Ex Parte Taylor

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 8, 2008

10388219 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JIM TAYLOR
____________________

Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: September 8, 2008
____________________

Before: HUBERT C. LORIN, JENNIFER D. BAHR and
STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the 2
rejection of twice-rejected claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 3
U.S.C § 6(b) (2002). We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 11-4
23. We REVERSE the rejections of claims 7 and 10.5
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

2
The claims on appeal relate to hangers for supporting drip hoses used 1
to water rows of plantings found in vineyards or orchards. (Spec. 1, ll. 11-2
20). Claim 12 is typical of the appealed claims: 3
4
12. A drip hose hanger, comprising: 5
a) a sleeve-shaped body adapted to be 6
slipped around a drip hose, said body including an 7
inside surface to support the hose from a support 8
wire, said inside surface including a plurality of 9
axial grooves disposed along the direction of 10
length of the hose to minimize twisting of the 11
hose; 12
b) said body including an axial slot 13
adapted to receive a flattened hose portion so as to 14
position said body around the hose; and 15
c) said inside surface includes a 16
recess disposed in the direction of the length of the 17
support wire, said recess being adapted to receive 18
the support wire. 19
20
ISSUES 21
The issues before us are whether the Appellant has shown that the 22
Examiner erred by: 23
rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 10-16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) 24
(2002) as being anticipated by Vanderpan (U.S. Patent 6,378,175, 25
issued 30 Apr. 2002); 26
rejecting claims 2-4, 7-9 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 27
(2002) as being unpatentable over Vanderpan in view of Volpe (U.S. 28
Des. Patent 308,015, issued 22 May 1990); and 29
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

3
rejecting claims 21-23 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable 1
over Vanderpan in view of Wiley (U.S. Patent 355,491, issued 4 Jan. 2
1887).1 3
These issues turn, at least in part, on whether: (1) Vanderpan and 4
Wiley are analogous art (see App. Br. 9 and 13); (2) Vanderpan discloses a 5
fastening clip including a sleeve-like body, a plurality of axial grooves 6
included on an inside surface of the saddle portion or sleeve-like body and a 7
recess included on the inside surface adapted to receive a support wire (see 8
App. Br. 6-7 and 8); and, (3) the Examiner has articulated reasoning 9
sufficient to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious from the 10
teachings of Vanderpan and Volpe to add a rib to Vanderpan’s fastening clip 11
(see App. Br. 10-12). 12
13
FINDINGS OF FACT 14
The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a 15
preponderance of the evidence. 16
1. Vanderpan discloses a resilient fastening clip for attaching a 17
vine, branch or similar plant member to a wire for supporting or training the 18
plant. (Vanderpan, col. 4, ll. 23-27). 19
2. The fastening clip shown in Fig. 7 of Vanderpan includes a 20
continuous resilient clip wall which provides a first enclosure for receiving a 21
support wire and a second enclosure for receiving a vine or branch. 22
(Vanderpan, col. 4, ll. 57-63 and col. 7, ll. 57-60). The portion of the clip 23

1 The Examiner’s Answer withdrew a rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (2002). (Ans. 2).
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

4
wall which surrounds the second enclosure forms a saddle portion for 1
supporting the vine or branch. 2
3. The clip wall is relatively wide compared to the gage of the 3
support wire to reduce abrasion of the vine or branch. (Vanderpan, col. 3, ll. 4
40-43). 5
4. The fastening clip includes gripper-protrusions which are spike-6
like structures integrally distributed about the inner surface of the clip wall 7
surrounding the second enclosure. They are shown in Fig. 7 as being 8
substantially triangular in shape. The gripper-protrusions inhibit rotation of 9
the vine or branch within the clip. (Vanderpan, col. 6, ll. 31-36). 10
5. The clip wall includes an arcuate section for receiving the wire. 11
A curved arm extends from the clip wall just outside the arcuate portion to 12
complete the boundary of the first enclosure for entrapment of the wire. 13
(Vanderpan, col. 5, ll. 5-8 and 11-17). 14
6. Advantages of Vanderpan’s fastening clip include that the clip 15
can be easily applied to the wire and to the vine or branch so as to save time 16
and money during cultivation; and that the clip is expandable to 17
accommodate the growth of the plant. (Vanderpan, col. 3, ll. 18-21 and 29-18
32). 19
7. Volpe depicts a marine utility hook having an outer surface and 20
a rib of square or rectangular cross-section secured along the entire length of 21
the outer surface and having an axial width less than that of the outer surface 22
so as to form a “staircase” profile. (Volpe, Figs. 1 and 2). 23
8. Wiley teaches a cable hanger for suspending a cable below a 24
suspending-wire. (Wiley, ll. 16-26 and Fig. 2). 25
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

5
9. The hanger is formed from a metal plate or strip bent to form 1
one eye for receiving a suspending-wire and another eye for receiving the 2
cable. (Wiley, ll. 27-30 and 47-49). 3
10. A portion of the eye which receives the suspending-wire is bent 4
inwardly to form a wedge-shaped passage for the entrance of the 5
suspending-wire into the eye. (Wiley, ll. 30-40). Likewise, a portion of the 6
eye which receives the cable is bent outwardly to form a wedge-shaped 7
passage for the entry of the cable into the eye. (Wiley, ll. 49-55). 8
11. Objects of Wiley’s cable hanger include permitting ready and 9
easy application of the hanger to either the cable or the suspending-wire. 10
(Wiley, ll. 16-26). 11
12
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 13
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every 14
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re 15
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A claim under 16
examination is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with 17
the underlying specification when determining whether the subject matter of 18
the claim is either anticipated or obvious. In re American Acad. of Science 19
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 20
A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if 21
“the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the 22
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious 23
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the 24
art to which said subject matter pertains.” In Graham v. John Deere Co., 25
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

6
383 U.S. 1 (1966), the Supreme Court set out factors to be considered in 1
determining whether claimed subject matter would have been obvious: 2
3
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art 4
are to be determined; differences between the prior 5
art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; 6
and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art 7
resolved. Against this background, the 8
obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject 9
matter is determined. 10
11
Id., 383 U.S. at 17. 12
13
ANALYSIS 14
Before addressing the rejections of particular groups of claim in 15
detail, we address the Appellant’s contention that two of the three references 16
cited by the Examiner, namely, Vanderpan and Wiley, are nonanalogous art. 17
At the outset, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11) that “the question 18
whether a reference is analogous art is irrelevant to whether that reference 19
anticipates.” Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478. In other words, Vanderpan 20
anticipates the subject matter of one or more of claims 1, 5, 6, 10-16 and 20 21
if its disclosure falls within that claimed subject matter regardless whether 22
Vanderpan is “analogous art” for purposes of a rejection under § 103(a). 23
The established precedent of our reviewing court sets up a two-fold 24
test for determining whether art is analogous under § 103(a): “First, we 25
decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is 26
not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent 27
to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.” In re 28
Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986). More recently, the U.S. 29
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

7
Supreme Court hinted that the range of available art may be even broader: 1
“When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and 2
other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a 3
different one.” KSR Int’l, Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007). 4
We find that the fastening clip shown in Fig. 7 of Vanderpan and the 5
cable hanger of Wiley are within the Appellant’s field of endeavor. One 6
determines whether a prior art reference is within the same field of endeavor 7
as the subject matter of a claim by comparing the structure and function of 8
the subject matter recited in the claim to that of the subject matter disclosed 9
in the reference. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The 10
Appellant’s hanger, Vanderpan’s fastening clip and Wiley’s cable hanger 11
each consist of a resilient body including a saddle portion which receives 12
and supports an elongated object (that is, a drip hose; a vine or branch; or a 13
cable) and structure for securing the body to a support wire. (Compare 14
Spec. 3, ll. 8-10 with FF 2, 5 and 9). In other words, Vanderpan’s fastening 15
clip and Wiley’s cable hanger are within the Appellant’s field of endeavor 16
because they are structurally and functionally similar to the Appellant’s drip 17
hose hanger. 18
In addition, we find that Vanderpan’s fastening clip is pertinent to at 19
least one problem with which the Appellant was involved, namely, 20
preventing an elongated member held by the clip or hanger from twisting. 21
(Compare Spec. 1, ll. 17-20 with FF 4). Likewise, the Appellant’s hanger, 22
Vanderpan’s fastening clip and Wiley’s hanger were all designed to address 23
the problem of quickly and easily coupling an elongated object to a 24
supporting wire (compare Spec. 2, ll. 6-11 with FF 6 and 11). Therefore, 25
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

