Ex Parte Simpson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2013

10944264 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SHELL S. SIMPSON and JEETENDRA KUMAR
________________

Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-29. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Claims 1-6, 11-14, and 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Webb (US 5,727,135; issued Mar. 10, 1998), Goddard (US

1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed October 19, 2009; the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed January 28, 2010; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.)
filed March 29, 2010.
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

2
6,622,266 B1; issued Sep. 16, 2003), and Akasaka (US 2002/0152430 A1;
published Oct. 17, 2002). Ans. 3-16.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Webb and Goddard. Ans. 16-19.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Webb,
Goddard, Akasaka, and Nakai (US 2001/0034713 A1; published Oct. 25,
2001). Ans. 19.
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a supply status indicator that indicates
a status of a consumable device component of a device to at least one of a
first host computer and the device. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below with the key disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A system comprising:
a host computer to couple with a network;
a first supply status indicator to indicate a status of a consumable
device component of a device to the device, wherein the first supply status
indicator includes a suppressed state and an activated state; and
a second supply status indicator to indicate the status of the
consumable device component to at least one of a web site and the host
computer, the second supply status indicator indicates the activated state
while the first supply status indicator is suppressed.

Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

3
PIVOTAL ISSUE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), has the Examiner erred by finding that
Webb, Goddard, and Akasaka collectively teach the second supply status
indicator indicating the activated state while the first supply status indicator
is suppressed, as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-6, 11-14, AND 16-29 OVER WEBB,
GODDARD, AND AKASAKA
Claim 1
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 1, that
Webb, Goddard, and Akasaka collectively teach all claim limitations.
Ans. 3-6. The Examiner relies on Goddard’s printer alert notifications that
are transmitted by email for teaching the second supply status indicator
indicates the activated state while the first supply status indicator is
suppressed (e.g., when the printer is off, busy, disconnected, or offline).
Ans. 4 (citing Goddard, col. 3, l. 56; col. 4, ll. 60-63). The Examiner
reasons that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art []
to modify the multiple printer status information indication system of Webb
to include the method of specifying printer alert processing of Goddard.”
Ans. 4.
The Examiner further explains that
[t]he suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to
target administrators/users responsible for responding to
specific problems with the printers, column 1, lines 17-19 of
Goddard's reference, because, in many cases, [the] individual
who responds to one type of alert for a printer may be different
from the individual who responds to other types of alert[s]. In
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

4
other word[s], if the user is not responsible for a specific
error/alert, the combined system is capable of specifying an
alert notification to individuals [who] are responsible [for]
fixing the issue and hiding the problem [from] individuals
[who] are not knowledgeable of fixing the problem. In
summary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill[,]
in the art to suppress errors and/or alert[s] from users [who] are
not responsible to fix the errors and/or alerts.
Ans. 4-5 (citing Goddard, col. 1, ll. 17-19).
Appellants argue that “[n]either Webb nor Goddard disclose[s] a
second supply status indicator indicating the activated state. A ‘power off
signal’ would not be indicated by a supply status indicator. A ‘power of
[sic] signal’ has nothing to do with the status of a consumable device
component.” App. Br. 8. Appellants also argue that
[a]lthough Goddard discloses a utility 204 that sends e-mail
alert notifications to inform the user that a printer is out of
paper (column 3, line[s] 54-57), nowhere does Goddard indicate
that the alert notification informing the user that a printer is out
of paper is sent WHILE the supply status indicator at the
printer is itself suppressed.
App. Br. 8 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2-4.
In response, the Examiner explains that the printer may go into a sleep
mode or power down (first supply status indicator is suppressed), and the
sent email alert may still be read, which reads on claim 1. Ans. 21-22. We
agree with the Examiner.
We are not persuaded that Goddard’s printer alert notifications that
are transmitted by email do not describe the recited second supply status
indicator indicating the activated state. See Goddard, col. 4, ll. 60-63.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2-3) that
Goddard does not teach that the alert notification informing the user that a
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

