Ex Parte Yadid-Pecht et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

12126762 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/126,762 05/23/2008
123888 7590 06/20/2016
Gordon Intellectual Property Law, P.L.L.C.
67 S. Higley Road
Suite 03-197
Gilbert, AZ 85296
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Orly Yadid-Pecht
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.
UTI-677.6US 7127
EXAMINER
WYATT, KEVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2878
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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):
Docket@gordoniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ORLYYADID-PECHT, TERENCE TAM, and
GRAHAM JULIEN
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126, 7 62
Technology Center 2800
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LARRY J. HUME, and,
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--40. Non-Final Act. 2-21. Claim 3 has been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants 'Disclosed Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is a CMOS image sensor
circuit with a reset circuit for noise suppression and a pixel column that
share circuitry (Claim 1; Abs.; Fig. 6).
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
Illustrative Claims
Illustrative claims 1, 5, 20, and 26 under appeal are reproduced below
with emphases added:
1. A system, comprising:
an active reset circuit; and
an active column sensor readout circuit;
wherein said active reset circuit and said active column
sensor readout circuit share common circuitry.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein said amplifier is
partitioned between a pixel circuit and a column circuit.
20. The method of claim 16, wherein an input terminal
polarity to said amplifier determines whether said amplifier is
configured to provide power to said active reset circuit or said
active column sensor circuit.
26. An imaging apparatus comprising:
(a) an array of imaging pixels, said imaging pixels
being arranged in rows and columns, wherein each imaging pixel
comprises a light-sensitive photodiode, a reset transistor, a
switch in a feedback path, at least one transistor of a differential
pair of transistors belonging to a partitioned amplifier having a
plurality of transistors, and a row select transistor; and
(b) peripheral circuitry comprising transistors of said
partitioned amplifier, and multiplexers; wherein said partitioned
amplifier is configured to provide power to an active reset circuit
in one phase of imaging, and an active column sensor readout
circuit in another phase of imaging.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4--40 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
2
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
Appellants regard as the invention. Non-Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner determines (Ans. 3) the term "active reset circuit" is
indefinite because there is no clear definition provided either in Appellants'
Specification. The Examiner further determines (Ans. 3--4) the term "share
common circuitry" is indefinite because it is so broad that it provides no
indication of what would be excluded from reading on the claim. The
Examiner still further determines (Ans. 4--5) the term "power" is indefinite
because it is not used in a manner consistent with its customary use.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4--16, 20, 22, 25, 39, and 40
under § 102( e) as anticipated by Boemler (US 7 ,544,921 B2; published June
9, 2009). Non-Final Act. 4--7.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16-19,
21, 23-26, 30, and 32 under § 102(b) as anticipated by Kozlowski et al. (US
6,587,142 Bl; issued July 1, 2003). Non-Final Act. 7-11.
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8-13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 25-
29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 under§ 102(b) as anticipated by Lee (US 6,777,660
Bl; published Aug. 17, 2004). Non-Final Act. 11-16.
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 22 under§ 103(a) as obvious
over the Lee in view of Kozlowski et al. (US 2005/0068439 Al; published
Mar. 31, 2005). Non-Final Act. 16.
(6) The Examiner rejected claim 14 under§ 103(a) as obvious over
Lee in view of in view of Agan (US 2005/0057680 Al; published Mar. 17,
2005). Non-Final Act. 16-17.
3
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
Appellants; Contentions 1
(1) Appellants contend (Br. 9-16) the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, and 4--40 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for numerous reasons including (i) the term "active reset circuit"
in claims 1, 2, 6, 9-11, 15, 17-19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 33, and 39 is not indefinite
because it is a term understood in the art, and Appellants cite to evidence in
the record2 to support this assertion (Br. 9-11 ); (ii) the limitation "share
common circuitry" in claims 1, 4, 15, 16, and 39, is not indefinite because
both the Specification and Drawings indicate exemplary circuits with an
"active reset circuit" and "active column sensor" which "share common
circuitry" as shown in Figure 7 (Br. 12-14); and (iii) the term "power" in
claims 20 and 26 is not indefinite because it is a term understood in the art
(Br. 14--16). 3
1 Aside from asserting claims 7, 14, and 22 are allowable for the same
reasons argued for claim 1 (which grounds are different because different
references are applied), Appellants' Brief fails to present any arguments with
regard to the rejection of claims 7 and 22 under§ 103(a) over Lee and
Kozlowski (see Br. 25) or the rejection of claim 14 under§ 103(a) over Lee
and Agan (see Br. 25). Therefore, because Appellants have not disputed the
Examiner's rejection set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 8-9), Appellants
have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 14, and 22.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2 Tam et al., "A low noise CMOS imager employing feedback reset and
readout," manuscript received March 1, 2007 (as cited in Information
Disclosure Statement mailed December 23, 2009).
3 Based on Appellants' arguments (Br. 9-11) with regard to the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 9-11, 15, 17-19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 33,
and 39 based on the term "active reset circuit," we select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims. Based on Appellants' arguments (Br.
4
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
(2) Appellants contend (Br. 20-22) the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4--16, 20, 22, 25, 39, and 40 as being anticipated by Boemler for
numerous reasons, including (i) Boemler fails to disclose or suggest the
limitations "active reset circuit," "active column sensor readout circuit," and
"active reset circuit and the active column sensor readout circuit share
common circuitry" as recited in claim 1; and (ii) Boemler fails to disclose or
suggest the limitations "wherein said shared common circuitry is configured
as an amplifier" and "wherein said amplifier is partitioned between a pixel
circuit and a column circuit," as recited in claim 5.
(3) Appellants contend (Br. 22-23) the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16-19, 21, 23-26, 30, and 32 as being
anticipated by Kozlowski for numerous reasons, including (i) Kozlowski
fails to disclose or suggest the limitations "active reset circuit," "active
column sensor readout circuit," and "active reset circuit and the active
column sensor readout circuit share common circuitry" as recited in claim 1;
and (ii) Kozlowski fails to disclose or suggest the limitations "wherein said
shared common circuitry is configured as an amplifier" and "wherein said
amplifier is partitioned between a pixel circuit and a column circuit" as
recited in claim 5.
(4) Appellants contend (Br. 23-24) the Examiner erred in rejecting
12-14) with regard to the indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 4, 15, 16, and
39, based on the term "share common circuitry," we select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims consisting of claims 1, 4, 15, and 16.
Based on Appellants' arguments (Br. 14--16) with regard to the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 20 and 26 based on the term "power," we
select claim 20 as representative of the group of claims consisting of claims
20 and 26.
5
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
claims 1, 2, 4--16, 20, 22, 25, 39, and 40 as being anticipated by Lee for
numerous reasons, including (i) Lee fails to disclose or suggest the
limitations "active reset circuit," "active column sensor readout circuit," and
"active reset circuit and the active column sensor readout circuit share
common circuitry" as recited in claim 1; and (ii) Lee fails to disclose or
suggest the limitations "wherein said shared common circuitry is configured
as an amplifier" and "wherein said amplifier is partitioned between a pixel
circuit and a column circuit" as recited in claim 5.
Issues on Appeal
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting 1, 2, and 4--40 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph based on determining
that the limitations "active reset circuit" (claims 1, 2, 6, 9-11, 15, 17-19, 21,
23, 25, 26, 33, and 39), "share common circuitry" (claims 1, 4, 15, 16, and
39), and "power" (claims 20 and 26) are indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellants regard as the
invention?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--16, 20, 22, 25, 39,
and 40 under § 102( e) as being anticipated by Boemler, because Boemler
fails to disclose or suggest "active reset circuit," "active column sensor
readout circuit," and "active reset circuit and the active column sensor
readout circuit share common circuitry" as recited in representative claim 1?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15-
19, 21, 23-26, 30, and 32 under§ 102(b), because Kozlowski fails to
disclose or suggest an "active reset circuit," "active column sensor readout
6
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
circuit," and "active reset circuit and the active column sensor readout
circuit share common circuitry" as recited in representative claim 1?
(4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-13, 15, 16,
20, 21, 25-29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 under§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Lee,
and claims 7, 14, and 22 under§ 103(a), because Lee fails to disclose or
suggest an "active reset circuit," "active column sensor readout circuit," and
"active reset circuit and the active column sensor readout circuit share
common circuitry" as recited in representative claim 1? 4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Non-Final Act. 2-18) in
light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br. 9-25) that the
Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-9). We agree with Appellants'
first contention listed above as to the rejection under§ 112, second
paragraph, and Appellants' third contention listed above as to the as to the
anticipation rejection over Kozlowski. We disagree with Appellants' second
contention listed above as to the as to the anticipation rejection over
Boemler, and Appellants' fourth contention listed above as to the
anticipation and obviousness rejections over Lee.
4 The obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 22 under§ 103(a) over Lee and
Kozlowski or the rejection of claim 14 under§ 103(a) over Lee and Agan
will respectively stand/fall for the same reasons as representative claim 1 as
discussed with regard to the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-13,
15, 16, 20, 21, 25-29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 over Lee.
7
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
Indefiniteness Rejections
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
we agree with Appellants (i) that one of ordinary skill in the art would be
able to ascertain the meaning of the term "active reset circuit" as used in
claims 1, 2, 6, 9--11, 15, 17-19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 33, and 39 on appeal; (ii) that
one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain the meaning of the
term "share common circuitry" as used in claims 1, 4, 15, 16, and 39 on
appeal; and (iii) that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to
ascertain the meaning of the term "power" as used in claims 20 and 26 on
appeal.
