Ioannis Bozikis

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 29, 2019

14029321 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2019)

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.
14/029,321 09/17/2013 Ioannis Bozikis 657001-512342 8172
27148 7590 08/29/2019
POLSINELLI PC
900 WEST 48TH PLACE
SUITE 900
KANSAS CITY, MO 64112-1895
EXAMINER
PRONE, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2019 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):
patentdocketing@polsinelli.com
rendsley@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte IOANNIS BOZIKIS1
____________________

Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–21. An oral hearing was held on August 8,
2019. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Societe BIC (“Appellant”) is the Applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46. With respect to the real party in interest, Appellant indicates that
“[t]his patent application is assigned to BIC-Violex SA.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 14, 20, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A shaving blade assembly comprising:
a. a blade unit and a skin contact member, the blade
unit comprising:
i. a housing;
ii. at least one shaving blade having a cutting
edge;
iii. a first part of the housing in front of the
cutting edge;
iv. a second part of the housing behind the
cutting edge; and
v. a shaving plane tangent to the first part and
the second part,
b. wherein the skin contact member comprises a
leading skin contact part extending in front of the at least one
shaving blade, a trailing skin contact part extending rearward of
the at least one shaving blade, a leading longitudinal face, and a
trailing longitudinal face,
c. wherein the leading skin contact part comprises a
leading planar surface and the trailing skin contact part
comprises a trailing planar surface, the leading planar surface
and the trailing planar surface defining a contact plane,
d. wherein the contact plane and the shaving plane
are parallel,
e. wherein the contact plane is above the shaving
plane,
f. wherein the leading longitudinal face is
substantially perpendicular to the leading planar surface
approximately forming a right angle between the leading planar
surface and the leading longitudinal face such that interaction
between the leading, longitudinal face and a user’s skin is
capable of spreading shaving aid on and stretching the user’s
skin, and
g. wherein the trailing longitudinal face is
substantially perpendicular to the trailing planar surface
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

3
approximately forming a right angle between the leading planar
surface and the leading longitudinal face such that interaction
between the trailing longitudinal face of the blade assembly and
a user’s skin is capable of spreading shaving aid on and
stretching the user’s skin.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–13, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
as being indefinite. Final Act. 2–3.
II. Claims 1–4, 6–10, 16–19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Tucker and Brown. Id. at 4–7, 10, 12–
14.
III. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Tucker, Brown, and Johnson. Id. at 7–8.
IV. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Tucker, Brown, and Brandt. Id. at 8–9.
V. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tucker, Brown, and Prudden. Id. at 9–10.
VI. Claims 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tucker. Id. at 10–12.

Brandt
Brown
Tucker
Prudden
Johnson

US 6,868,610 B2
US 6,889,438 B2
US 2008/0256803 A1
US 7,941,931 B2
US 8,033,023 B2

Mar. 22, 2005
May 10, 2005
Oct. 23, 2008
May 17, 2011
Oct. 11, 2011

Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

4
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellant does not present any substantive arguments contesting the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite. See Appeal Br. 6 (Appellant “request[ing] that [the 112]
rejections be held in abeyance until disposition of the claim rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 at which point, Appellant will amend the claims as
interpreted and examined by the Examiner”). Because the Board does not
hold rejections in abeyance, Appellant’s failure to provide substantive
arguments against the § 112(b) results in a waiver of any argument of error,
and we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1–13, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. See, e.g., In re
Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984–85 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the Board did
not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
when the applicant failed to contest the rejection on appeal); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that summary affirmance
without consideration of the substantive merits is appropriate where an
appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection).
Rejection II
Claims 1–3 and 6–10
The Examiner finds, among other things, that Tucker teaches skin
contacting member 40 having:
a leading part in front of the blades (52) and a trailing part
extending rearward of the blades (53), a leading face (curved
portion in-between the reference line of 52 and the plane 94 in
Figure 7), a trailing face (curved portion in-between the
reference line of 53 and the plane 94 in Fig. 7), the leading part
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

5
has a leading planar surface (96) and the trailing part has a
trailing planar surface (97).
Final Act. 4. The Examiner acknowledges that Tucker:
fail[s] to disclose [that] [i] the leading face is a longitudinal face
that is substantially perpendicular to the leading planar surface
approximately forming a right angle between the leading
longitudinal face and the leading planar surface, [ii] the trailing
face is a longitudinal face that is substantially perpendicular to
the trailing planar surface approximately forming a right angle
between the trailing longitudinal face and the trailing planar
surface, [iii] the leading longitudinal face is connected to the
leading planar surface via a leading curved face, [and] [iv] the
trailing longitudinal face is connected to the trailing planar
surface via a trailing curved face.
Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that “Brown teaches it is old and well known
for skin contact members to incorporate a longitudinal face substantially
perpendicular to the planar surfaces and on a side of the curved surface
opposite the planar surface to Tucker.” Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious:
to have provided Tucker . . . with the longitudinal faces . . . as
taught by Brown . . . because the substitution of one known
element for another would have yielded predictable results and
all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled
in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by
known methods with no change in their respective function and
the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Id. The Examiner further explains in the Answer that Brown “teaches an
alternate shape where the curve[d] face extending from the horizontal part
does not define the side face but dead ends into a vertical longitudinal face
as claimed.” Ans. 15. According to the Examiner, “[m]odifying Tucker . . .
as taught by Brown . . . results in the claimed three part shape.” Id.
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

6
We have considered Appellant’s argument that the Examiner is
improperly relying on the uppermost portion of the blade housing in Brown
as part of the leading and trailing parts when it is actually part of the shaving
surface (Appeal Br. 7), such that Brown fails to teach three parts to the
leading and trailing parts (Reply Br. 4). Although we agree with Appellant
that Brown fails to teach three parts, instead only having leading and trailing
edges with two parts—(1) a curved/inclined portion and (2) a longitudinal
portion, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reasoning to modify
Tucker so as to arrive at the claimed invention. That is, modifying the
curved portion of Tucker so as to have both a curved portion and a
longitudinal portion as taught by Brown would arrive at the claimed
invention, and the Examiner has explained adequately that such a
modification resulted from the predictable combination of known elements.
See Final Act. 6.
We have also considered Appellant’s arguments that Brown’s
contacting surfaces are “labeled as inclined portions” and “the skin-
contacting surfaces 3, 4 are illustrated as inclined in every Brown figure that
illustrates such.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Brown Figs. 13–17). We do not find
these arguments persuasive of error in that the Examiner is not relying on
Brown for the teaching of a planar surface portion of the leading and trailing
edges, instead relying on Tucker already teaching such a feature.
Consequently, Brown’s failure to teach such a feature does not explain why
the Examiner erred in relying on Tucker for the teaching of a planar surface
portion of the leading and trailing edges and/or modifying Tucker to include
Brown’s longitudinal portions in its leading and trailing parts.
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

7
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Tucker and Brown
renders obvious the subject matter of claim 1. We sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tucker and Brown.
Appellant relies on the same arguments and reasoning we found
unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1 as the basis for seeking
the reversal of the rejection of claims 2–4 and 6–10. Appeal Br. 12–13.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 6–10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tucker and Brown.
Claims 4 and 16–19
Claim 4 recites that “a ratio between the shaving blade assembly skin
contact surface area and the blade unit contact surface area is between
approximately 2 and 3.1.” Appeal Br. Claims App’x 3. The Examiner
determines that Tucker/Brown fails to disclose that the ratio is between
approximately 2 and 3.1, but concludes that “[i]t would have been an
obvious matter of design choice to have made . . . the ratio . . . as claimed,
since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of
a component” and “[a] change in size is generally recognized as being
within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Final Act. 6–7 (citing In re
Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955)).
Appellant argues the Examiner improperly relied on design choice
and failed to consider Appellant’s evidence in support of its argument that
the ratio “advantageously provides a particular purpose and solves stated
problems.” Appeal Br. 8.2 The Examiner responds that “[i]n the razor

2 Appellant’s arguments are in connection with claim 14, which includes
similar features.
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

8
cartridge art, it is old and well known to experiment with all possible
dimensions in the hunt for creating the most efficient shaving experience for
the largest range of users.” Ans. 16. The Examiner further responds that
“[t]he facial features of shavers are indefinite (meaning every user’s face is
different) and it is old and well known in the art of shaving to experiment
with dimensions of the shaving surfaces, that contact these indefinite facial
features, to try and produce the most efficient shaving surface for the largest
range of users.” Id. Appellant replies that the ratio “provide[s] specific
results for shaving, such as cutting, softness, gliding.” Reply Br. 4 (citing
Spec. ¶ 80).
As to the Examiner’s first stated basis that making the ratio as claimed
involves a mere change in size of a component as set forth in In re Rose
(Final Act. 6–7), we find the Examiner’s reliance on In re Rose to be
misplaced. In Rose, the appellant argued that the claimed “lumber package”
was large and required a lift truck for handling, whereas the prior art
packages (a package of relatively small pieces of lumber and a package of
window screen frames) could be lifted by hand. Rose, 220 F.2d at 463. The
court held that “this limitation [(i.e., size and weight of the package)] is [not]
patentably significant since it at most relates to the size of the article under
consideration which is not ordinarily a matter of invention.” Id. (citation
omitted). The court in Rose did not address a modification in which the size
of a particular component of the article is modified without a respective size
change in the remaining components. The Examiner’s proposed
modification in the present appeal is more than simply a change in size of
the article under consideration (i.e., the shaving blade assembly).
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