5
printer is out of paper is sent while the supply status indicator at the printer is
itself suppressed, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim
1. Claim 1 does not recite the second supply status indicator is sent while
the first supply status indicator is suppressed; claim 1 recites “the second
supply status indicator indicates the activated state while the first supply
status indicator is suppressed.” The claim does not preclude the second
supply status indicator from also indicating the activated state while the first
supply status indicator is active.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 5
and 6, which are not argued separately.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner maps Goddard’s Applet Window
(Figure 3) to the recited supplies status page. Ans. 6. Notably, claim 2
recites “a supply status indicator switch to switch between the suppressed
state and the activated state of the first supply status indicator [which
indicates a status of a consumable device component of a device to the
device].”
Appellants argue
[u]nder the Examiner's new hypothetical, the host computer
would have to have a “supply status page” having a switch
enabling the host computer to turn the printer on (characterized
by the Examiner as the active state[)] and off (characterized by
the Examiner as the suppressed state). The Examiner has failed
to articulate any evidence of a prior host computer that not only
receives supply status information from a printer while the
printer is shut off, but also which has a supplies status page
with a switch allowing the user to turn the printer on and off.
Thus, the Examiner's new arguments raised in the Examiner's
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

6
Answer for the first time still fail to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to at least dependent claim 2.
Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants.
Goddard’s Applet Window illustrates selecting users to receive alarm
notifications for printers. We note that these notifications are sent to a user’s
email or pager address, and the Examiner has not explained how the Applet
Window of Figure 3 in Goddard switches between the suppressed state and
the activated state of the first supply status indicator.
On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claim 2. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2, as well as claims 3 and 4, which depend from claim 2.
Claims 11 and 17
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Appellants argue that the applied
references do not teach the condition to activate the supply status indicator
occurs while the first supply status indicator is suppressed. App. Br. 10.
Appellants further argue that “[a]fter the printer is turned off, the condition
to activate a supply status indicator no longer exists. On the flip side, after
the printer is turned on, the first supply status indicator is no longer
suppressed.” App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue that the applied
references do not teach that a notification of the condition to activate the first
supply status indicator is sent to a host computer. App. Br. 11; see also
Reply Br. 5-8.
However, the Examiner explains that
Webb discloses suppressing (turning the power switch 22 off in
Figure 1 of Webb's reference) a first supply status indicator
(Figure 1, Operator Pane 35 and Dialog Box Detail 35) of a
consumable device component (Figure 1, consumable device
component of the printer 16, i.e. toners, paper tray, or the like)
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

7
of a managed device (Figure 1, managed printer 16) on the
managed device, while a condition exists at the managed device
to activate the supply status indicator (condition exists for the
switch 22 to be activated).
Ans. 23. We agree with the Examiner.
We are unpersuaded that Webb’s supply status indicator does not
teach the recited condition to activate the supply status indicator occurs
(toner or paper is low) while the first supply status indicator is suppressed
(indicators are suppressed because the power is off).
The Examiner explains that
Goddard discloses sending a notification of the condition to
activate the first supply status indicator (e.g. sending
‘dilbert@comincs.org’ notification such as ‘Offline’ which
would imply to activate first supply status indictor if needed) as
a second supply status indicator (Figure 2, Printer Management
Utility 204) of the consumable device component to a second
host computer (i.e. User Unit 116, 120, or 124, Figure 2).
Ans. 23; see also Ans. 8-12. We agree with the Examiner.
We are also unpersuaded that Goddard’s printer alert notifications that
are transmitted by email do not teach the recited notification of the condition
to activate the first supply status indicator is sent to a host computer.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claims 11 and 17, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 11 and 17, as well as claims 13, 16, 18, 19, and 21, which depend
from claim 11 or 17 and are not argued separately.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, the Examiner states
Goddard discloses the process of suppressing the first supply
status indicator but does not explicitly disclose when the second
supply status indicator is successfully received by an
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

