IMAGINATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 19, 2021

2020004960 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2021)

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.
13/725,424 12/21/2012 Morrie Berglas 2645-0160US01 1001
104840 7590 10/19/2021
Imagination Technologies
c/o Potomac Law Group PLLC
8229 Boone Boulevard Suite 430
Vienna, VA 22182
EXAMINER
RICHER, AARON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2021 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):
Eofficeaction@appcoll.com
Patents@potomaclaw.com
vdeluca@potomaclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MORRIE BERGLAS
________________________

Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 5–25, all the pending claims pending.
Appeal Br. 16–21 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.2

1 Appellant refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Imagination Technologies Limited.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed December 16, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed June 17, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) graphics techniques for
applying texture maps to a frame of polygon to render a 3-D image require a
blending unit to perform multiple “read-modify-write” operations, i.e., read
pixels from a frame buffer, modify these pixels by applying texture data in a
blending operation, and then write them back to the frame buffer. Spec.
1:24–32; 5:17. However, such operations incur extra cost of storage and
lead to “a performance penalty because of the limited bandwidth for the
‘read modify write’ process.” Spec. 3:3–4:5.
Appellant’s invention seeks to provide pixel blending buffer 32,
shown in Figure 3, on a graphics chip to (1) enable portions of a frame
buffer to be accessed on a polygon-by-polygon basis and (2) enable multiple
textures to be accessed simultaneously in a single blending operation in
order to avoid the need to perform “read-modify-write” operations on the
frame buffer. Spec. 4:6–16, 5:14–18.
Figure 3 shows a modified 3-D pixel pipeline in a graphics chip, as
reproduced below with additional markings for illustration.

Answer mailed April 17, 2020 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed August
15, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed December 21, 2012
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

3

Appellant’s Figure 3 depicts a modified 3-D pixel pipeline in a graphics chip
where blend buffer 32 having read and write ports 34, 36 is arranged
between texture read unit 4 and blend operations unit 8 to avoid the need to
perform a “read-modify-write” operation on the frame buffer. Spec. 5:14–
18. This way, “the blend[ing] operations can be performed as many times as
desired on the data held in the blend buffer [32] using feedback loop X
which takes data directly from the blend buffer 8 to the write ports 34.”
Spec. 5:18–21. As such, “current contents of the pixel data in the blend
buffer [32] are written to the frame buffer 10 in a single [write only]
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

4
operation [as opposed to multiple read-modify-write operations on the frame
buffer as required by prior art techniques].” Spec. 9:12–14.
Representative Claim
Claims 5, 13, and 20 are independent. Representative claim 5 is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation in italics:
5. A 3-D graphics system, comprising a graphics chip, the 3-
D graphics system comprising:
a frame buffer;
a blend buffer, provided in a memory distinct from a
memory in which the frame buffer exists, the blend buffer
comprising a plurality of registers, a first write port, a second
write port and at least one read port, wherein registers of the
plurality of registers are assignable to pixels of one or more
primitives;
a texture read unit on the graphics chip coupled for reading
from a texture memory and coupled to the first write port of the
blend buffer, the texture read unit operable to receive calculated
texture coordinates from a texture coordinate calculator, the
texture coordinates for pixels of a polygon, and to use the
received calculated texture coordinates in reading texture data for
a plurality of textures from the texture memory and to store the
texture data for the plurality of textures in the blend buffer in
respective registers through the first write port; and
a blending unit on the graphics chip coupled to the second
write port of the blend buffer, and to the at least one read port of
the blend buffer, the blending unit operable to perform a plurality
of texturing passes on the polygon using data read from the blend
buffer, wherein each pass of the plurality of texturing passes
comprises walking the polygon, the walk comprising reading
texture data, from a plurality of the registers, for each pixel of the
polygon, producing a blending output, and storing the blending
output of each pass in the plurality of registers of the blend
buffer, through the second write port of the blend buffer, and
only after completing the plurality of texturing passes, the
blending unit is operable to read the pixels from the blend buffer
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

5
[and] to write the pixels read from the blend buffer to the frame
buffer only once, after all texturing passes have been performed
as a single write-only transaction on the frame buffer, such that
pixels written to the frame buffer by the blending unit in said
single write-only transaction are not thereafter read by the
blending unit.

Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.) (underlying added for emphasis).

EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
Koegel US 5,036,456 July 30, 1991
Eckart et al. (“Eckart”) US 5,574,847 Nov. 12, 1996
McCarthy et al. (“McCarthy”) US 5,666,509 Sept. 9, 1997
Vangemert et al. (“Vangemert”) US 6,973,561 B1 Dec. 6, 2005
Drebin et al. (“Drebin”) US 7,034,828 B1 Apr. 25, 2006
Mang et al. (“Mang”) US 7,111,156 B1 Sept. 19, 2006
Van Hook US 7,847,803 B1 Dec. 7, 2010
Baker et al. (“Baker”) US 2002/0140703 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
Jarvis US 2003/0014614 A1 Jan. 16, 2003

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 5, 8–10, 12–15, and 17–20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the teachings of Baker and Drebin. Final
Act. 7–15.
(2) Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Vangemert. Final Act. 15–
16.
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

6
(3) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Mang. Final Act. 16–17.
(4) Claims 16 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Van Hook. Final Act. 17–
18.
(5) Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Koegel. Final Act. 18–19.
(6) Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and McCarthy. Final Act. 19.
(7) Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Jarvis. Final Act. 20.
(8) Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Eckart. Final Act. 20–21.

ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that the instant application has a complicated
prosecution history, including its continuation of U.S. Application No.
11/725,354, filed on March 19, 2007, which was a continuation of U.S.
Application No. 11/188,259, filed July 22, 2005 (abandoned), which was a
continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/310,120, filed December 4, 2002
(abandoned). Spec. 1:3–5. Claims 5–25 were previously rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the teachings of Baker and Drebin and
then appealed to the Board, via Appeal 2018-006827. The Board affirmed
the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 5–25 based on the Examiner’s
combination of Baker and Drebin. See Decision dated June 4, 2019.
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

7
In response to the Board’s Decision, Appellant amended independent
claims 5, 13, and 20 to (1) clarify that data is written to the frame buffer only
once, after all texturing passes have been performed as a single write-only
transaction on the frame buffer, and (2) add a new negative limitation: “such
that pixels written to the frame buffer by the blending unit in said single
write-only transaction are not thereafter read by the blending unit.” Appeal
Br. 16 (Claims App.) (Emphasis added).
However, we note that the newly added phrase is not described or
supported by Appellant’s Specification. Nor do we find “a reason to exclude
the relevant limitation” from Appellant’s Specification. See Santarus, Inc. v.
Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Because there is no
basis in Appellant’s Specification for adding the negative limitation, such a
negative limitation should not be accorded any patentable weight.
Moreover, even if the negative limitation were to be accorded
patentable weight (which we will), an ordinarily skilled artisan would
understand that, when all texturing passes have been performed as a single
write-only transaction on the frame buffer, pixel data written to the frame
buffer in said single write-only transaction is no longer needed to be read by
the blending unit in the manner recited in Appellant’s claims 5, 13, and 20.

Claims 5, 13, and 20
Turning now to the substance of the obviousness rejection, the
Examiner finds the combination of Baker and Drebin teaches or suggests all
limitations of Appellant’s amended claims 1, 13, and 20. Final Act. 7–15.
For example, the Examiner finds Baker teaches Appellant’s claimed “3-D
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

8
graphics system,” shown in Figure 5A, including (1) a frame buffer, (2) a
blend buffer, (3) a texture read unit, and (4) a blending unit operable to
perform the disputed limitation:
the blending unit is operable to read the pixels from the blend
buffer [and] to write the pixels read from the blend buffer to the
frame buffer only once, after all texturing passes have been
performed as a single write-only transaction on the frame buffer,
such that pixels written to the frame buffer by the blending unit
in said single write-only transaction are not thereafter read by the
blending unit.

