Greenspan, David L. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 13, 2020

13288010 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2020)

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.
13/288,010 11/02/2011 David L. Greenspan 25832.1847 (L1847) 6302
101198 7590 03/13/2020
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Google
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
FABER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2020 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):
patents@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID L. GREENSPAN, AARON BENJAMIN IBA, and
JOHN D. ZAMFIRESCU-PEREIRA
____________
Appeal No. 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010
Technology Center 2100
____________
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google
Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Although the Appeal Brief is unpaginated (unlike the
Reply Brief), we nonetheless refer to the Appeal Brief’s pages in the order
that they appear in the record.
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention sends documents from a server to multiple thin
clients for real time editing. See generally Abstract. Each thin client sends
their edits or “changesets” back to the server where they are merged into a
merged result. Spec. ¶ 139. The merged result is then sent to each client.
Id. ¶ 140. Claims 1 and 21 are illustrative:
1. A method of providing a document to a plurality of thin clients for
realtime editing, the method comprising:
at a server having one or more processors and memory storing one or
more programs for execution by the one or more processors to perform the
method,
sending to the plurality of thin clients copies of the document for
realtime editing;
obtaining two or more respective changesets for two or more
respective thin clients in the plurality of thin clients, wherein a respective
changeset represents one or more changes to a respective copy of the
document at a respective thin client;
generating a merged result changeset from the two or more respective
changesets based on rules specifying which one or more characters from the
two or more respective changesets to retain in the merged result changeset,
wherein the merged result changeset comprises indices of characters retained
in the two or more respective changesets; and
sending the merged result changeset to the plurality of thin clients for
updating the respective copies of the document at the plurality of thin
clients.

21. A method of providing a document to a plurality of thin clients for
realtime editing, the method comprising:
at a server having one or more processors and memory storing one or
more programs for execution by the one or more processors to perform the
method,
sending to a first thin client of the plurality of thin clients a first copy
of the document;
sending to a second thin client of the plurality of thin clients a second
copy of the document;
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

3
obtaining a first changeset from the first thin client, wherein the first
changeset represents one or more changes to the first copy of the document
at the first thin client, and comprises:
a first length of the first copy before the one or more changes to
the first copy are applied,
a second length of the first copy after the one or more changes
to the first copy are applied, and
an array comprising:
indices of retained characters, and
added characters due to the one or more changes to the
first copy;
obtaining a second changeset from the second thin client, wherein the
second changeset represents one or more changes to the second copy of the
document at the second thin client, and comprises:
a first length of the second copy before the one or
more changes to the second copy are applied,
a second length of the second copy after the one or
more changes to the second copy are applied, and
an array comprising:
indices of retained characters, and
added characters due to the one or more
changes to the second copy;
generating a merged result changeset from the first changeset and the
second changeset based on rules specifying which one or more characters
from the first changeset and the second changeset to retain in the merged
result changeset, wherein the merged result changeset comprises indices of
characters retained in the first changeset and the second changeset;
sending the merged result changeset to the first thin client for
updating the first copy of the document; and
sending the merged result changeset to the second thin client for
updating the second copy of the document.

Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

4
THE REJECTIONS2
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13–16, 19,–20, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kleppner (US 2013/0218845
A1; published Aug. 22, 2013), Kausik (US 7,047,281 B1; issued May 16,
2006), Bernhard Westfechtel, Structure-Oriented Merging of Revisions of
Software Documents ACM (1991) (“Westfechtel”), and Ishihara (US
2011/0296317 A1; published Dec. 1, 2011). Final Act. 5–17.3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kleppner, Kausik, Westfechtel, Ishihara, and Bultrowicz
(US 2010/0095198 A1; published Apr. 15, 2010). Final Act. 17–19.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kleppner, Kausik, Westfechtel, Ishihara, and
John Day-Richter, What's different about the new Google Docs: Making
Collaboration Fast, (accessed Sept. 23, 2010), available at
http://web.archive.org. Final Act. 19–20.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kleppner, Kausik, Westfechtel, Ishihara, and Neff (US
2009/0217196 A1; published Aug. 27, 2009). Final Act. 20–21.
5. The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kleppner, Kausik, Westfechtel, Ishihara, and Bhansali
(US 6,006,239; issued Dec. 21, 1999). Final Act. 21–22.