8
administrator. However, simply waiting for a confirmation by
the administrator to execute the suppression would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention since suppressing an error could cause a total system
failure unless the error is redirected to a designated recipient, as
disclosed by Goddard.
Ans. 10-11.
We are not persuaded that Webb’s supply status indicator and
Goddard’s printer alert notifications do not teach suppressing the first supply
status indicator (indicators are suppressed because the power is off) when
the second supply status indicator is successfully received by an
administrator (power is off when the printer alert notification email is read),
as recited in claim 12.
Appellants argue (Reply Br. 9) that
if indeed the printer is already turned off when the administrator
receives the second supply status indicator due to the “heavy
network traffic”, the step of turning off the printer (suppressing
the supply status indicator according to the Examiner’s
argument) cannot be performed. You can’t turn off a printer
when the printer is already turned off.
We find these arguments unavailing because the claim language does not
require suppressing begins when the second supply status indicator is
received; the claim language recites suppressing when the second supply
status indicator is received.
On this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claim 12. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
12.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, the Examiner maps Webb’s button 47 (Figure 1)
to the recited supplies status page. Ans. 11. Notably, claim 14 recites “a
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

9
supply status indicator switch to switch between a suppressed state and an
activated state of the first supply status indicator [which indicates status of a
consumable device component of a managed device on the managed
device].”
Appellants argue
[u]nder the Examiner’s new hypothetical, the host computer
would have to have a “supply status page” having a switch
enabling the host computer to turn the printer on (characterized
by the Examiner as the active state[)] and off (characterized by
the Examiner as the suppressed state). The Examiner has failed
to articulate any evidence of a prior host computer that not only
receives supply status information from a printer while the
printer is shut off, but also which has a supplies status page
with a switch allowing the user to turn the printer on and off.
Thus, the Examiner's new arguments raised in the Examiner's
Answer for the first time still fail to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to at least dependent claim 14.
Reply Br. 10. We agree with Appellants.
Webb’s “exit” button 47 (Figure 1) exits dialog box 63. We note that
the Examiner has not explained how “exit” button 47 in Webb switches
between the suppressed state and the activated state of the first supply status
indicator on the managed device.
On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claim 14. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 14.
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, the Examiner finds
the modified Webb discloses the notification of the first supply
status indicator is switched to the activated state (e.g. adding
the user’s email address to list 302 as disclosed by Goddard).
However, the modified system of Webb implicitly shows when
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

10
the second supply status indicator is not received by either the
website or the second computer since suppressing an error
could cause a total system failure unless the error is redirected
to a designated recipient, as disclosed by Goddard. Therefore, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention in order to correctly notify error to
appropriate recipients to avoid a catastrophe.
Ans. 12-13.
Notably, claim 20 recites “the notification of the first supply status
indicator is switched to the activated state.”
Appellants argue
[t]he Examiner contends that the host computer may receive a
supply status indicator e-mail after the printer is already turned
off due to a delay in transmission of e-mail due to “heavy
network traffic”. However, the Examiner fails to articulate
where, under this hypothetical, either Webb, Goddard or
Akasaka then disclose that the printer is somehow turn[ed] back
on (activating the supply status indicator according to the
Examiner) when the website or host computer does not receive
the second supply status indicator.
Reply Br. 11. We agree with Appellants.
We note that the Examiner has not explained how adding the user’s
email address to list 302 as disclosed by Goddard teaches the notification of
the first supply status indicator is switched to the activated state.
On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claim 20. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 20.
Claim 22
Regarding claim 22, the Examiner finds that the modified system of
Webb discloses
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

11
setting a persistent memory variable (It is common in the art to
set a variable in memory that associated with an object) in the
managed device associated with the object to switch to an
appropriate state between the activated state and the suppressed
state. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Webb
to include the process of setting a persistent memory variable in
order to dedicate memory space for specific applications since
this is just an alternative memory arrangement in practice.
Ans. 13-14.
Notably, claim 22 recites setting a persistent memory variable in the
managed device associated with the object of the management protocol, the
management protocol application being installed on the second host
computer.
Appellants argue
[t]he Examiner has failed to articulate any evidence of a prior
host computer that not only receives supply status information
from a printer while the printer is shut off, but also which
allows a user to switch the printer on and off to “suppress or
activate” a supply status indicator notification.
Reply Br. 11. We agree with Appellants.
We note that the Examiner has not explained how setting a persistent
memory variable in order to dedicate memory space for specific applications
teaches the recited association with the object of the management protocol.
On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claim 22. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 22.
Claim 23
Regarding claim 23, Appellants argue that the applied references do
not teach the recited supply status indicator is suppressed from being
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

12
displayed on the managed peripheral while being maintained at the
administrative computer. App. Br. 12. Appellants further argue that
[a]lthough Goddard discloses a utility 204 that sends e-mail
alert notifications to inform the user that a printer is out of
paper (column 3, line[s] 54-57), nowhere does Goddard indicate
that the alert notification informing the user that a printer is out
of paper is sent WHILE the supply status indicator at the
printer is itself suppressed.
App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 12-13.
However, the Examiner explains that the printer may go into a sleep
mode or power down (claim 23, “supply status indicator is suppressed from
being displayed on the managed peripheral”), and the sent email alert may
still be read (claim 23, “while being maintained at the administrative
computer”). Ans. 24-25; see also Ans. 14; Goddard, col. 4, ll. 60-63. We
agree with the Examiner.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 13) that Goddard does not
indicate that the alert notification informing the user that a printer is out of
paper is sent while the supply status indicator at the printer is itself
suppressed, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 23.
Claim 23 does not recite the second supply status indicator is sent while the
first supply status indicator is suppressed; claim 23 recites “the supply status
indicator is suppressed from being displayed on the managed peripheral
while being maintained at the administrative computer.”
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claim 23, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23, as
well as claims 26-29, which are not argued separately.
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

13
Claim 24
Regarding claim 24, the Examiner states that claim 24 recites the
corresponding limitations of claim 2, and is rejected. Ans. 15. The
Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 24 are substantially the same as for
claim 2. See Reply Br. 14. We agree with Appellants for the reasons
discussed above regarding claim 2.

On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claim 24. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 24, as well as claim 25, which depends from claim 24.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7-10 OVER WEBB AND GODDARD
Claim 7
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 7, that
Webb and Goddard collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 16-18.2
The Examiner relies on Goddard’s printer alert notifications that are
transmitted by email for teaching the recited means for suppressing the first
supply status indicator at the device while sending the second supply status
indicator to the host computer. Ans. 16-18 (citing Goddard, col. 3, l. 56).
The Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art [] to modify the multiple printer status information
indication system of Webb to include the method of specifying printer alert
processing of Goddard.” Ans. 17.

2 We interpret the recited “means for suppressing” in claim 7 as having
invoked the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Appellants
identify corresponding structure in the Specification for the recited means
plus function limitation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

14
The Examiner further explains that
[t]he suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to
target administrators/users responsible for responding to
specific problems with the printers, column 1, lines 17-19 of
Goddard's reference, because, in many cases, [the] individual
who responds to one type of alert for a printer may be different
from the individual who responds to other types of alert[s]. In
other word[s], if the user is not responsible for a specific
error/alert, the combined system is capable of specifying an
alert notification to individuals [who] are responsible [for]
fixing the issue and hiding the problem [from] individuals
[who] are not knowledgeable of fixing the problem. In
summary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill[,]
in the art to suppress errors and/or alert[s] from users [who] are
not responsible to fix such errors and/or alerts.
Ans. 17 (citing Goddard, col. 1, ll. 17-19).
Appellants argue that “[n]either Webb nor Goddard, alone or in
combination, disclose means for suppressing the first supply status indicator
at the device while sending the second supply status indicator to the host
computer.” App. Br. 13. Appellants also argue that
[a]lthough Goddard discloses a utility 204 that sends e-mail
alert notifications to inform the user that a printer is out of
paper (column 3, line[s] 54-57), nowhere does Goddard indicate
that the alert notification informing the user that a printer is out
of paper is sent WHILE the supply status indicator at the
printer is itself suppressed.
App. Br. 14 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 14-16.
In response, the Examiner explains that the printer may go into a sleep
mode or power down (suppressing the first supply status indicator at the
device), and the sent email alert may still be read (while sending the second
supply status indicator to the host computer). Ans. 24-25; see also Goddard,
col. 4, ll. 60-63.
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