With regard to the term "active reset circuit," we conclude the
disputed term to be broad, but not indefinite. This conclusion is based on
our reading of Paragraphs 8 9--90 of Appellants' Specification, which we find
much more revealing and persuasive than any of the extrinsic evidence cited
by Appellants.
In view of Appellants' Specification, as well the extrinsic evidence
cited by Appellants, we conclude that claims 1, 2, 6, 9--11, 15, 17-19, 21,
23, 25, 26, 33, and 39 particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which Appellants regard as the invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Furthermore, we conclude that "those skilled in the art
would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification." Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d
1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). The term "active reset
circuit" is used in claims 1, 2, 6, 9--11, 15, 17-19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 33, and 39
on appeal to describe a reset circuit used to suppress reset noise. However,
the term is also broadly supported by the extrinsic evidence and the claims
8
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
on appeal themselves as including any reset circuit. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 9--11,
15, 17-19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 33, and 39 under§ 112, second paragraph.
With regard to the term "share common circuitry," we conclude the
disputed term to be broad, but not indefinite. This conclusion is based on
our reading of Paragraph 3 of Appellants' Specification, which describes
"the active reset technique and the active column sensor readout technique
can share common circuitry, and in some embodiments, the shared common
circuitry is configured as an amplifier." It is clear from this cited portion
that the shared circuitry is a shared component such as an amplifier and not
merely a common ground. It is also clear that an amplifier is exemplary and
non-limiting.
In view of Appellants' Specification (Spec. i-f 3), we conclude that
claims 1, 4, 15, 16, and 39 particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. See 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Furthermore, we conclude that "those skilled in
the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of
the specification." Orthokinetics., 806 F.2d at 1576 (citations omitted). The
term "share common circuitry" used in claims 1, 4, 15, 16, and 39 on appeal
to describe a shared component such as an amplifier between two distinct
circuits. However, the term is also broadly supported by the specification
and the claims on appeal themselves as including any shared component
inclusive of the exemplary shared common amplifier. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 4, 15, 16, and
39 under§ 112, second paragraph.
9
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
With regard to the term "power," we conclude the disputed term is not
indefinite. This conclusion is based on our reading of Paragraph 61 and
Figures 3, 6, and 7 of Appellants' Specification, which we find much more
revealing and persuasive than any of the extrinsic evidence cited by
Appellants. Figure 3 indicates that within certain bounds, as light intensity
increases, the converted photocharge voltage also increases. In various
embodiments (see e.g., Figs. 6 and 7), this converted photocharge voltage of
photodiode 206 of the pixel circuit is then applied to alternate the "power"
provided by a shared common amplifier (Spec. i-f 61 ). As would be known
to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the claim limitation "power" is
proportional to the square of the output voltage Vout of the shared common
amplifier.
In view of Appellants' Specification (Spec. i-f 61) and Drawings
(Figs. 3, 6, and 7), as well the extrinsic evidence cited by Appellants, we
conclude that claims 20 and 26 particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. See 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Furthermore, we conclude that "those skilled in
the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of
the specification." Orthokinetics, 806 F .2d at 157 6 (citations omitted). The
term "power" recited in claims 20 and 26 on appeal is used to describe the
act/function of alternating the supply of current and voltage based on
incoming light intensity as it is transformed into converted photocharge
voltage. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's indefiniteness
rejection of claims 20 and 26 under§ 112, second paragraph.
Anticipation Re} ections
Based on our broad interpretation of the term "active reset circuit" as
10
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
including any circuit with active reset, we disagree with Appellants'
contentions regarding the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--16, 20, 22,
25, 39, and 40 over Boemler. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Non-Final Act. 3-7), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 5---6,
8). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of Boemler
as follows.
Boemler discloses an image processing system (Fig. 6), characterized
by the Examiner as representing the claimed "active reset circuit" (see
Boemler, col. 5, 11. 19-25). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, we
note Appellants have not cited to a definition of "active reset circuit" in the
Specification that would preclude the Examiner's broad but reasonable
reading. 5 Ans. 5. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Boemler
anticipates the subject matter of representative claim 1 of comprising an
"active reset circuit," "active column sensor readout circuit," and "active
reset circuit and the active column sensor readout circuit share common
circuitry."
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Boemler anticipates
5 Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the
specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood
by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform
Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see
also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to
a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary
meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written
description.").
11
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
claim 5 in light of the broad claim language and the teaching of Boemler of
"wherein said shared common circuitry is configured as an amplifier" and
"wherein said amplifier is partitioned between a pixel circuit and a column
circuit." (see Boemler, Fig. 6; col. 7, 11. 8-13).