2 Because the Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Ans.
5), that rejection is not before us.
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed March
15, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed September 11, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 30, 2018
(“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed December 28, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

5
6. The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kleppner, Gelman (US 2008/0178117 A1; July 24, 2008),
Kausik, and Mak (US 2003/0172168 A1; published Sept. 11, 2003),
Westfechtel, and Ishihara. Final Act. 22–30.
7. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 13, 14, and 214 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 18
of U.S. Patent No. 8,656,290 in view of Ishihara. Final Act. 31–34.
8. The Examiner rejected claims 15, 19, and 20 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 18
of U.S. Patent No. 8,656,290 in view of Kleppner and further in view of
Ishihara. Final Act. 32–33.

THE DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS
Appellant did not challenge the Examiner’s double patenting
rejections in the Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 8–9 (omitting the double
patenting rejections in the “Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on
Appeal” section). Accord Ans. 5 (declining to comment further on the
double patenting rejections because they were not argued in the Appeal
Brief).
Appellant, however, indicates for the first time in the Reply Brief that
a terminal disclaimer was filed the day before the Appeal Brief was filed.
Reply Br. 3. Nevertheless, because Appellant did not address the
Examiner’s double patenting rejections in the Appeal Brief, we summarily

4 Although the Examiner rejects claim 21 separately over the same grounds
(see Final Act. 33–34), we nonetheless consolidate the Examiner’s separate
rejections here for clarity and brevity.
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

6
sustain those rejections. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). We leave it to the
Examiner to consider Appellant’s Terminal Disclaimer, if necessary.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KLEPPNER, KAUSIK
WESTFECHTEL, AND ISHIHARA

The Examiner finds that Kleppner discloses every recited feature of
claim 1 except (1) thin clients, (2) a changeset having a rule that specifies
which characters to retain, where the changeset comprises indices of retained
characters Final Act. 5–12. The Examiner cites Ishihara to cure the first
deficiency, and Kausik to cure the second deficiency. Final Act. 7–9, 12.
The Examiner also acknowledges that the cited prior art does not disclose
merging two changesets, but cites Westfechtel for teaching this feature.
Final Act. 9. Based on the cited references’ collective teachings, the
Examiner concludes that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 7–
12.
Appellant argues the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest
“generating a merged result changeset from the two or more respective
changesets based on rules specifying which one or more characters from the
two or more respective changesets to retain in the merged result changeset.”
Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant argues that Kleppner’s teaching of a “storing
changes from both clients together” does not teach “generating a merged
result changeset from two changesets based on rules specifying which
characters to retain from the two changesets.” Id. 10. According to
Appellant, Kleppner fails to teach merging two updates and sending the
updates to the client. Id. 11. Appellant also argues that Kleppner fails to
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

7
teach rules that specify which characters to retain from the merged
changeset. Id. Appellant further argues Kausik fails to teach “realtime
editing of a document by receiving multiple changesets and merging them
based on rules specifying which characters to retain from the changesets.”
Id. at 12. Appellant adds that Westfechtel fails to teach merging two
changesets and/or rules that specify characters to retain from changesets. Id.
at 12–13.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kleppner,
Kausik, Westfechtel, and Ishihara collectively would have taught or
suggested “generating a merged result changeset from the two or more
respective changesets based on rules specifying which one or more
characters from the two or more respective changesets to retain in the
merged result changeset,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We begin by clarifying the Examiner’s mapping of various disputed
limitations of representative claim 1. The Examiner cites the functionality
associated with Kleppner’s Figure 3A for teaching “generating a merged
result changeset from the two or more respective changesets5 based on
rules.” See Final Act. 6. We see no error in this finding. The user inputs
312a and 312b of Kleppner’s Figure 3A together teach “two or more

5 The term “changeset” is not defined explicitly in the Specification, unlike
other terms whose concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning.
See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 34, 39, 41 (defining various terms explicitly).
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