15
We are not persuaded of error in combining Goddard’s teachings with
Webb to arrive at the claimed invention as the Examiner proposes. First, we
are not persuaded that Webb would not benefit from suppressing the first
supply status indicator (Figure 1, operator panel 35) at the device (Figure 1,
printer 16) while sending the second supply status indicator to the host
computer, such as the printer alert notifications that are transmitted by email
as disclosed by Goddard, which also describes a printer notification system.
Second, Goddard’s teaching of printer alert notifications that are transmitted
by email is readily applicable to Webb as Webb teaches bidirectional
network communications between a host computer and a printer. See Webb,
Abstract.
Third, with regard to sending the second supply status indicator while
suppressing the first supply status indicator, the Examiner has reasonably
explained and we agree that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to suppress errors and/or alerts from users (Webb, Figure 1,
operator panel 35) who are not responsible to fix the errors and/or alerts,
while sending printer alert notifications (in accordance with Goddard) to
target administrators/users responsible for fixing the issue. See Ans. 17
(citing Goddard, col. 1, ll. 17-19).
In short, modifying Webb’s printer notification system to suppress the
first supply status indicator (Figure 1, operator panel 35) at the device
(Figure 1, printer 16) while sending the second supply status indicator to the
host computer (Goddard’s printer alert notifications), as recited in claim 7, in
view of Webb’s and Goddard’s collective teachings, is a predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions – an obvious
improvement. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained,
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

16
[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. . . . Sakraida [v. AG Pro, Inc., 425
U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[, Inc. v. Pavement
Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative—a court must
ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use
of prior art elements according to their established functions.
KSR Int’l, Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 7.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, as well as claims 8
and 10, which depend from claim 7 and are not argued separately.
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, the Examiner maps Webb’s monitoring and
controlling a remote printer, including gathering status information and
displaying the operational status and connection status of a given printer, to
the recited supplies status page. Ans. 18 (citing Webb, col. 2, ll. 1-7).3
Notably, claim 9 recites “a supply status indicator switch to switch between
a suppressed state and an activated state of the first supply status indicator
[at the device].”
Appellants argue
[u]nder the Examiner’s new hypothetical, the host computer
would have to have a “supply status page” having a switch
enabling the host computer to turn the printer on (characterized
by the Examiner as the active state[)] and off (characterized by
the Examiner as the suppressed state). However, the Examiner

3 We interpret the recited “means for suppressing” in claim 9, which depends
from claim 7, as having invoked the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph. Appellants identify corresponding structure in the Specification
for the recited means plus function limitation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

17
has failed to articulate any evidence of a prior host computer
that not only receives supply status information from a printer
while the printer is shut off, but also which has a supplies status
page with a switch allowing the user to turn the printer on and
off. Thus, the Examiner’s new arguments raised in the
Examiner’s Answer for the first time still fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to at least
dependent claim 9.
Reply Br. 17. We agree with Appellants.
We note that the Examiner has not explained how monitoring and
controlling a remote printer, in Webb, switches between the suppressed state
and the activated state of the first supply status indicator at the device.
On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claim 9. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 9.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 15 OVER WEBB, GODDARD,
AKASAKA, AND NAKAI
Regarding claim 15, Appellants argue that Nakai does not overcome
the deficiencies of Webb, Goddard, and Akasaka with respect to claim 11.
App. Br. 14. Weighing Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 14) against the
Examiner’s findings (Ans. 19), and in light of our findings above regarding
claim 11, we conclude that Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, and we therefore sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15.

Appeal 2010-007898
Application 10/944,264

18
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5-8, 10-13, 15-19, 21,
and 23, 26-29 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-4, 9,
14, 20, 22, and 24-25 is reversed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

rwk