Final Act. 8–9 (citing Baker ¶¶ 9, 26–27, 66–70, Fig. 5A).
Baker’s Figure 5A is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

9

Baker’s Figure 5A shows a 3-D pixel pipeline in a graphics device 80
(shown in Figure 3), including (1) frame buffers 98 inclusive of (1a)
destination frame buffer 98a to store pixel data, and (1b) temporary frame
buffer 98b; (2) texture unit 92 to apply texture coordinate values from
texture cache 94 in multiple texturing passes; and (3) blending units 93 to
blend texture values for the pixel that is stored in temporary frame buffer
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

10
98b with the texture values for the pixel obtained in the current texture pass
in order to generate composite texture values that include texture values
obtained from all texturing passes to be stored in temporary frame buffer
98b. Baker ¶¶ 60, 66–70.
As recognized by the Examiner, “Baker does not [expressly] disclose
that the blend buffer is provided in a memory distinct from a memory in
which the frame buffer exists.” Final Act. 9. However, the Examiner relies
on Drebin for “storing retrieved texture data in registers of a blending unit
that acts as a blend buffer” to support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at
9–10 (citing Drebin 3:17–25, 10:16–27, Figs. 5 and 8).
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s rationale to incorporate
Drebin into Baker to arrive at Appellant’s invention. Instead, Appellant
contends neither Baker nor Drebin teaches the disputed limitation of claims
5, 13, and 20:
the blending unit is operable to read the pixels from the blend
buffer [and] to write the pixels read from the blend buffer to the
frame buffer only once, after all texturing passes have been
performed as a single write-only transaction on the frame buffer,
such that pixels written to the frame buffer by the blending unit
in said single write-only transaction are not thereafter read by the
blending unit.

Appeal Br. 7–14; Reply Br. 2–5.
In particular, Appellant argues:
Baker teaches that data in a destination frame buffer is
modified to blend texture maps, to blend pixel data with results
of texturing passes, and to perform alpha blending. That is, the
writing of data to the frame buffer in Baker is not performed “as
a single write-only operation” as recited in the present claims.
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

11
Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant,
Paragraph [0068] [of Baker] describes that pixel data is stored in
the destination frame buffer 98a. In a first pass, texture values
are stored in a temporary frame buffer 98b. At [0069] Baker
describes that in a second pass texture values from the temporary
frame buffer are blended with new texture values and the blend
result is stored in the temporary frame buffer 98b. At [0070], a
third pass is described producing a new blended result. This
blended result is not stored in the temporary frame buffer, but is
stated to be “optionally” blended with the pixel data in the
destination frame buffer 98a, as the PTAB emphasized at page
12 of the Decision.”

Id. at 9 (emphasis added). In other words, Appellant argues:

[i]n Baker, results from one or more texturing passes are blended
with the destination pixel data stored in the destination frame
buffer and used to control the pixels on the display device when
a frame of the display device is refreshed. Thus, in Baker, pixels
are read from the destination frame buffer, blended, and then re-
stored in a “read modify-write” operation.

Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added).

Likewise, Appellant argues Drebin does not teach the disputed
limitation of claims 5, 13, and 20 because (1) “Figure 5 of Drebin shows
arrows both to and from the frame buffer 702 and a blend box 700b (which
carries out frame buffer pixel blending - see col. 8, line 43), indicating a
blend operation on the frame buffer” and (2) “figure 15 shows arrows both
to and from the embedded frame buffer 702 and the blend box 700b
[indicating] that the blending results of the final blending operation are
output for blending with frame buffer 702 contents.” Final Act. 13–14.
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

12
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error.
Instead, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to
Appellant’s arguments, supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 21–
28. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided
therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note that obviousness is the
question of law, based upon factual inquiries set forth in the Graham case:
(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
art; and (4) objective evidence of non-obviousness, if any. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). “[H]owever, the analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id.
at 421.
As correctly recognized by the Examiner,
On the final pass, blending occurs that blends the values from the
temporary frame buffer/blend buffer with current texture values
and the result is stored in the destination frame buffer. This
blending does not occur again because the result is sent to
display, and so the result is written only once.