8
respective changesets” because the user inputs of 312a and 312b each reflect
an update (i.e., a “set of changes”) for a document. See Kleppner ¶ 64. As
shown in Kleppner’s Figure 3A, the updates are sent to web server 302 that
verifies and stores the updated document elements in database 106.
Kleppner ¶¶ 64–66. By storing these document elements together in the
database, Kleppner at least suggests combining them as the Examiner
indicates. See Ans. 10 (explaining that updates 314a and 314b in Kleppner’s
Figure 3A are sent by the clients to the server and combined into a result);
see also Final Act. 7 (noting the merged result changeset resulting from
storing the changes from both client devices together in a database).
The Examiner also finds that Kleppner’s merging occurs “based on
rules.” Ans. 10. The Examiner apparently reasons that the updates sent by
the clients are “based on rules” because the updates effectively identify what
is retained and what is changed in the update. See Ans. 8, 10.
We see no error in these findings. A “rule” is simply “a prescribed
guide for conduct or action.” Merriam-Webster.com (accessed March 5,
2020), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule. These updates
from each client effectively act as a guide to the server to determine what
part of the document to retain and what part of the document to change.6
See Kleppner ¶ 64 (teaching that the update contains “additional content
elements that have not been modified”).
Although the Examiner indicates that Kleppner teaches the updates’
changes are based on rules, the Examiner also cites Kausik to teach “rules
specifying which one or more characters [to] retain[].” Final Act 7; Ans.

6 We also note that the server in Kleppner also uses “rules” in the form of
various verification procedures. See Kleppner ¶ 65.
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

9
11 (emphasis added). We find no error in this position. Kausik teaches a
condensed message with numbers that indicate retained characters. See
Kausik col. 8, ll. 24–41; Fig. 5. We find that the numbers that instruct the
computer to retain particular characters in a document are also “rules”
consistent with the term’s definition noted above. The Examiner also finds
that Kausik teaches the changeset comprises indices of retained characters.”
Final Act. 7; Ans. 9. We see no error in this position. The numbers in the
condensed message in Kausik are indices that indicate which characters are
retained. See Kausik col. 8, ll. 35–39; Fig. 5. Accord Final Act. 10 (“The
numbers within [Kausik’s] rule(s) indicate the indices of the characters.”).
Appellant’s contention that “storing changes from both clients
together is not a teaching of generating a merged result changeset from two
changesets based on rules specifying which characters to retain from the two
changesets” (Appeal Br. 10–11) is unavailing. First, Appellant does not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that Kleppner teaches a merged
result changeset because the changes (rules) from both client devices are
stored together. See Final Act. 7. Second, Kleppner teaches (1) two users
each changing a copy of the same document (¶ 62); (2) the users sending
changes of the document (i.e., the claimed “changeset”) to a server (¶ 64);
and (3) the server saving those changes as document elements of a document
(¶ 66 and Fig. 3A element 318). Versioning information is also saved along
with each document element to indicate to a user what has changed in a
particular document. Id. ¶ 66. These teachings, then, at least suggest that
the updates (i.e., changesets) are saved together in a document (i.e.,
“merged”), and thus teach a “merged result changeset.” See Final Act. 6–7;
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

10
Ans. 10. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Kleppner teaches
“generating a merged result changeset from two changesets based on rules.”
Appellant further argues “Kleppner does not discuss merging the first
update and the second update into a merged result changeset that is sent to
the clients.” Appeal Br. 11. But as noted previously, we agree with the
Examiner that Kleppner teaches merging the first update and the second
update into a merged result changeset. We also agree with the Examiner’s
finding that the combined update on the server (i.e., the merged changeset
result) is sent back to each client as a collective unit as indicated in Kleppner
Fig. 3A, elements 320a and 320b, and paragraph 67. See Ans. 10–11. Thus,
we find this argument unpersuasive.
Appellant’s contention that there is ostensibly no teaching or
suggestion of generating a merged result changeset from two or more
changesets each including changes to a local copy of a document in
Kleppner (Appeal Br. 11) is likewise unavailing. In Kleppner, two users
update a copy of the same document on their respective client devices. See
Kleppner ¶ 62; Fig. 3A (elements 312a and 312b). As indicated above,
Kleppner teaches a merged changeset in at least element 318 in Figure 3A.
Nor do we find availing Appellant’s contention that Kleppner does not
discuss using rules specifying which characters from the two or more
respective changesets to retain in the merged result changeset. Appeal Br.
11. Notably, the Examiner cites Kausik—not Kleppner—for teaching this
particular feature. See Final Act. 7–9; Ans. 11. That is, the Examiner cites
(1) Kleppner for teaching generating a merged result changeset from
respective changesets based on rules, and (2) Kausik for teaching rules
specifying which characters to retain from the changesets. See Final Act. 6–
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

11
9. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments regarding Kleppner’s individual
shortcomings in this regard (Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 12–13) do not
show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited
references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant further argues
Kausik does not appear to discuss enabling realtime
editing of a document by receiving multiple changesets and
merging them based on rules specifying which characters to
retain from the changesets, as generally recited by claim 1,
because Kausik is related to merely providing a “current news”
web page that is updated hourly on a web site to that a new
story is added and the oldest story is dropped. (Kausik,
Abstract.)

Appeal Br. 12. But Kausik was not cited to teach realtime editing and
merging. See Ans. 8–9. Again, Appellant’s argument individually attacks a
particular reference without taking into account the combination of
references. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. See Merck,
800 F.2d at 1097.
Appellant further argues the following:
That is, there is no discussion in Kausik regarding how to
merge two or more changesets each including one or more
changes, much less the use of rules that specify which
characters to retain from the changesets.
Appeal Br. 12. As indicated above, Kleppner—not Kausik—was cited to
teach merging changesets. See Final Act. 6–7.7 Again, Appellant’s

7 The Examiner indicates that Kleppner teaches a “merged result changeset.”
Final Act. 6. The Examiner, however, also indicates that the “cited art fails
to specifically disclose the merging of two changesets.” Id. 9. The
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

12
argument individually attacks a particular reference without taking into
account the combination of references, and is, therefore, unpersuasive. See
Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Appellant further argues that Kausik “does not teach or suggest
merging two changesets together with each other, where each changeset
includes one or more changes to a respective copy of the document at a
respective thin client, based on rules specifying which characters to retain
from the two changesets.” Appeal Br. 12. As indicated above, Kleppner—
not Kausik—was cited to teach “merging changesets. See Final Act. 6–7.
Moreover, the Examiner cites Ishihara for teaching that “thin” clients are
known in the art. See Final Act. 12. Given the Examiner’s reliance on these
collective teachings, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive, for it
individually attacks a particular reference, namely Kausik, without taking
into account the combination of references. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13–16, 19, 20, and 23 not argued
separately with particularity.

Examiner further cites Westfechtel to teach a “merger of two deltas.” Id.
Despite this additional reliance on Westfechtel, it is nonetheless superfluous
to the Examiner’s finding that Kleppner teaches a merged result changeset.
Nevertheless, we see no harmful error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Westfechtel, for it is technically cumulative to Kleppner given the limited
purpose for which Westfechtel was cited.
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

13
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KLEPPNER, GELMAN,
KAUSIK, MAK, WESTFECHTEL, AND ISHIHARA

The Examiner finds that that Kausik teaches the disputed limitation in
independent claim 21 reciting “an array comprising: indices of retained
characters, and added characters due to the one or more changes to the first
copy.” See Final Act. 24–26; Ans. 21–22.
Appellant argues that the cited references do not teach generating a
merged result changeset from the first and second changesets based on rules
specifying one or more characters from those changesets to retain in the
merged changeset, where the merged result changeset comprises indices of
characters retained in the changesets. Appeal Br. 15–17; Reply Br. 20–22.
Appellant adds that the prior art does not teach or suggest changesets
received from the thin clients that include an array comprising indices of
retained characters, and added characters due to the one or more changes to
the local copies of the document. Appeal Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 20–22.
The Examiner responds by indicating that Kausik, along with the
combination of the remaining references, teaches the claimed array. Ans.
18, 21. The Examiner also finds that thin clients are taught by Ishihara.
Final Act. 29. The Examiner further finds that the changesets are modified
locally by clients and are sent to a server in Kleppner. Ans. 10.
Appellant also argues that there is no discussion of what reference
teaches “an array comprising indices of retained characters, and added
characters due to the one or more changes.” Id. 17–18 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds by indicating that Kausik along with the
combination of the remaining references teaches the claimed array. Ans. 18,
21.
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

14
Appellant further argues that Gelman fails to teach a changeset
including an array comprising indices of retained characters in a document
and added characters to the document due to one or more changes. Appeal
Br. 18.
The Examiner responds by noting that Gelman was not recited to
explicitly teach the array. Ans. 19.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kleppner,
Gelman, Kausik, Mak, Westfechtel, and Ishihara collectively would have
taught or suggested “an array comprising: indices of retained characters, and
added characters due to the one or more changes to the first copy,” as recited
in claim 21?

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that Appellant’s first argument regarding
independent claim 21, namely that the cited prior art does not teach or
suggest generating a merged result changeset as claimed (Appeal Br. 15–17;
Reply Br. 20–22), is similar to that raised in connection with commensurate
limitations in claim 1 and is, therefore, unpersuasive for the reasons
previously discussed.
Regarding Appellant’s second argument pertaining to the recited
array, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Kausik’s condensed message
(e.g., “(1, 35)m(37, 40)”) is an array8 containing indices of retained

8 The Examiner appears to indicate that Kausik teaches “an array of the
differences and retained characters for each of the changesets,” but also
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

15
characters and added characters due to one or more changes to the first copy.
See Ans. 21:
Furthermore, “(1, 35)m(37, 40)” within the message could be
view[ed] as an array. It comprises an arrangement of data as [a]
structure element. (1, 35) and (37, 40) make up the portion of
the array that discloses the indices of retain[ed] characters. “m”
represents the added characters due to the changes. Thus,
Kausik[’s] message comprising the text “(1, 35)m(37,40)” is a
form of an array that comprises indices of retain[ed] characters
and added characters.
See also Final Act. 24 (quoting Kausik col. 8, ll. 24–40 as teaching a
condensed message). Thus, we find Appellant’s argument that Kleppner,
Gelman, Kausik, Mak, Westfechtel, and Ishihara fail to teach “an array
comprising: indices of retained characters, and added characters due to the
one or more changes to the first copy” is unpersuasive.9

states that “the cited art fails to disclose each changeset has an array
comprising the differences as claimed.” Final Act. 26 (citing Mak). We
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kausik teaches “an array of the
differences and retained characters for each of the changesets.” We find no
harmful error in the Examiner citing Mak because Mak is technically
cumulative to Kausik in this regard. In any event, Appellant did not address
Mak in the Appeal Brief, but did address Mak in the Reply Brief. Reply Br.
25.
9 Although the Examiner refers to two additional references, Hatcher and
Hollander, on page 18 of the Answer, we find these citations puzzling, for
they were not relied upon in the rejection, nor were they made of record in
this appeal. To the extent that the Examiner intends to rely on these
additional references to support the rejection, we decline to consider those
additional references here. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA
1970) (“Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not
in a ‘minor capacity,’ there would appear to be no excuse for not positively
including the reference in the statement of the rejection.”). We nevertheless
treat the Examiner’s error in this regard as harmless, for the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

16
Appellant’s arguments regarding Gelman’s alleged shortcomings
regarding the recited array comprising indices of retained characters in a
document, and added characters to the document due to the changes (Appeal
Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 24) are unavailing because the Examiner cites
Kausik—not Gelman—for teaching those features. See Final Act. 24. As
noted above, we find that Kausik at least suggests the recited array.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21, and claim 22 not argued separately with particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3, 4,
7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, and 23. Final Act. 17–30. Despite nominally
arguing these claims separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made
in connection with claim 1, and alleges that the additional cited references
fail to cure those purported deficiencies. See Appeal Br. 14–15. We are not
persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons previously
discussed.

rejection of claim 21 was based solely on Kleppner, Gelman, Kausik, Mak,
and Westfechtel. See Final Act. 22.

Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

17
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 13–15,
19–21
Obviousness-type
Double Patenting
1, 13–15,
19–21

1–2, 5–6,
9–10,
13–16,
19–20,
23
103 Kleppner,
Kausik,
Westfechtel,
Ishihara
1, 2, 5, 6,
9, 10, 13–
16, 19, 20,
23

3, 4 103 Kleppner, Kausik,
Westfechtel,
Ishihara, Bultrowicz
3, 4
7–8, 17–
18
103 Kausik,
Westfechtel,
Ishihara, Day-
Richter
7, 8, 17,
18

11 103 Kleppner, Kausik,
Westfechtel,
Ishihara, Neff

11
12 103 Kleppner, Kausik,
Westfechtel,
Ishihara,
Bhansali

12
21, 22 103 Kleppner, Gelman,
Kausik, Mak,
Westfechtel,
Ishihara
21, 22
Overall
Outcome
1–22

Appeal 2019-001812
Application 13/288,010

18
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED