodynamic design of the first divider (170A,
FIG. 2) separates the main inflow equally, sending half of the
flow into the internal attenuating conduit 158 and half through
the branching inlet 160A. The branching inlet 160A in tum sends
its half of the divided flow down a separate loop ... that delays
the pulsation for a specific predetermined time such that when
the pulsating flow is rejoined by the second divider (170B, FIG.
2), the flow is smoothly combined and the pulsations cancel.
8
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
Appeal Br. 13-14 (citing Spec. Fig. 2). Appellant contends, "[s]imple
commercially available T's, elbows, etc. cannot accomplish this task
because they do not have the required internal aerodynamically designed
flow paths to split the flow equally into two streams while avoiding any
pressure drop, wave reflection and power consumption." Id. at 16.
In order to determine whether Yamamoto sufficiently describes the
claimed subject matter to constitute an anticipatory reference, we must focus
our attention on the claimed invention. Limitations that do not appear in the
claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982). In this case, Appellant fails to recognize that "the name
of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369
(Fed.Cir.1998). Appellant's invention may very well be outstanding in its
field. Nonetheless, Appellant's claim 11 fails to incorporate the attributes
relied upon above and alleged to be missing from, or not enabled by,
Yamamoto.
Specifically, Appellant's claim 11 recites broadly a "divider" without
any limitations to its configuration beyond: (1) "divid[ing] the flow of fluid
from the main inlet into the internal attenuating conduit and the branching
outlet; and (2) 'join[ing] the flow of fluid from the branching inlet and the
internal attenuating conduit into the main outlet." See Appeal Br. 46 (Claim
App.). Claim 11 does not limit the claimed "divider" to separating the main
inflow equally or to having an internal aerodynamically designed flow paths
that splits the flow equally into two streams while avoiding any pressure
drop, wave reflection and power consumption. Nor are the claimed dividers
limited to a position that is within the main inlet or outlet. Although a
preferred embodiment may have these characteristics, Appellant does not
9
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
show persuasively any clear language within the Specification, or claims,
indicating an intent to import them into the meaning of the term "divider."
In other words, Appellant has not demonstrated sufficiently the term
"divider" itself necessarily incorporates the distinguishing, and allegedly
non-enabled, characteristics asserted. We agree with the Examiner that a
"T" connection is within the scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation
of a "divider" because it facilitates the separation of fluid flow from a
common path into separate paths and, conversely, joins fluids flowing
through separate paths into a common path. See Ans. 16.
As a result, Appellant's non-enablement argument regarding
Yamamoto is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of
the claimed invention of claim 11. Because claims 12, 13, 15, and 21
similarly do not recite the points of novelty that Appellant alleges
Yamamoto fails to enable (see Appeal Br. 46-49 (Claims App.)),
Appellant's challenge fails for the same reasons. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 11-13, 15, and 21 as anticipated by Yamamoto.
Rejection IV
The Examiner concludes claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 16, and 17 would have
been obvious in view of Yamamoto. Final Act. 8-11. For independent
claim 1, the Examiner finds Figure 2 of Yamamoto discloses each of the
recited limitations, except it "does not disclose two large main flow channels
and three small branch flow channels." Id. at 8. The Examiner determines,
however, that it "would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
design two large main flow channels and three small branch flow channels,
since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of
10
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
a component." Id. The Examiner explains further, "since there is only a
finite number of solutions (modifying the size of the channels) to produce a
predictable solution (pulsation attenuation), with a reasonable expectation of
success, a person of ordinary skill would has a good reason to pursue the
known options within his or her technical grasp." Id. at 9.
Appellant contends the Examiner's reasoning is defective because it
"has not provided any evidence or reason that would have prompted a
person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the piping system of Yamamoto
to the dimensions recited in the claim." Appeal Br. 17.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's obviousness
determination fails to elucidate why a skilled artisan would have sought to
modify the branching device Yamamoto discloses. Although changing the
size of the flow channels of the branching device would have certainly been
within the abilities of a skilled artisan, simply because this modification
could have been made does not establish prior knowledge by the artisan that
would have led to the modification. Belden Inc. v. Berk-TekLLC, 805 F.3d
1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled
artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the
combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention.").
Regarding the Examiner's assertion that a skilled artisan would have
pursued known options, the Examiner fails to identify any supporting
evidence. "[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006). While Yamamoto supports a finding that a skilled artisan would have
known to modify a channel size to assist with pulsation attenuation, it only
11
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
provides this teaching in the context of the fluid-branching pipe 4 alone;
separate and apart from the branching device 2. See Yamamoto 4:27-5:22.
The Examiner offers no technical reasoning or record support that a skilled
artisan would have known to adapt this teaching for the fluid-branching
pipe 4 to the branching device 2. Moreover, Yamamoto teaches that the
fluid-branching pipe 4 should have a cross-sectional area that is 40% or
more of pipe 2 (Yamamoto 4:45-50), therefore, it is unclear whether what
Yamamoto teaches would have been understood by a skilled artisan to
suggest the claimed flow channels configuration for a branching device. As
a result, the Examiner's "known options" rationale lack a rational
underpinning.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, as well as claims 3, 4, and 8-10 depending therefrom, as being
obvious in view of Yamamoto. Because claims 16 and 17 depend from
claim 11, we address these claims separately.
Appellant asserts claim 16 is patentable because it depends from
Claim 11, which Appellant re-asserts Yamamoto does not anticipate and for
which Yamamoto does not provide an enabling disclosure with respect to the
first and second dividers. Appeal Br. 24. We remain unpersuaded the
Examiner's anticipation finding of claim 11 was error (see supra Rejection
III).
For claim 17, Appellant argues the Examiner "misapplies the principle
set forth in Aller." Id. at 28. The Examiner determines,
Yamamoto discloses the general conditions of the claimed
invention except for the express disclosure of wherein the flow
channels are contained by walls having a thickness of at least 1/4
of an inch to withstand the high fluid pressure created within the
12
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
pulsation attenuation network. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to design the thickness of the wall of the flow channel to
withstand the working conditions of a system where the device
is designed to be installed, since the claimed values are merely
an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only
routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Final Act. 9--1 O; see Ans. 19--20. Appellant asserts the Examiner improperly
''presumes that discovery would have involved only routine skill merely
because the general conditions of the claim are met" because "much more
than routine experimentation and skill would be required to provide the
inventive branching device having the proper wall thickness for placement
within a particular pulsation attenuation network (PAN)." Appeal Br. 19.
Appellant explains "simple classical calculations" and "3-D finite element
stress analysis" must be performed "to arrive at an acceptable and optimal
design that balances the requirements of structural integrity and safety with
cost." Id. at 19--20.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive because the Examiner's
finding that Yamamoto discloses the general conditions of the claimed
invention is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In particular, the
Examiner finds Yamamoto discloses a branching piping system for use in a
pulsation attenuation network and, as such, the pipes would be subjected to
similar working conditions as the claimed invention. Ans. 20 (citing
Yamamoto 3:30-4:2). Performing calculations and computer modeling to
determine whether the structural integrity of a pipe design is acceptable for
the working conditions is an expected application of the ordinary level of
skill and not indicative of innovation.
13
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
Appellant contends "Yamamoto does not recognize wall thickness as
a result-effective variable for withstanding high fluid pressures" because it
fails to expressly identify any specific wall thickness for the pipes or state
that the wall thickness factors into the pipe's ability to withstand the
operating pressures. (Reply Br. 3). The fact that Yamamoto discloses a
piping system for use in a pulsation attenuation network, which typically has
working pressures between 125 to about 2500 psig (see Spec. i-f 66), is itself
evidence that a skilled artisan would have considered the structural integrity
of the pipes, including its wall thickness, when designing a structure capable
of safely withstanding the operating conditions. Appellant's suggestion that
a skilled artisan would not have recognized the wall thickness of a pipe to be
a result-effective variable of its overall structural strength is untenable;
moreover, it is unsupported by any evidence or technical reasoning.
Therefore, because Appellant has failed to demonstrate persuasively
that the Examiner's obviousness determination of claim 1 7 is flawed, we
sustain the rejection.
Rejection V
The Examiner determines claims 1, 3, 4, 8-13, and 15-17 would have
been obvious in view of Luxton. Final Act. 11-17. For both independent
claims 1 and 11, the Examiner finds, "Luxton does not disclose the
branching outlet and the branching inlet each include a flanged joint for
coupling the branching device to the pulsation attenuation network." Id.
at 12, 15. Nevertheless, the Examiner determines modifying Luxton to
include this limitation would have been an obvious choice "to improve
adjustability, since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication
14
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
of parts (flanged joint)." Id.; Ans. 21-22. Appellant challenges the
sufficiency of this determination to establish a proper rationale for the
proposed modification. See Appeal Br. 24--26. In particular, Appellant
asserts, "[i]n view of the fact that Luxton's device is an air duct insert and
not a branching device, there would be no motivation, other than the use of
hindsight, to include flanged joints in the small air channel 19." Id. at 2 5.
The Luxton disclosure "relates to air ducts such as those employed in
air conditioning and ventilating installations in which a current of air is
supplied through a duct or trunk to a room or other space." Luxton 1 :3---6.
Luxton discloses air ducting "furnished with a noise attenuator comprising at
least one section divided into at least two channels of different lengths." Id.
at 1 :63---66. Luxton teaches creating the two channels by using a "central
body," which is positioned within the air duct and shaped to enable the air to
flow through the channels smoothly and without separating from the
surfaces. Id. at 2:19-29, 2:53-3:11, 3:24--46, Figs. 1--4. The object of the
air duct structure, Luxton contends, is "to provide a relatively simple and
economical construction which will result in substantial noise attenuation
with an acceptable pressure drop." Id. at 1 :35-39.
In view of Luxton's disclosure, it is unclear why a skilled artisan
would have modified the branching outlet and inlet channels to have a flange
joint. The Examiner states the reasons a skilled artisan would do so is "to
improve adjustability," but provides no supporting evidence to support this
rationale. Nor does the Examiner explain how the inclusion of a flange joint
would improve the adjustability of the device Luxton discloses. Given
Luxton teaches the shape of the "central body" as being the determinative
factor for attenuating noise, a rational underpinning is lacking for the
15
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
Examiner's stated reason. There is no apparent connection between the
exterior wall of the air duct and the adjustability of the noise attenuation.
In the absence of any cited evidence or technical explanation
supporting the Examiner's reason, we are only left with a conclusory
statement, which cannot be relied upon to sustain an obviousness
determination. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. Therefore, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 11, as well as claims 3, 4, 8-10, 12,
13, and 15-17 depending therefrom, as being obvious in view of Luxton.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-13, and 15-17 as being
indefinite.
We affirm the rejection of claims 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 as
failing to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph.
We affirm the rejection of claims 11-13, 15, and 21 as anticipated by
Yamamoto.
We reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, and 16
in view of Yamamoto.
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 17 in view of
Yamamoto.
We reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-13, and 15-
17 in view of Luxton.
16
Appeal2017-001302
Application 13/563,919
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17