8
under either part of the test, Vanderpan and Wiley are analogous art for 1
purposes of § 103(a). 2
3
A. The Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 6, 15, 16 and 20 Under § 102(e) 4
as Being Anticipated by Vanderpan 5
The Appellant contests the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 15, 16 and 20 6
together in the Appeal Brief. (App. Br. 6-7). We select claim 1 to be 7
representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007). Since 8
we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7-8) that Vanderpan teaches a fastening 9
clip with a saddle portion (see FF 2) having an inside surface including 10
lateral grooves, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 15, 16 and 20 11
under § 102(e). 12
The Appellant and the Examiner appear to agree that the common 13
meaning of the term “groove” is “a long narrow channel or depression.” 14
(App. Br. 6 and Ans. 7, citing MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE 15
DICTIONARY at 514 (10th ed.)(“groove,” def. 1)).2 The Appellant has not 16
identified any statement in the Specification which would require us to apply 17
a narrower definition to the term as used in claim 1. We agree with the 18
Examiner (Ans. 7) that the spaces between the gripper-protrusions shown on 19
the inside surface of the second enclosure of the fastening clip of Fig. 7 of 20
Vanderpan are grooves within the common meaning of that term. 21
Neither claim 1 nor any definition in the Appellant’s Specification 22
limits the relative length and width of the grooves recited in claim 1. The 23
channels or depressions between the gripper-protrusions of the fastening clip 24

2 We thank the Examiner for providing us a copy of this definition.
(See Ans. 3).
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

9
of Vanderpan’s Fig. 7 are long in the sense that they appear to extend the 1
full axial width of the fastening clip. These channels or depressions are 2
narrow in the sense that several fit side-by-side within the perimeter of the 3
second enclosure of Vanderpan’s fastening clip. Therefore, these channels 4
or depressions fall within the common meaning of the term “grooves.” In 5
other words, Vanderpan’s fastening clip has a saddle portion with an inside 6
surface including lateral grooves 7
On the record before us, the Appellant has not shown that the 8
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under § 102(e). Since the Appellant 9
grouped claims 5, 6, 15, 16 and 20 with claim 1 for purposes of contesting 10
this grounds of rejection, the Appellant also has not shown that the Examiner 11
erred in rejecting claims 5, 6, 15, 16 and 20 under § 102(e). 12
13
B. The Rejection of Claim 10 Under § 102(e) as Being Anticipated 14
by Vanderpan 15
We agree with the Appellant (App. Br. 7) that Vanderpan does not 16
disclose a hanger having a saddle portion with a circular opening. The 17
second enclosure of the fastening clip shown in Fig. 7 of Vanderpan is not 18
expressly or inherently circular, even when one disregards the gripper-19
protrusions. On the record before us, the Appellant has shown that the 20
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 under § 102(e). 21
22
C. The Rejection of Claim 11 Under § 102(e) as Being Anticipated 23
by Vanderpan 24
The Appellant contends that Vanderpan does not disclose “means for 25
minimizing twisting of the hose” as recited in claim 11. (App. Br. 7). When 26
an applicant uses the word “means” in the recitation of an element of a 27
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

10
claim, scope of the recitation is presumed to be restricted by the provisions 1
of 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶ 6 (2002). Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 2
1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 states: 3
An element in a claim for a combination 4
may be expressed as a means or step for 5
performing a specified function without the recital 6
of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, 7
and such claim shall be construed to cover the 8
corresponding structure, material, or acts described 9
in the specification and equivalents thereof. 10
This presumption may be overcome if (1) the claim uses the word “means” 11
in the recitation of the element but does not recite a function corresponding 12
to the “means;” or (2) if the claim recites a function corresponding to the 13
“means” but also recites sufficient structure or material to perform the 14
function. Rodime, 174 F.3d at 1302. 15
Regardless whether the interpretation of the term “means for 16
minimizing twisting of the hose” is subject to the restriction of § 112, ¶ 6, 17
Fig. 7 of Vanderpan discloses such structure. The Appellant’s Specification 18
identifies the plurality of lateral grooves disposed on the inside surface of 19
the saddle portion of the hanger as shown in the Appellant’s Figs. 1 and 7 as 20
being embodiments of this element, that is, as being structure corresponding 21
to the element. (See Spec. 5, l. 23 - 6, l. 2 (stating that the grooves are 22
disposed on the inside surface and oriented “to advantageously minimize 23
twisting of the drip hose . . . .”)). Therefore, any reasonable interpretation of 24
the term “means for minimizing twisting of the hose” consistent with the 25
specification must be sufficiently broad to encompass a plurality of grooves 26
which are disposed on the inside surface of the saddle portion and which are 27
capable of minimizing twisting of objects held in the hanger. 28
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

11
We concluded with regard to our affirmance of the rejection of claims 1
1, 5, 6, 15, 16 and 20 that the Examiner did not err in finding that Fig. 7 of 2
Vanderpan discloses a fastening clip having an inside surface with lateral 3
grooves. Vanderpan expressly discloses that these lateral grooves (or at 4
least the projections defining the grooves) minimize twisting of objects held 5
in the clip. (FF 4). We further conclude that the Examiner did not err in 6
finding that the lateral grooves included on the inside surface of the saddle 7
portion of Vanderpan’s fastening clip are “means for minimizing twisting of 8
the hose.” The Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting 9
claim 11 under § 102(e). 10
11
D. The Rejection of Claims 12-14 Under § 102(e) as Being 12
Anticipated by Vanderpan 13
The Appellant contends that Vanderpan does not disclose a hanger 14
including a sleeve-shaped body with an inside surface having a plurality of 15
axial grooves and a recess adapted to receive a support wire as recited in 16
claim 12. (App. Br. 8). Vanderpan discloses a sleeve-shaped body in the 17
sense that the reference discloses a hollow, approximately cylindrical body 18
which is relatively wide compared to the gage of the support wire. (FF 2-3). 19
We concluded with regard to our affirmance of the rejection of claims 1, 5, 20
6, 15, 16 and 20 that the Examiner did not err in finding that Vanderpan 21
discloses a fastening clip having a body including an inside surface with 22
axial grooves. Each such axial groove is a recess. Each such recess would 23
be adapted to receive a support wire in the sense that a sufficiently thin 24
support wire would fit into the groove. Therefore, the Appellant has not 25
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

12
shown on the record before us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 1
under § 102(b). 2
The surfaces of the axial grooves of the fastening clip shown in Fig. 7 3
of Vanderpan appear to be filleted where the base of each gripper-protrusion 4
projects from the inside surface of the second enclosure. (See Vanderpan, 5
Fig. 7). On this basis alone, the Examiner did not err in finding that each 6
recess is partly circular in cross-section. Therefore, the Appellant has not 7
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 under § 102(e). 8
The Examiner’s Answer includes a copy of Vanderpan’s Fig. 7 with a 9
diametrical line drawn across the opening of the fastening clip. (Ans. 11). 10
The Appellant does not appear to contest the placement of this line or the 11
Examiner’s finding that Vanderpan’s axial grooves are symmetric about this 12
line. The Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting 13
claim 14 under § 102(e). 14
15
E. The Rejection of Claims 2-4, 8, 9, and 17-19 Under § 103(a) as 16
Being Unpatentable over Vanderpan in View of Volpe 17
Claim 2 recites a hanger having a saddle portion including a 18
projection extending downwardly to divert water to the ground. Claims 3, 8 19
and 17 recite a hanger having a rib secured to an outside surface of the 20
saddle portion or body of the hanger. It would have been obvious to secure 21
a rib as shown in the drawings of Volpe (see FF 7) to the outer surface of the 22
saddle portion or body along the entire annular length of that outer surface. 23
A combination which “‘simply arranges old elements with each 24
performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no 25
more than one would expect from such an arrangement” is obvious. KSR 26
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

13
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. 1
Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). Furthermore, we agree with the 2
Examiner (Ans. 12) that a combination may have been obvious even if one 3
of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine the elements 4
different from the particular problems with which the inventor is concerned. 5
KSR Int’l, 127 S.Ct. at 1741-42. 6
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that securing a 7
rib of the type depicted in Volpe with the fastening clip shown in Fig. 7 of 8
Vanderpan would have resulted in a fastening clip which functions in the 9
same manner as the fastening clip would function without the rib. The one 10
of ordinary skill in the art also would have understood that the rib would 11
strengthen the fastening clip in the same manner that the rib would 12
strengthen the hook shown in Volpe. The Appellant has not contended that 13
it would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art to secure a rib 14
to Vanderpan’s fastening clip. Neither has the Appellant contended that the 15
results of securing a rib such as that depicted in Volpe to Vanderpan’s 16
fastening clip would have been unpredictable. 17
The Appellant contends that Vanderpan teaches away from the 18
combination on which the Examiner relies in support of the rejection under 19
§ 103(a). We disagree. Vanderpan identifies one object of the fastening clip 20
to be providing a clip capable of expanding to accommodate growth of a 21
vine or branch held by the clip. (FF 6). We agree with the Examiner’s 22
finding (Ans. 13) that this teaching would not have discouraged one of 23
ordinary skill in the art from securing a rib as depicted in Volpe to 24
Vanderpan’s clip. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the 25
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

14
knowledge and skill to adapt the relative size of the rib so as not to remove 1
all resiliency and flexibility from the clip. 2
Therefore, the Appellant has not shown on the record before us that 3
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 8 and 17 under § 103(a). In 4
addition, a square rib as depicted in Volpe secured to the outer surface of 5
Vanderpan’s fastening clip would have extended downwardly from the 6
saddle portion of the clip and necessarily would have diverted water flowing 7
along a hose held by the clip. These findings imply that the Appellant has 8
not shown that the Examiner erred in rejected claim 2 under § 103(a). 9
The rib shown in the drawing figures of Volpe is square or rectangular 10
in cross section. (FF 7). As such, the rib includes a sharp edge at each 11
exposed corner of the square or rectangular cross-section. (See Volpe, Figs. 12
1 and 2). As noted in the previous paragraph, it would have been obvious to 13
secure a rib having this square or rectangular cross-section and these sharp 14
edges onto the outer surface of Vanderpan’s fastening clip. On the record 15
before us, the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting 16
claims 4 and 19 under § 103(a). 17
In addition, the rib shown the drawing figures of Volpe has an axial 18
thickness less than that of the outer surface of the hook from which the rib 19
projects. (FF 7). In view of the relative dimensions of the rib depicted in 20
Volpe, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to secure a rib 21
to the outer surface of Vanderpan’s fastening clip such that the axial width 22
of the rib was less than the axial width of the outer surface of the clip. 23
Vanderpan’s teaching that the fastening clip should be capable of expanding 24
to accommodate growth of a vine or branch held by the clip (see FF 6) 25
would have provided additional reason for limiting the axial width of the rib 26
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

15
in a manner which would have resulted in a “staircase” configuration. The 1
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that limiting the axial 2
width of the rib in this fashion would have strengthened the fastening clip 3
without removing all resiliency and expandability from the clip. On the 4
record before us, the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in 5
rejecting claims 9 and 18 under § 103(a). 6
7
F. The Rejection of Claim 7 Under § 103(a) as Being 8
Unpatentable over Vanderpan in View of Volpe 9
We agree with the Appellant (App. Br. 10) that neither Vanderpan nor 10
Volpe describes or discloses a hanger having a rib secured to an outside 11
surface of a saddle portion such that the rib includes a projection extending 12
downwardly to divert water to the ground. Fig. 7 of Vanderpan shows a 13
fastening clip with no external rib and Vanderpan’s specification mentions 14
no such rib. Volpe depicts a hanger with a rib which is homogeneous in 15
cross-section and does not include a downwardly extending projection. 16
Therefore, the claimed subject matter differs from the prior art in that neither 17
Vanderpan nor Volpe discloses a clip or hanger having an external rib 18
including a downwardly extending projection. 19
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify 20
the fastening clip of Fig. 7 of Vanderpan so as to provide a rib such as that 21
depicted in Volpe for the well-known advantage of reinforcing the saddle 22
portion. (See Ans. 5 and 12-13). Despite this, we agree with the Appellant 23
(App. Br. 10) to the extent that the Examiner has not articulated reasoning 24
with rational underpinnings in Vanderpan, Volpe and the knowledge of 25
those of ordinary skill in the art sufficient to support the Examiner’s 26
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

16
conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify Vanderpan’s fastening 1
clip to include an external rib with a projection extending downwardly to 2
divert water to the ground. Therefore, on the record before us, the Appellant 3
has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under § 103(a). 4
5
G. The Rejection of Claims 21-23 Under § 103(a) as Being 6
Being Unpatentable over Vanderpan in View of Wiley 7
The Appellant contests the rejection of claims 21-23 together in the 8
Appeal Brief. (App. Br. 13). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7-8) for 9
reasons discussed earlier that Vanderpan and Wiley are analogous art. The 10
Appellant has not explained why the reasoning articulated by the Examiner 11
to show that the combined teachings of Vanderpan and Wiley rendered the 12
invention obvious was erroneous. Therefore, the Appellant has not shown 13
on the record before us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21-23 14
under § 103(a). 15
16
CONCLUSIONS 17
On the record before us, the Appellant has not shown that the 18
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 11-16 and 20 under § 102(e) as 19
being anticipated by Vanderpan; rejecting claims 2-4, 8, 9 and 17-19 under 20
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vanderpan in view of Volpe; and 21
rejecting claims 21-23 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vanderpan 22
in view of Wiley. The Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in 23
rejecting claim 10 under § 102(e) as being anticipated by Vanderpan. The 24
Appellant also has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 25
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vanderpan and Volpe. 26
Appeal 2008-1834
Application 10/388,219

17
DECISION 1
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 11-23. We 2
REVERSE the rejections of claims 7 and 10. 3
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 4
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 5
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 6
7
AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
hh 17
SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP 18
1420 KING STREET 19
SUITE 600 20
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 21