9
As to the Examiner’s second stated basis that one of ordinary skill in
the art would “experiment with all possible dimensions in the hunt for
creating the most efficient shaving experience for the largest range of users”
(Ans. 16), the Examiner appears to allege that each individual dimension is a
result-effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to
optimize. The Examiner does not adequately explain, nor provide any
evidence to support, that each and every individual dimension is a result-
effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to
experiment with in order to achieve a desired shaving efficiency. In
addition, the modification proposed by the Examiner to meet the claimed
ratio would involve modification of one dimension relative to another
dimension. Even assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to experiment with each and every individual
dimension, the Examiner has not adequately explained why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to simultaneously modify one dimension
relative to another dimension so as to result in a ratio between the shaving
blade assembly skin contact surface area and the blade unit skin contact
surface area that is between approximately 2 and 3.1. Moreover, the
Examiner does not allege, nor provide any evidence to support, that the ratio
of shaving blade assembly skin contact surface area to blade unit skin
contact surface area specifically is a result-effective variable that one of
ordinary skill in the art would seek to experiment with in order to achieve a
desired shaving efficiency. See In re Stepan Company, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the Office “must provide some rational
underpinning explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
arrived at the claimed invention through routine optimization”); In re
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

10
Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977) (holding that an exception to the
routine optimization rule is when “the parameter optimized was not
recognized to be a result-effective variable”).
Accordingly, the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter of dependent claim 4. We do not sustain the
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tucker and
Brown.
Claims 16–19 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim
14, which contains a recitation substantially similar to the limitation of
dependent claim 4 discussed above. Appeal Br. Claims App’x. 4–5. For the
reasons discussed above in connection with dependent claim 4 and discussed
below in connection with independent claim 14 (Rejection VI), the
Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of
independent claim 14. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 16–19, which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tucker.
Claim 21
Independent claim 21 recites a shaving blade assembly in which, in
relevant part:
the leading skin contact part comprises a leading curved face
connecting the leading planar surface to the leading longitudinal
face, the leading curved face having a radius of curvature
between approximately 1 mm - 3 mm . . . and . . . the trailing
skin contact part comprises a trailing curved face connecting
the trailing planar surface to the trailing longitudinal face, the
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

11
trailing curved face having a radius of curvature between
approximately 1 mm - 3 mm.
Appeal Br. Claims App’x 7.
The Examiner acknowledges that Tucker and Brown “fail to disclose
the radius of curvature to the curved faces is 1 mm and 3 mm.” Final
Act. 13. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to “have
made the radius of curvature as claimed, since it has been held that where
the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering
the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.” Id. at
14 (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)). The Examiner also
determines that “[i]t would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
have made the height as claimed, since such a modification would have
involved a mere change in the size of a component.” Id. (citing In re Rose,
220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955)).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious to have made the radius of curvature as claimed based on
routine experimentation (Final Act. 13) fails to take into account that “the
radius advantageously provide[s] a particular purpose and solves stated
problems.” Appeal Br. 12. More particularly, Appellant argues that
“Tucker is limited to a large radius to promote conformation to the user’s
skin, which is not the same as the present inventive concept, which causes
stretching of the skin” and “the large radius of Tucker includes an axis
outside the boundaries of the shaver head, which is the not the same as the
present inventive concept, which provides a central axis close to the shaving
plane.” Id. (citing Tucker Fig. 7 and Spec. Fig. 5).
The Examiner responds that “[t]he modification of dimensions is old
and well known in any art engaging the face of a user” and “[a]ny set of
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

12
dimensions that may be great for one group or even a majority of users may
not be great . . . for a sub-set of users and it would have been well within
one’s technical skill to have conducted further experiments and made
additional modifications based on user feedback.” Ans. 17–18. Appellant
replies that “the claimed radius of curvature is a critical range that allows for
stretching the user’s skin and spreading of shaving aid” and that “the
claimed radius provides a specific result to stretch the user’s skin instead of
conforming to the user’s skin.” Reply Br. 6.
As to the Examiner’s first basis relating to routine optimization, the
Examiner does not explain adequately how the prior art recognized the
recited radius of curvature as a result-effective variable. That is, the
Examiner bases the routine optimization rationale solely on Tucker’s
disclosure of skin contacting member 40 having leading and trailing parts
each with a curved face having a radius of curvature. Final Act. 12. This
disclosure by itself does not provide a sufficient basis to explain why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to optimize the radius of
curvature to fall within the claimed range. See Stepan, 868 F.3d at 1346;
Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620.
As to the Examiner’s second basis relating to a mere change in size as
an obvious design choice, the Examiner does not explain adequately why the
radius of curvature of the curved faces of the leading and trailing parts of the
claimed skin contact member as compared to the different radius of
curvature of the curved faces of the leading and trailing parts of the skin
contact member of Tucker/Brown would perform the same. See In re Gal,
980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding of obvious design choice
precluded when the claimed structure and the function it performs are
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

13
different from the prior art). Here, Appellant has raised issues regarding
whether a change in the radius of curvature would affect the function of the
razor blade assembly (e.g., how it interacts with a user’s skin), and the
Examiner has not adequately explained how a change in the radius of
curvature would retain the same functionality.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter of independent claim 21.
Rejections III–V
Appellant relies on the same arguments and reasoning we found
unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1 as the basis for seeking
reversal of the rejections of claims 5 and 11–13. Appeal Br. 13.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above in connection with the
rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
of: claim 5 as unpatentable over Tucker, Brown, and Johnson; claim 11 as
unpatentable over Tucker, Brown, and Brandt; and claims 12 and 13 as
unpatentable over Tucker, Brown, and Prudden.
Rejection VI
Claims 14 and 15
Independent claim 14 recites, in relevant part, “wherein a ratio
between the shaving blade assembly skin contact surface area and the blade
unit skin contact surface area is between approximately 2 and 3.1, the
shaving blade assembly skin contact surface area being larger than the blade
unit skin contact surface area according to the ratio for providing improved
gliding and security to a user of the shaving blade assembly.” Appeal Br.
Claims App’x 4. The Examiner relies on the same findings and conclusions
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

14
made in connection with dependent claim 4. Final Act. 6–7, 10 (citing In re
Rose); Ans. 16.
For the same reasons discussed above in connection with dependent
claim 4 (Rejection I), the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter of independent claim 14. We do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 14, and claim 15 which depends therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tucker.
Claim 20
Independent claim 20 recites, in relevant part, that “the blade unit
further compris[es] . . . a recess disposed on each lateral side edge of the
blade unit” and “the skin contact member further compris[es] protrusions
and a leg, the protrusions being disposed on side portions of the frame for
engagement with the recesses on the lateral side edges of the blade unit.”
Appeal Br. Claims App’x 5–6. The Examiner finds that Tucker teaches
blade unit 22 having recesses 33 and skin contacting member 40 having
protrusions 49 and leg 43. Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner acknowledges
that Tucker “fail[s] to disclose [that] the recesses are on[] each lateral side
and the protrusions are on side portions of the frame for engagement with
the recesses.” Id. at 11. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious “to have located the recesses on any reasonable spot on the blade
unit that interacts with a portion of the skin contact member and to have
located the protrusions in the portion of the skin contact member that
interacts with the spot on the blade unit including the lateral sides . . . since it
has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine
skill in the art.” Id. (citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1954).
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

15
Appellant argues that the claimed features “advantageously provide a
particular purpose and solve[] stated problems” as explained in paragraph 65
of the Specification. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Spec. ¶ 65). Appellant takes the
position that “the claimed features do not relate to a design that is merely a
rearrangement of parts, but provides a critical arrangement to control the
distance between the contact plane and the shaving plane.” Id. at 10.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. In Japikse, the
court held that moving a starter switch to a location different from the prior
art was an obvious variation because the overall operation of the device
would not be modified by such a change. Japikse, 181 F.2d at 1023.
Similarly, we see no evidence to support that the modifying the particular
location of the recesses and protrusions would modify the overall operation
of the shaving blade assembly. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, paragraph
65 of the Specification suggests only that the inclusion of recesses and
protrusions accomplishes “an improvement of the mounting and maintaining
of the frame 30 on the housing and thus leads to a better control of the
distance D between the contact plane P1 and the shaving plane P2,” rather
than that any particular location of the recesses and protrusions is required to
accomplish such improvement. Spec. ¶ 65. In particular, the Specification
suggests that “[t]he protrusions 32 can be located anywhere on the frame 30
such that they are in contact with housing 24.” Id. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the location of the recesses and protrusions and leg is an
obvious design choice within the skill of the art. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d
533, 555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and
presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design
choice within the skill of the art”) (citations omitted).
Appeal 2017-008767
Application 14/029,321

16
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that Tucker renders obvious the subject matter of independent
claim 20. We sustain the rejection of claim 20 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tucker.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite is summarily affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 6–10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tucker and Brown is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4, 16–19, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tucker and Brown is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tucker, Brown, and Johnson is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tucker, Brown, and Brandt is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Tucker, Brown, and Prudden is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Tucker is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tucker is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART