Ex Parte Thompson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2018

13439021 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018)

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.
13/439,021 04/04/2012 Elizabeth Chabner Thompson 455-014US 8384
22897 7590 02/28/2018
Kanlan Rrever Sohwmv T T P
EXAMINER
100 Matawan Road, Suite 120
Matawan, NJ 07747
SZAFRAN, BRIE ANNA TARAH LARELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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):
docketing@kbsiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELIZABETH CHABNER THOMPSON
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 12 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A breast band for preventing a breast implant from settling
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
in an unnaturally high position, comprising:
a band, wherein the band is a non-resilient, inelastic
material, and wherein the band is long enough to encircle an
upper chest of a wearer; and
an adjustable closure, wherein the adjustable closure:
(a) opens and closes the band; and
(b) enables the band to be adjusted suitably tightly
about the upper chest of the wearer to apply downward
pressure on the breast implant.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Pfleumer US 2,338,535 Jan. 4, 1944
Boone US 2,412,075 Dec. 3, 1946
Valli US 6,336,839 B1 Jan. 8, 2002
Smith US 2006/0211334 A1 Sept. 21,2006
Chou US 2006/0228989 A1 Oct. 12, 2006
Baratta US 8,550,871 B1 Oct. 8,2013
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 2—6, 8—11, and 13—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.1
II. Claims 1, 2, 8, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Boone.
III. Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Baratta.
1 Although the statement of this rejection in the Final Action includes claim
12, the explanation of the rejection does not. See Final Act. 9—10.
Accordingly, we understand the inclusion of claim 12 in this ground of
rejection to be a typographical error.
2
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
IV. Claims 2-4, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Boone and Baratta.
V. Claims 2-4, 8, 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Baratta and Pfleumer.
VI. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baratta.
VII. Claims 5,11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baratta, Pfleumer, and Smith.
VIII. Claims 6, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baratta, Pfleumer, and Valli.
IX. Claims 7, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baratta, Pfleumer, and Chou.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I: Indefiniteness of Claims 2—6, 8-11, and 13—20
Claims 2—6
The Examiner determines that “[tjhere is insufficient antecedent
basis” for “the limitations ‘the rest of the band’ in lines 5 and 11 and ‘the
upper edge of the breast band’ in lines 4—5 & 10-11, and ‘the upper edge of
the rest of the band’ in lines 5 & 11.” Final Act. 9.
Appellant asserts that “the Examiner has adopted a per se rule of
indefiniteness: if a limitation in a claim lacks antecedent basis, then the
claim is indefinite under Section 112. There is no such rule.” Appeal Br.
10. As an example, Appellant directs our attention to the following
language in claim 2:
the first and second axilla-accommodating regions have a
reduced height such that in the first and second axilla-
3
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
accommodating regions, the upper edge of the breast band is
lower than the upper edge of the rest of the band.
Appeal Br. 10 (quoting Claim 2,11. 2—5). Appellant argues that “[t]he phrase
‘the rest of the band’ does not create any lack of clarity in this claim.” Id.
A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose
meaning is unclear. See In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (approving the MPEP standard applied by the USPTO); see also Ex
parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566 (PTAB 2017)
(precedential) (discussing the test for indefiniteness during prosecution and
confirming that the MPEP standard remains unchanged after Nautilus, Inc.
V. Biosign Instruments, Inc. 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014)). A band is
recited in the first line of claim 2, as well as in claim 1, from which claim 2
depends. These recitations of the band combined with the recitation of “first
and second axilla-accommodating regions” of the band provide antecedent
basis for the “the rest of the band.” Moreover, one skilled in the art would
understand that the reference to “the rest of the band” refers to those parts of
the band which do not form the first and second axilla-accommodating
regions.
Similarly, the recitation of the band in both claims 1 and 2 provides
antecedent basis for the other limitations cited by the Examiner as lacking
antecedent basis (i.e. an upper edge is an inherent feature of the band itself,
as well as, the rest of the band). The Examiner does not explain why one
skilled in the art would not understand these limitations. Thus, the Examiner
fails to set forth a prima facie case of indefmiteness.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 2, and claims 3—6, which depend therefrom, as indefinite.
4
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
Claims 8—11
The Examiner determines that “[tjhere is insufficient antecedent
basis” for “the limitation ‘the upper of the rest of the band’ in lines 8—9” of
claim 8. Final Act. 9. However, the Examiner does not explain why one
skilled in the art would not understand this limitation. Rather, as Appellant
contends and discussed supra, the Examiner appears to be applying a per se
rule of indefiniteness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claim 8 and claims 9-11, which depend therefrom, as
indefinite.
Claims 13—16
The Examiner determines that “[tjhere is insufficient antecedent
basis” for “the limitations ‘the rest of the first band’ in line 6 and ‘the rest of
the second band’ in lines 10—11” of claim 13. Final Act. 9. For reasons
similar to those discussed supra, the Examiner fails to set forth a prima facie
case of indefmiteness for these claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 13, and claims 14—16, which depend
therefrom, as indefinite.
Claims 17 and 18
The Examiner determines that “[tjhere is insufficient antecedent
basis” for “the limitations ‘the rest of the first band’ in lines 5—6 and ‘the rest
of the second band’ in line 11.” Final Act. 10. For reasons similar to those
discussed supra, the Examiner fails to set forth a prima facie case of
indefmiteness for these claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 17, and claim 18, which depends
therefrom, as indefinite.
5
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
Claims 19 and 20
The Examiner determines that “[t]here is insufficient antecedent
basis” for “the limitation ‘the smallest girth’ in lines 2—3” of claims 19 and
20. Final Act. 10. Again, the Examiner does not explain why one skilled in
the art would not understand these limitations. Moreover, both of these
claims recite a first range of girths and a second range of girths. Each range
would necessarily have a smallest girth. Thus, there is proper antecedent
basis for these limitations. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 19 and 20 as indefinite.
Rejection II: Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 8, 12, and 13 by Boone
Claims 1 and 2
The Examiner finds that Boone discloses each and every limitation of
claim 1. See Final Act. 10—11. In particular, the Examiner finds that Boone
discloses “an adjustable closure (via 119 & 128), wherein the adjustable
closure (via 119 & 128): (a) opens and closes the band (111 ); and (b)
enables the band (111) to be adjusted suitably tightly about the upper chest
of the wearer to apply downward pressure on the breast implant.” Id. The
Examiner explains that the limitation “‘to apply downward pressure on the
breast implant’ [is] functional and does not positively recite a structural
limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function.” Id.
at 11.
Appellant contends that “Boone is not directed to a breast band.
Rather, Boone is directed to ‘a brace for holding and supporting the body of
a person having back or other injuries, and is particularly directed to forms
of braces for use in connection with back injuries.’” Appeal Br. 13 (citing
Boone 1:1—4). In support of this contention, Appellant explains, “Although
6
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
Boone’s brace can (presumably) compress a breast (implant) by tightening
straps (19) and (21), it will not necessarily apply downward pressure thereto,
which is what a breast band does.” Id. (footnote omitted).
Responding to this argument, the Examiner notes “that the structure of
Boone's breast band (via Figures 4-6) is structurally and functionally capable
of ‘preventing a breast implant from settling in an unnaturally high position’
(via areas of 131 & 134 and other front portions of the band 111, Col. 3,
lines 5-9).” Ans. 7-8. The Examiner further notes “that the closure of
Boone does enable ‘the band to be adjusted suitably tightly about the upper
chest of the wearer to apply downward pressure [on] the breast implant’ via
straps 119—120 & buckles 128—129, (Col. 3, lines 13—23).” Id. at 8.
Although, Boone discloses a brace 111 having projections 131, 132,
133, and 134, which extend above the level of the arm-pits and provide
braces for upper portions of the body such that it appears that one or more of
these portions may cover the user’s breasts, there is no indication in Boone
that such portions are capable of applying downward pressure on the breasts.
Further, given that brace 111 is made of a metal plate (see Boone 2:31—36),
it is not readily apparent that downward pressure on the breasts could be
applied by tightening the straps 119 and 120. Rather, it appears that
tightening of these straps would simply compress the breasts. Thus, the
Examiner’s finding is not supported by a preponderance of evidence.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 1 and claim 2 which depends therefrom as anticipated by Boone.
Claim 8
The Examiner finds that Boone discloses each and every limitation of
claim 8. See Final Act. 13. In particular, the Examiner finds that Boone
discloses “first and second axilla-accommodating regions.” Id. (identifying
7
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
the right and left spaces between Boone’s projections 131—132 and 133—134
as corresponding to the claimed regions). The Examiner further finds that
“the first and second axilla-accommodating regions . . . have a reduced
height (note Figures 4 & 6) such that in the first and second axilla-
accommodating regions ... an upper edge of the breast band is lower than
the upper edge of the rest of the band (111).” Id. (citations omitted).
Appellant contends that “Boone’s brace does not show this structure.”
Appeal Br. 13. In support of this contention, Appellant notes that “[a]s
shown in Boone’s Figures, the upper edge of the brace does not dip down in
the region under the arm pits to accommodate them. Rather, in Fig. 4,
upwardly extending projections (131) — (134) ‘extend above the level of the
arm pits.’” Id. at 14.
Boone discloses a brace 111 including upper projections 131—134.
See Boone Figs. 4—6. As noted by the Examiner on the reproduction of
these Figures on page 10 of the Answer, the upper edge of Boone’s brace
111 includes the upper edge of projections 131—134. See Ans. 10. In the
region under the user’s arm pits (shown by the dotted lines in Figure 4), the
upper edge of the brace in this embodiment dips down to accommodate the
user’s arm pits. Thus, Boone shows first and second axilla-accommodating
regions as claimed. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is unconvincing.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim
8.
Claims 12 and 13
The Examiner finds that Boone discloses each and every limitation of
claim 12. See Final Act. 13—14. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Boone discloses a first breast band and a second breast band. See id.
8
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
Appellant argues that Boone does not disclose two or more braces “to
accommodate different sized patients.” Appeal Br. 16.
The Examiner explains that Boone’s various layers comprise the first
and second breast bands of the kit claimed. See Ans. 12—13. However,
there is no indication in Boone that its various layers have different girths to
accommodate wearers having upper chests within different ranges of girths
as claimed. See generally, Boone2; see also Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
Moreover, one skilled in the art would not consider Boone’s single brace to
constitute a kit comprising first and second bands as required by claim 12.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 12, and claim 13 which depends therefrom as anticipated by Boone.
Rejection III: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 12 by Baratta
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Baratta discloses each and every limitation of
claim 1. See Final Act. 16. In particular, the Examiner finds that Baratta
discloses an adjustable closure 304 that enables a band 300 “to be adjusted
suitably tightly about the upper chest of the wearer to apply downward
pressure on the breast implant.” Id. (citations omitted). The Examiner again
opines that “the limitations, ‘for preventing a breast implant from settling in
an unnaturally high position’ and ‘to apply downward pressure on the breast
implant’ are functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation,
but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function.” Id.
2 We note that Examiner alludes to other potential grounds of rejection for
claim 12 (Ans. 12—15); however, no such rejections are before us in this
Appeal.
9
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
Appellant argues that “Baratta does not teach a breast band.” Appeal
Br. 17. Appellant explains that “Baratta discloses a customizable brassiere”
and that “[a] brassiere is a woman’s undergarment, the primary purpose of
which is to support her breasts.” Appeal Br. 17 (citing
http://en.wikipedla.org/wiki/Bra). Appellant further argues that “[t]he
Examiner has not identified any adjustable closure in Baratta that has the
ability to ‘enable the band to be adjusted ... to apply downward pressure on
the breast implant’ nor does Baratta appear to disclose any such adjustable
closure.” Id. at 18.
Baratta describes a bra designed to support a woman’s breast. See,
e.g., Baratta 1:9—11, 41—45; 3:25—28. Moreover, as noted by Appellant
supra, the Examiner has not identified any portion of Baratta that indicates
that its bra is capable of applying downward pressure on the breasts as
required by claim 1. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Baratta discloses an
adjustable closure 304 that enables a band 300 “to be adjusted suitably
tightly about the upper chest of the wearer to apply downward pressure on
the breast implant” is not support by a preponderance of evidence. Final
Act. 16 (citations omitted).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 1 as anticipated by Baratta.
Claim 12
The Examiner finds that Baratta discloses each and every limitation of
claim 12. See Final Act. 16—17. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Baratta discloses a second breast band 200 which can be formed of one or
more layers. See id. at 17. Noting that “[t]he Examiner appears to argue
that the multi-layer construction of the Baratta brassiere reads on the first
and second breast bands recited in claim 12,” Appellant argues that “Baratta,
10
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
like Boone, provides no disclosure concerning a kit comprising two breast
bands.” Appeal Br. 18.
There is no disclosure in Baratta indicating that its various layers have
different girths to accommodate wearers having upper chests within different
ranges of girths as claimed. See generally, Baratta. Moreover, as discussed
supra with respect to the Examiner’s determination that Boone’s single
brace constitutes first and second bands, we agree with Appellant that one
skilled in the art would not consider Baratta’s disclosure of a single bra to
constitute disclosure of a kit comprising two breast bands. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 12.
Rejection IV: Obviousness of Claims 2—4, 17, and 18
Over Boone and Baratta
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and claims 17 and 18 depend from
claim 12. The rejection of claims 2—4, 17, and 18 suffers from the same
deficiency with respect to the Boone reference as the rejection of claims 1
and 12 discussed supra. Baratta does not cure this deficiency. See Final
Act. 19—21. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 2—4, 17, and 18 as unpatentable over Boone and Baratta.
Rejections V: Obviousness of Claims 2—4, 8, 13, 17, and 18
Based on Baratta and Pfleumer
Claims 2—4, 13, 17, and 18
Claims 2—4 depend from claim 1 and claims 13, 17, and 18 depend
from claim 12. The rejection of claims 2-4, 13, 17, and 18 suffers from the
same deficiency with respect to the Baratta reference as the rejection of
claims 1 and 12 discussed supra. Pfleumer does not cure this deficiency.
11
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
See Final Act. 21—24, 26—31. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-4, 13, 17, and 18 as unpatentable
over Baratta and Pfleumer.
Claim 8
The Examiner determines that Baratta discloses all of the limitations
of claim 8 except that Baratta does not specifically disclose
first and second axilla-accommodating regions, wherein the
first and second axilla-accommodating regions have a reduced
height such that in the first and second axilla-accommodating
regions, the upper edge of the breast band is lower than the
upper edge of the rest of the band, and wherein [when] the
breast band is worn, the first and second axilla-accommodating
regions are positioned below each axilla of the wearer.
Final Act. 25. The Examiner further finds that:
Pfleumer discloses of a breast band (10) comprising of (i)
first and second axilla-accommodating regions (via 14-15),
wherein the first and second axilla-accommodating regions (via
14—15) have a reduced height (note Figures 1 & 4) such that in
the first and second axilla-accommodating regions (via 14—15),
the upper edge (via area of 14 & 15) of the breast band (10) is
lower than (note Figures 1 & 2) the upper edge (via numeral
areas of 10 in Figures 1 & 4) in of the rest of the band (10), and
wherein the breast band (10) is worn, the first and second
axilla-accommodating regions (via 14—15) are positioned below
each axilla of the wearer (note Figure 4), (Figures 1 & 4, Col. 4,
lines 11—17).
Id. at 26. Based on these findings, the Examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious to modify Baratta to have first and second axilla-
accommodating regions having a reduced height such that the upper edge of
the breast band in these regions is lower than the upper edge of the rest of
the band “so that the band can be notched to properly fit under the arms of
the wearer.” Id.
12
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
Appellant argues that “there is no indication that Baratta’s brassiere
does not ‘properly fit under the arms of the wearer. ’ Nor is there any
mention in Baratta of problems related to the fit of the brassiere in the axilla
region. As such, there is no sound basis for the rationale to combine offered
by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 20.
We are unaware of any requirement that a prior art reference indicate
that it suffers from a problem in order for a proposed modification of that
reference to be supported by rationale underpinning. Moreover, in this
instance Baratta’s entire disclosure is directed to customizing the fit of the
brassiere. See generally Baratta. In the embodiment relied upon to reject
claim 8, the portions of the brassiere subject to customization include the
regions under the wearer’s arms. See id. at Fig. 3A. Appellant does not
explain why the proposed modification would not improve Baratta’s
customized fit. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error.
Appellant further argues that neither Baratta nor Pfleumer are
“capable of preventing a breast implant from settling in an unnaturally high
position by applying downward pressure thereto, per the implicit definition
of ‘breast band’.” Appeal Br. 21. However, claim 8 does not require a
breast band that is capable of preventing a breast implant from settling in an
unnaturally high position by applying downward pressure. See Appeal Br.
25 (Claims App.). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Moreover, Appellant does not identity where the Specification
provides support for the contention that the definition of the term “breast
band” implicitly requires the capability to provide downward pressure or
provide evidence that the term “breast band” is a term of art that would be
13
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to require this capability. See
Appeal Br. 21. Furthermore, our review of the Specification reveals that the
term “breast band” refers to a device “that ensures that the implants settle in
the infra-mammary crease in a natural position.” Spec. 13. In accordance
with the Specification “breast bands or binders” may be used to exert such
pressure when necessary. See id. Thus, we are not persuaded that the term
“breast band” by itself implicitly requires a band capable of preventing a
breast implant from settling in an unnaturally high position by applying
downward pressure. Accordingly, Appellant does not apprise us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim
8 as unpatentable over Baratta and Pfleumer.
Rejection VI: Obviousness of Claims 19 and 20
Based on Baratta
Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 12. Appeal Br. 27 (Claims
App.). This rejection suffers from the deficiency, discussed supra, in the
rejection of claim 12. The proposed modification does not cure this
deficiency. See Final Act. 31. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable over Baratta.
Rejection VII: Obvoiusness of Claims 5, 11, and 16
Based on Baratta, Pfleumer, and Smith
Claims 5 and 16
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and claim 16 depends from claim 12.
Appeal Br. 24, 27 (Claims App.). This rejection suffers from the same
deficiencies as the rejection of claims 1 and 12 discussed supra. Neither
Pfleumer nor Smith cures this deficiency. See Final Act. 32. Accordingly,
14
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5 and 16 as
unpatentable over Baratta, Pfleumer, and Smith.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 8. Appellant contends that Smith does
not cure the deficiencies of Baratta and Pfleumer with respect to claim 8.
Appeal Br. 21. However, as discussed supra, we find no such deficiencies
in this rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claim 11 as unpatentable over Baratta, Pfleumer, and
Smith.
Rejection VIII: Obviousness of Claims 6, 9, and 14
Based on Baratta, Pfleumer, and Valli
Claims 6 and 14
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and claim 14 depends from claim 12.
Appeal Br. 25, 26 (Claims App.). This rejection suffers from the same
deficiencies as the rejection of claims 1 and 12 discussed supra. Neither
Pfleumer nor Valli cures this deficiency. See Final Act. 32—33.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6
and 14 as unpatentable over Baratta, Pfleumer, and Valli.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 8. Appellant contends that Valli does not
cure the deficiencies of Baratta and Pfleumer with respect to claim 8.
Appeal Br. 22. However, as discussed supra, we find no such deficiencies
in this rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claim 9 as unpatentable over Baratta, Pfleumer, and Valli.
15
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
Rejection IX: Obviousness of Claims 7, 10, And 15
Based on Baratta, Pfleumer, and Chou
Claims 7 and 15
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and claim 15 depends from claim 12.
Appeal Br. 25, 27 (Claims App.). This rejection suffers from the same
deficiencies as the rejection of claims 1 and 12 discussed supra. Neither
Pfleumer nor Chou cures this deficiency. See Final Act. 33—34.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7
and 15 as unpatentable over Baratta, Pfleumer, and Valli.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 8. Appellant contends that Chou does
not cure the deficiencies of Baratta and Pfleumer with respect to claim 8.
Appeal Br. 22. However, as discussed supra, we find no such deficiencies
in this rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claim 9 as unpatentable over Baratta, Pfleumer, and Chou.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—6, 8—11, and 13—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 8—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are AFFIRMED
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7 and 12—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(b), 102(e), and 103(a) are REVERSED.
16
Appeal 2016-004231
Application 13/439,021
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17