Ex Parte Waffenschmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2016

12441399 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/441,399 03/16/2009 Eberhard Waffenschmidt
38107 7590 05/10/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2006P01821WOUS 1675
EXAMINER
SCHINDLER, DAVID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EBERHARD WAFFENSCHMIDT,
THOMAS FALCK, and DIETRICH ROGLER
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 10, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ,-i 2 as indefinite and also rejected claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13-15, 17,
23, 24, and 26-29 of Application 12/441,399 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious. Final Act. (May 15, 2013). After the Final Action, Appellants
amended claims 10, 11, and 26 and canceled claims 24, 28, and 29.
Amendment (July 11, 2013, entered July 29, 2013). 1
1 Appellants attempted to further amend claim 10. Amendment (October 4,
2013). The Examiner, however, refused to enter this amendment. Advisory
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
Appellants2 seek reversal of the rejections of the remaining claims (2,
6, 7, 10, 11, 13-15, 23, 26, and 27) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM-IN-PART.
BACKGROUND
The '399 Application describes an apparatus with a charging fixture.
Spec. 1. The charging fixture has a contact surface that allows transfer of
electromagnetic energy to a plurality of electronic devices arranged with
respective pick up circuits for receiving the electromagnetic energy when the
devices are positioned on the contact surface. Id. The apparatus comprises a
primary winding arranged substantially complementary to the contact
surface. Id.
Claim 10 is representative of the '399 Application's claims. The
version of claim 10 reproduced below reflects entry of Appellants' July 11,
2013 amendment and does not include the amendments proposed in the
unentered October 4, 2013 Amendment. Claim 10 reads:
10. An apparatus with a charging fixture for electromagnetic
energy transfer to a plurality of electronic devices with pick up
circuits for receiving the electromagnetic energy, the charging
fixture comprising:
a contact surface configured to be contacted by a charge
receiving surface of each of the electronic devices during
electromagnetic energy transfer, a rear surface and a pair of
opposite, parallel sides extending between the contact and rear
Action (October 18, 2013). Appellants' petition seeking entry of this
amendment was denied. Petition Decision (May 12, 2014).
2 Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. is identified as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
surfaces, the electronic devices including an engaging
mechanism which engages the sides of the charging fixture on
opposite sides of the contact surface with the charge receiving
surface in a plane parallel to the contact surface;
a plurality of circuits, each circuit including a primary winding
and a sensor which senses a presence of a one of the plurality of
electronic devices adjacent the primary coil of the circuit;
wherein the primary coils are positioned in a partially
overlapping array along the contact surface,
wherein in response to one of the sensors sensing one of the
electronic devices adjacent the primary coil of one of the primary
coils, the sensor activates the one of the primary coils.
Appeal Br. 15-16 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains3 the following rejections:
1. Claims 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, iJ 2 as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which the applicants regard as their invention.
Final Act. 4-5.
3 The Examiner's Answer contains the boilerplate recitation"[ e ]very ground
of rejection set forth in the Office action dated 5/15/2013 from which the
appeal is taken is being maintained by the examiner except for the grounds
of rejection (if any) listed under the subheading 'WITHDRAWN
REJECTIONS."' Answer 2. In summarizing the rejections, we have
corrected the list of claims subject to each ground of rejection to reflect the
cancellation of claims 24, 28, and 29.
3
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
2. Claims 2, 6, 10, 11, 13-15, 23, 26, and 27 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Partovi4 and either Hotelling5 or Teramachi. 6 Final Act. 6.
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Partovi, Cheng, 7 and either Hotelling or
Teramachi. Final Act. 17.
4. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Partovi, Kagermeier, 8 and either Hotelling or
Teramachi. Final Act. 18.
5. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Partovi, Toya,9 and either Hotelling or
Teramachi. 10 Final Act. 19.
4 US 2007/0182367 Al, published August 9, 2007.
5 US 2010/0177476 Al, published July 15, 2010.
6 US 4,844,624, issued July 4, 1989.
7 US 2005/0116683 Al, published June 2, 2005.
8 US 2006/0108977 Al, published May 25, 2006.
9 US 7,683,572 B2, issued March 23, 2010.
10 As set forth by the Examiner, Rejection 5 is based upon the combination
of Partovi and Toya. Claim 27, however, depends from claim 26 and,
therefore, includes each of claim 26' s limitations. Claim 26 is rejected
under§ 103(a) as obvious over Partovi in combination with either Hotelling
or Teramachi. Thus, either Hotelling or Teramachi is a necessary part of the
rejection of claim 27. We assume that the Examiner inadvertently failed to
include Hotelling and Teramachi in the summary of the basis of the rejection
of claim 27.
4
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 26 as indefinite.
Final Act. 4-5. On July 11, 2013, Appellants amended claims 10 and 26 in
an effort to overcome the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection. Neither the
July 29, 2013 Advisory Action nor the Examiner's Answer addresses the
question of whether or not these amendments are sufficient to overcome the
indefiniteness rejection set forth in the Final Action. In view of the
Examiner's boilerplate recitation that all of the rejections set forth in the
Final Action are being maintained, see Answer 2, we are forced to assume
that the Examiner has concluded that the July 11, 2013 Amendments did not
overcome the indefiniteness rejection.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 26 as set
forth in the Final Action and Appellants' July 11, 2013 Amendment. We
conclude that Appellants have successfully overcome the indefiniteness
rejection of claims 10 and 26 as explained in the Final Action. Thus, we
reverse that rejection of claims 10 and 26.
We note that Appellants attempted to further amend claim 10. See
Amendment (October 4, 2013). In the Appeal Brief, Appellants state that
the proposed amendments are intended to address potential issues under
§ 112, ,-i 2. Appeal Br. 7. These amendments, however, were not entered
and have not been considered.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 6, 10, 11, 13-15, 23,
26, and 27 as unpatentable over the combination of Partovi and either
Hotelling or Teramachi. Final Act. 6. Appellants argue for reversal of the
5
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
rejection with respect to several different groups of claims. 11 We address
each group separately.
Claim 10. Appellants argue that the rejection over the combination of
Partovi and Hotelling should be reversed because the combination does not
describe or suggest a charging fixture having a pair of opposite parallel sides
between a contact and rear surface which are capable of being engaged by an
electronic device. See Appeal Br. 7-9.
In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner found that "Partovi discloses all of
the features of claim 10 except for the specific mechanism used for attaching
the charger and device to be charged in an environment where the charger is
placed at an angle or mounted vertically such as on a wall." Answer 5; see
also Final Act. 9. Partovi further describes one embodiment of its charger:
In another embodiment, the charger can be made to be mounted
on a wall or a similar surface, vertically or at an angle (such as
on a surface in a car), so as to save space. The charger could
incorporate physical features, magnets, fasteners or the like to
enable attachment or holding of mobile devices to be charged.
The devices to be charged can also incorporate a retainer,
magnet, or physical shape to enable them to stay on the charger
in a vertical, slanted, or some other position. In this way, the
device could be charged by the primary while it is near or on it.
Partovi ,-i 79.
The Examiner relies upon Hotelling or, in the alternative, Teramachi
to describe or suggest the missing claim limitation. Final Act. 11-16. We
begin by considering the combination of Partovi and Hotelling.
11 Appellants' failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) made the
Appeal Brief unnecessarily difficult to follow. In the future, counsel would
be well advised to follow this rule by addressing each ground of rejection
subject to appeal under a separate heading.
6
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
With respect to Hotelling, the Examiner relies upon the embodiment
of the docking station for a portable electronic device depicted in Hotelling's
Figure 7. See id. at 11-14. Based upon the engagement mechanism shown
in Figure 7, the Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
Partovi to include ... an engaging mechanism which engages the sides of
the charging fixture on opposite sides of the contact surface .... " Id. at 12.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that this conclusion is
erroneous. At bottom, Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined Partovi and Hotelling by bodily incorporating
Hotelling's engagement mechanism into Partovi's charging fixture. See
Appeal Br. 8-9.
Appellants' argument reflects an incorrect understanding of the test
for obviousness. As the Federal Circuit's predecessor court explained: "The
test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may
be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it
that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of
the references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
"[A] reference must be considered not only for what it expressly
teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests." In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175,
1179, (CCPA 1979). In this case, the Examiner correctly found that
Hotelling describes a charging fixture having an engagement mechanism in
which an electronic device engages the charging fixture on opposite sides of
the contact surface. Because Hotelling describes a charging fixture having a
slot which engages a projection on the portable electronic device, the
engagement mechanism does not include sides extending between the
contact surface and the rear surface of the charging fixture.
7
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
As the Supreme Court has explained, "[a] person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton," KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). We agree with the Examiner that it
would have taken no more than an ordinary amount of creativity for a person
of skill in the art to modify Partovi' s charging fixture so that it comprises a
protrusion that fits into a slot in the portable electronic device. We,
therefore, do not see reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion that claim
10 is not patentable over the combination of Partovi and Hotelling.
Because we have affirmed the rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable
over the combination of Partovi and Hotelling, we express no opinion
regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over the
combination of Partovi and Teramachi.
Claim 2. Claim 2 depends from claim 10. As discussed above, we
have affirmed the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over the
combination of Partovi and Hotelling. Appellants argue that claim 2 is
separately patentable based upon its limitations. Appeal Br. 9-10.
Claim 2 is reproduced below:
2. The apparatus according to claim 10, wherein
the charging fixture and the contact surface are elongated
substantially in one dimension, and
the partially overlapping primary windings are arranged
in a single row along the one dimension.
Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added).
We begin by assuming arguendo that the Examiner's claim
construction arguments, see Answer 19-20, are correct. The Examiner
found that Figures 4 and 5 of Partovi discloses a charging fixture having an
8
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
elongated contact surface and partially overlapping primary windings
arranged in a single row. Final Act. 16.
Partovi's Figures 4 and 5 show charging fixtures comprising a first
4 x 6 rectangular array of primary winding coils overlaid by a second array
of primary winding coils. The winding coils in the first array do not overlap
with each other. Nor do the winding coils in the second array overlap with
each other. Furthermore, neither Figure 4 nor Figure 5 depict a charging
fixture in which a row of coils in the first array is aligned in register with a
row of coils in the second array. Thus, the Examiner's finding that Partovi
discloses the additional limitations set forth in claim 2 is erroneous.
In view of this erroneous factual finding, we reverse the rejection of
claim 2.
Claims 6, 11, and 13-15. 12 Claim 11 depends from claim 10. As
discussed above, we have affirmed the rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable
over the combination of Partovi and Hotelling. Appellants further argue that
claim 11 is separately patentable based upon its limitations. Claims 6 and
13-15 are argued to be patentable based upon their dependence from claim
11. See Appeal Br. 10.
Claim 11 is reproduced below:
11. The apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the sides of
the charging fixture include ribs extending oppositely in a
direction parallel to the contact surface, the engaging mechanism
of the electronic devices engaging the ribs.
Appeal Br. 16.
12 Appellants included claims 7 and 17 in this group. See Appeal Br. 10.
Because these claims are not subject to this ground of rejection, we have
removed them from this group.
9
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
Appellants argue that Hotelling does not describe or suggest a
charging fixture comprising parallel sides that include oppositely-extending
ribs. Id. at 10; see also Reply Br. 8-9.
Appellants' argument assumes that the proper interpretation of the
claim limitation "ribs extending oppositely in a direction parallel to the
contact surface" requires that the ribs extend outwardly from the sides of the
charging fixture. See Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 8-9. Appellants, however,
do not cite any portion of the Specification in support of their claim
construction.
In general, "the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In this case, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term
oppositely is broader than Appellants assume. One definition of the word
"oppositely" is "contrary or radically different in some respects common to
both, as in nature, qualities, direction, result, or significance; opposed:
opposite sides in a controversy; opposite directions." Oppositely I Define
Oppositely, Dictionary. com, http://www. dictionary. com/browse/ oppositely.
The Specification uses the term oppositely in this sense. Accordingly, we
conclude that the claim term "ribs extending oppositely" requires that the
ribs extend in contrary or opposed directions. We decline to follow
Appellants in reading limitations from the preferred embodiments into claim
11.
10
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
In view of the claim construction discussed above, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument. We agree with the Examiner's finding
that the ribs in Hotelling' s charging fixture extend in opposite directions:
one to the left, and the other to the right. We do not construe claim 11 as
requiring that the ribs extend outwardly rather than inwardly.
Because we have affirmed the rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable
over the combination of Partovi and Hotelling, we express no opinion
regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over the
combination of Partovi and Teramachi.
Claims 23, 26, and 27. Claim 26 is an independent claim, and claims
23 and 27 dependent therefrom. Appellants argue for the reversal of the
rejection of this group of claims on the basis of claim 26' s limitations. See
Appeal Br. 11-13. Claim 26 is reproduced below:
26. An apparatus including:
a plurality of electronic devices, each having a charge receiving
surface; and
a charging fixture for charging the electronic devices, the
charging fixture comprising:
a bar having an elongated contact surface on a front face, a rear
surface and sides extending between the contact and rear
surfaces, the bar being configured to be mounted with the
elongated contact surface disposed in a vertical plane, the bar
having a rib projecting from a side of the bar in a projection
direction parallel to a plane of the contact surface, the electronic
devices being shaped to engage the rib to be supported by the rib
with a charging plane of the electronic devices in a plane parallel
to and in contact with the contact surface,
an array of primary coils extending along the contact surface, the
primary coils generating electromagnetic energy for charging
one or more of the electronic devices in contact with the contact
surface, the array of primary coils including a first linear array of
primary coils and a second linear array of primary coils, the
11
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
primary coils of the first linear array partially overlapping
adjacent primary coils of the second linear array, and
sensors which sense a location of the one or more of the
electronic devices contacting the contact surface and activates a
corresponding primary coil of the first or second array.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable over
the combination of Partovi and Hotelling should be reversed for either of
two reasons: (1) the combination of references does not describe a
mechanical structure on the portable device that engages one or more sides
which extend between the contact surface on the front face in the rear
surface, Appeal Br. 11-12; or (2) the combination of references does not
describe an electronic device shaped to engage a rib because neither Partovi
nor Hotelling disclose a rib, id. at 12.
We are not persuaded by either of these arguments. As discussed
above, Hotelling describes a portable electronic device which engages
opposing parallel sides of the charging fixture that extended from the
charging fixture's contact surface. We discern no error in the Examiner's
conclusion that Hotelling, therefore, suggests that these opposing parallel
sides could extend between the contact surface and the rear of the fixture.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Hotelling's charging
fixture includes a rib. See Answer 21-25. Thus, we affirm the rejection of
claim 26.
Because we have affirmed the rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable
over the combination of Partovi and Hotelling, we express no opinion
regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable over the
combination of Partovi and Teramachi.
Rejection 3. Claim 7 of the '399 Application is reproduced below:
12
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
7. The apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the sensor
is arranged to detect a soft magnetic core of the electronic device
disposed adjacent the sensor.
Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 as unpatentable over the combination
of Partovi, Cheng, and either Hotelling or Teramachi. Final Act. 17. Claim
7 depends from claims 10 and 11. In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner does
not expressly state any findings of fact regarding the limitations present in
claim 7 by virtue of its dependence from claims 10 and 11. See id. at 17-18.
Nor does the Examiner cross-reference or incorporate by reference findings
of fact regarding these limitations made elsewhere in the Final Action. See
id. Rather than reverse this rejection for failure to set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness, we shall assume that the Examiner intended to
incorporate the findings of fact regarding the description of the limitations of
claims 10 and 11 by Partovi and either Hotelling or Teramachi as set forth in
Rejection 2.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over the
combination of Partovi, Cheng, and either Hotelling or Teramachi should be
reversed. Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellants argue that "Cheng does
not teach or fairly suggest a sensor which senses the magnetic core of the
portable device and actuates the adjacent primary coil in response to sensing
such iron core." Id.
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner found that "Partovi discloses the
claimed feature of claim 10 and the detecting of an electronic device
disposed adjacent the sensor as recited in claim 7. The only limitation that
Partovi lacks is a disclosure that the secondary device has a soft magnetic
core and that this core is being detected." Answer 31. The Examiner further
13
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
found that Cheng describes the inclusion of a soft magnetic core in the
device to be charged. Id. The Examiner further explains how the
combination of Partovi, Cheng, and either Hotelling or Teramachi describes
or suggests every limitation in claim 7. See id. at 31-3 5.
In view of the Examiner's findings and reasoning, we affirm the
rejection of claim 7.
Rejection 4. The Examiner rejected claim 17 as unpatentable over
the combination of Partovi, Kagermeier, and either Hotelling or Teramachi.
Final Act. 18.
Claim 17 depends from claims 10 and 11. In rejecting claim 17, the
Examiner does not expressly state any findings of fact regarding the
limitations present in claim 1 7 by virtue of its dependence from claims 10
and 11. See id. at 18-19. Nor does the Examiner cross-reference or
incorporate by reference findings of fact regarding these limitations made
elsewhere in the Final Action. See id. Rather than reverse this rejection for
failure to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, we shall assume that
the Examiner intended to incorporate the findings of fact regarding the
description of the limitations of claims 10 and 11 by Partovi and either
Hotelling or Teramachi as set forth in Rejection 2.
Appellants have not presented specific argument based upon claim
17' s limitations. Rather, they have argued for reversal of the rejection of
claim 17 based upon the limitations of claims 10 and 11. See Appeal Br. 7-
9 and 10. We have affirmed the rejections of claims 10 and 11 as
unpatentable over the combination of Partovi and Hotelling for the reasons
set forth above. Thus, we also affirm the rejection of claim 1 7.
14
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
Rejection 5. The Examiner rejected claim 27 as unpatentable over
the combination of Partovi, Toya, and either Hotelling or Teramachi. Final
Act. 19.
Claim 27 depends from claim 26 and, therefore, includes each of
claim 26's limitations. In rejecting claim 27, the Examiner does not
expressly set forth any findings of fact regarding claim 27' s limitations that
are present by virtue of its dependence from claim 26. See Final Act. 19-22.
Nor does the Examiner include a cross-reference or otherwise incorporate
findings of fact regarding claim 26 from a previously stated rejection. Id.
Rather than reverse this rejection because the Examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness, we shall assume that the Examiner intended
to incorporate the findings of fact regarding Partovi' s description of the
limitations of claim 26 as expressed in connection with Rejection 2. See id.
at 6-10.
In Rejection 2, the Examiner found that the combination of Partovi
and Hotelling described every limitation of claim 26 except for the
requirement that the engaging mechanism includes a rib projecting from a
side of the bar in a projection direction parallel to the plane of the contact
surface, and that the electronic devices are shaped to engage the rib. Final
Act. 6-10. The Examiner also found that Partovi did not describe claim 27' s
requirement that the charging fixture further include a second rib. Id. at 10.
The Examiner further found that Toya describes the use of a rib that is
engaged by a hanging electronic device. Id. at 20-21. The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to modify Partovi to include two ribs that
are used to mount the electronic devices on the charger. Id. at 21-22.
15
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
In arguing for the reversal of the rejection of claim 27, Appellants do
not address the Examiner's findings regarding the description found in Toya.
See Appeal Br. 13. Because Appellants have not addressed the substance of
the rejection as expressed in the Final Action, we affirm.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 10
and 26 as indefinite.
We affirm the rejections of claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 13-15, 23, 26, and 27
pursuant to§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Partovi and
Hotelling. We express no opinion regarding the Examiner's rejection of
these claims over the combination of Partovi and Teramachi.
We reverse the rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over the
combination of Partovi and either Hotelling or Teramachi.
We affirm the rejection of claim 7 under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Partovi, Cheng, and Hotelling. \Ve express no opinion
regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over the
combination of Partovi, Cheng, and Teramachi.
We affirm the rejection of claim 17 under§ 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Partovi, Kagermeier, and Hotelling. We express no
opinion regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over
the combination of Partovi, Kagermeier, and Teramachi.
We affirm the rejection of claim 27 under§ 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Partovi, Toya, and Hotelling. We express no
opinion regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 27 as unpatentable over
the combination of Partovi, Toya, and Teramachi.
16
Appeal2014-006402
Application 12/441,399
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17