In view of all of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection (based on
Boemler) of claims 1 and 5, as well as claims 2, 4, 6-16, 20, 22, 25, 39, and
40 grouped therewith.
Based on inconsistencies in the Examiner's rejection (Non-Final
Act. 7 and 9), we agree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15-19, 21, 23-26, 30,
and 32 under Kozlowski.
The Examiner's citation to "page 9, lines 21-25" (Non-Final Act. 7)
fails to read on "wherein said active reset circuit and said active column
sensor readout circuit share common circuitry." We note that Kozlowski has
seven pages of disclosure, and column 9, lines 21-25 does not relate to the
previously cited embodiment of Figure 3.
Additionally, the Examiner's citation to Figure 4 for claim 5 does not
relate to the previously cited embodiment of Figure 3. Non-Final Act. 9.
Indeed, claim 5 is a dependent claim that depends from claim 1 (and
therefore includes all of the limitations of the base claim). 6
6 In an anticipation rejection, "it is not enough that the prior art reference
... includes multiple, distinct teachings that [an] artisan might somehow
combine to achieve the claimed invention." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign,
Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, the reference must
"clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those
skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing,
and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the
12
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
In view of all of the foregoing, we reverse the anticipation rejection
(based on Kozlowski) of claims 1 and 5, as well as claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12,
13, 15-19, 21, 23-26, 30, and 32 grouped therewith.
Based on our adoption of the Examiner's broad but reasonable
interpretation of the term "active reset circuit" as discussed above, we
disagree with Appellants' arguments regarding the anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 25-29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 over Lee.
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 11-16), and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response
to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 7- 8). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of Lee as follows.
Lee discloses an image processing system (Fig. 2) with active reset
(Lee, col. 6, 11. 1-15). Based on our findings regarding the interpretation of
the term "active reset circuit", above, we agree with the Examiner that Lee
anticipates the subject matter of representative claim 1 of comprising an
"active reset circuit," "active column sensor readout circuit," and "active
reset circuit and the active column sensor readout circuit share common
circuitry".
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Lee anticipates claim 5
teachings of the cited reference." (Id.) (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586,
587 (CCPA 1972)). Thus, while "[s]uch picking and choosing may be
entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection ... it has no
place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection." Arkley, 455 F.2d
at 587-88.
13
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
in light of the broad claim language and the teaching of Lee of "wherein said
shared common circuitry is configured as an amplifier" and "wherein said
amplifier is partitioned between a pixel circuit and a column circuit" (Fig. 2;
col. 6, 11. 1-15).
In view of all of the foregoing, we sustain the anticipation rejection
(based on Lee) of claims 1and5, as well as claims 2, 4, 6, 8-13, 15, 16, 20,
21, 25-29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 grouped therewith.
Obviousness Rejections
Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combination of (i) Lee and Kozlowski et al. (US 2005/0068439 Al)
or (ii) Lee and Agan, teaches or suggests the method and system further
comprising tracking user responses as recited in claims 7 and 22, or 14
respectively, because Appellants do not address the merits of the inclusion
of Kozlowski et al. (US 2005/0068439 Al) or Agan in the combination, or
otherwise present arguments on the merits with regard to these claims (see
Br. 25). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (requiring a statement in the briefs
as to each ground of rejection presented by Appellants for review); 37
C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv) (stating that arguments not presented in the briefs
by Appellants will be refused consideration). As such, Appellants have not
separately argued that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 14, and 22 or
otherwise shown this obviousness rejection to be in error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Additionally, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 14, and
22 (based on Lee and Kozlowski et al. (US 2005/0068439 Al) or Lee and
Agan) for the same reasons as claims 1 and 5 for Lee discussed supra.
14
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
CONCLUSIONS
( 1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--40 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--16, 20, 22, 25,
39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Boemler
because Boemler discloses each of the disputed limitations in representative
claim 1.
( 3) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15,
16-19, 21, 23-26, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Kozlowski, because Kozlowski discloses each of the disputed limitations
in representative claim 1.
(4) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8-13, 15, 16, 20,
21, 25-29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Lee because Lee discloses each of the disputed limitations in
representative claim 1.
(5) Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
7 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Lee and Kozlowski.
(6) Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Lee and Agan.
DECISION
( 1) We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2
and 4--40 under§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
15
Appeal2013-010947
Application 12/126,762
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
Appellants regard as the invention, because the claims are definite,
supported by the Specification., and clear to a person of ordinary skill in the
art.
(2) We affirm the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections
of claims 1, 2, 4--16, 20-22, 25-29, 34, 35, and 37--40.
(3) We reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejections of claims 17-
19, 23, 24, 30, and 32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16