Ans. 22.
As shown in Figure 5A, Baker’s blending units 93 is configured to
blend the composite texture value for the pixel that is stored in temporary
frame buffer 98b (a.k.a., “blend buffer”) with texture values for the pixel
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

13
obtained in the current texture passes, and then after all texture passes have
been performed, stores the results as a single write-only transaction on
destination frame buffer 98a. Baker ¶ 70. As an option, Baker also teaches
that such results could also be blended with destination pixel data stored in
destination frame buffer 98a in order to further control the color luminous
intensity values (e.g., R, G, B) when a frame of a display device is refreshed.
Baker ¶ 70. However, Baker’s additional blending is only an option and, as
such, is not necessary to perform multiple rendering passes and to blend data
from multiple texture maps that is applied to a polygon so as to model a 3-D
image. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that “[i]f the option for
blending data in the destination buffer is not exercised, the data resulting
from texture blends is written with no read-modify step.” Ans. 24.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that:
both [1] the prior art method described in section 0018 and [2]
Baker’s method described in section 0070 support the concept of
the single write-only transaction such that pixels written to the
frame buffer by the blending unit in said single write-only
transaction are not thereafter read by the blending unit, since
section 0018 teaches the resulting blended pixels are finally
written to the frame buffer and section 0070 teaches allowing for
blending with the destination frame buffer data only being
performed “optionally.”

Ans. 22.
Separately, we note Appellant’s claims 5, 13, and 20 do not
distinguish over Baker alone. For example, Baker’s 3-D pixel pipeline,
shown in Figure 5A, is provided on graphics device 80, shown in Figure 3,
as reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

14

Baker’s Figure 3 depicts graphics device 60, including pixel setup module
64, texture module 66, buffer module 68, and blending module 69 for
performing multiple rendering passes and blending texture data from all the
passes to be stored in buffer module 68 so as to model a 3-D image. Baker
¶¶ 33, 56–60.
Baker’s frame buffers 98, shown in Figure 5A, including (1)
destination frame buffer 98a and (2) temporary frame buffer 98b, are part of
buffer module 68, shown in Figure 3. Similarly, Baker’s texture unit 92 and
blending units 93, shown in Figure 5A, are part of texture module 68 and
blending module 69, shown in Figure 3. Baker ¶¶ 59, 60.
We understand that Baker’s storage element 98b, shown in Figure 5A,
is labeled or designated as “temporary frame buffer” because both storage
elements 98a and 98b are part of Baker’s frame buffers 98. However,
Baker’s frame buffers 98 are also part of Baker’s buffer module 68, shown
in Figure 3. As such, Baker’s storage element 98b could also have been
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

15
labeled as the claimed “blend buffer” as well. Nevertheless, regardless of its
label, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that Baker’s “temporary
frame buffer 98b” serves the same function as Appellant’s claimed “blend
buffer” to store the blended result from blending units 93, shown in Figure
5A, or blending module 69, shown in Figure 3.
As the Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive
and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more
than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their
established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast,
Appellant’s arguments rigidly focus on a narrow reading of individual prior
art references, including Baker, without considering a skilled artisan’s
“creatively[] and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355,
1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Baker does not and need not expressly label its
storage element 98b as Appellant’s claimed “blend buffer” in order to
support a finding of obviousness.
More importantly, there are only two identified, predictable storage
spaces for Appellant’s claimed “blend buffer.” For example, in a graphics
device shown in Baker’s Figure 3, Appellant’s claimed “blend buffer” could
be part of (1) buffer module 68 or (2) blending module 69. Given the
teachings of Baker’s Figures 3 and 5A, we find the use of Appellant’s
claimed “blend buffer” as part of Baker’s buffer module 68 to store the
blended result from blending units 93, shown in Figure 5A, or blending
module 69, shown in Figure 3 would have been obvious to those ordinarily
skilled artisans. In other words, a skilled artisan would have had only two
choices regarding how to arrange Appellant’s claimed “blend buffer” as part
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

16
of (1) buffer module 68 or (2) blending module 69. When two equally
viable options are available, as here, then, without more, either one would
seem to have been obvious.
Likewise, there are only two identified, predictable blending
operations available for Appellant’s claimed “blend unit.” For example,
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) graphics techniques require a
blending unit 8, shown in Figure 1, to perform multiple “read-modify-write”
operations, i.e., read pixel data from frame buffer 10, modify pixel data by
applying texture data in a blending operation, and then write them back to
frame buffer 10. Spec. 1:24–32. However, AAPA’s “read-modify-write”
operations incur extra cost of storage and lead to “a performance penalty.”
Spec. 3:3–4:5. Alternatively, such a blending unit, as shown in Baker’s
Figure 1, could perform a single “write only” operation to frame buffer 19,
shown in Baker’s Figure 1, where texture data from all texture passes for
each pixel could be accessed and blended with pixel data prior to writing to
frame buffer 19. When two equally viable options are available, as here,
then, without more, either one would seem to have been obvious.
In reply, Appellant raises several new arguments to explain as to why
paragraphs 27, 66, and 70 of Baker do not support the Examiner’s finding
that Baker teaches the disputed limitation of claims 5, 13, and 20. Reply Br.
2–5. For example, Appellant argues:
the term “optionally” in paragraph 0070 of Baker would not be
understood by a person of skill in the art having read Baker’s
disclosure in its entirety as “teaching” that destination pixel data
is not blended with texture map data. See Appeal Brief at pages
12 - 13. By contrast, the Answer has not presented any reasoned
analysis of why Baker would be understood to teach what the
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

17
examiner has alleged it teaches, but instead only states a
conclusion based on an unsupported assertion.

Reply Br. 3.
We do not agree. First, it is well settled that mere lawyer’s arguments
and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Second,
Baker teaches the blended results could “optionally” be blended by blending
units 93, shown in Figure 5A, with destination pixel data stored in
destination frame buffer 98a in order to further control the color luminous
intensity values (e.g., R, G, B) when a frame of a display device is refreshed.
Baker ¶ 70. However, Baker’s additional blending is only “optionally” and
is not necessary to perform multiple rendering passes and to blend data from
multiple texture maps that is applied to a polygon so as to model a 3-D
image.
For these reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 5, 13, and 20, and their respective dependent claims 6–
12, 14–19, and 21–25 which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal
Br. 14.

DECISION
On the record before us, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection
of (1) claims 5, 8–10, 12–15, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the teachings of Baker and Drebin; (2) claims 6 and 7 as
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

18
obvious over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Vangemert; (3) claim 11 as
obvious over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Mang; (4) claims 16 and
24 as obvious over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Van Hook; (5) claim
21 as obvious over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Koegel; (6) claim 22
as obvious over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and McCarthy; (7) claim 23
as obvious over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Jarvis; (8) claim 25 as
obvious over the teachings of Baker, Drebin, and Eckart.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
5, 8–10,
12–15, 17–
20
103 Baker, Drebin 5, 8–10,
12–15, 17–
20

6, 7 103 Baker, Drebin,
Vangemert
6, 7
11 103 Baker, Drebin,
Mang
11
16, 24 103 Baker, Drebin, Van
Hook
16, 24
21 103 Baker, Drebin,
Koegel
21
22 103 Baker, Drebin,
McCarthy
22
23 103 Baker, Drebin,
Jarvis
23
25 103 Baker, Drebin,
Eckart
25
Appeal 2020-004960
Application 13/725,424

19
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
5–25

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)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED