KIMBERLEE HORN

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2022

2021004325 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2022)

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. 15/934,030 03/23/2018 KIMBERLEE ANN HORN KAH 18005 2834 82357 7590 03/22/2022 AP Patents 378 Lakewood Court Williams Bay, WI 53191 EXAMINER KMET, LAUREN ELIZABETH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3735 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2022 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): apogeegroup@comcast.net info@ap-patents.com shauna@ap-patents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KIMBERLEE ANN HORN Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21-41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor, Kimberlee A. Horn. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to “consumption and/or dispensing of contents from a container.” Spec. 1:13-14. Claims 21, 23, and 39, reproduced below, are the independent claims on appeal. 21. A device for managing medicine consumption and/or dispensing, said device comprising: a body comprising a flat write-on surface and a concave surface spaced apart from said flat write-on surface to define a thickness of said body and a peripheral edge surface of said body; a writing implement holder disposed on a portion of said peripheral edge surface, said writing implement holder configured to releaseably secure a writing implement therewithin; and an adhesive member disposed on said concave surface. 23. A device for managing medicine consumption and/or dispensing, said device comprising: a body comprising: a flat write-on surface, a second surface spaced apart from said flat write- on first surface to define a thickness of said body and a peripheral edge surface of said body, and a recess in said second surface between two opposite edges thereof; and a strap attached to said body and comprising a portion thereof being disposed within said recess, said strap comprising a width thereof being smaller than a distance between said two opposite edges of said second surface. 39. A device for managing medicine consumption and/or dispensing, said device comprising: a body comprising: a flat write-on surface, Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 3 a second surface spaced apart from said flat write- on first surface to define a thickness of said body and a peripheral edge surface of said body, and a slot through a width of said body between two opposite peripheral edge surface portions thereof; and a strap comprising a portion thereof being passed through said slot, said strap comprising a width thereof being smaller than a distance between said two opposite peripheral edge surface portions of said body. THE REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Clark US 76,777 Nov. 6, 1928 Weiss US 1,407,239 Feb. 21, 1922 Schreindl US 4,906,025 Mar. 6, 1990 Schneider US 2001/0053306 A1 Dec. 20, 2001 Ryan US 2003/0011190 A1 Jan. 16, 2003 Davis US 6,530,509 B1 Mar. 11, 2003 Stevens US 2007/0094776 A1 May 3, 2007 Yoshino WO96/17731 June 13, 19962 THE REJECTIONS The rejections before us on appeal are: I. Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ryan. 2 We rely on the English language translation of Yoshino provided in the record. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 4 II. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Weiss.3 III. Claims 23 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan.4 IV. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Schneider. V. Claims 25 and 34-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Weiss. VI. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Stevens. VII. Claims 27-30 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Yoshino. 3 Although the Examiner states the rejection as pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner does not propose any modifications to the wrist tablet of Weiss to result in the claimed subject matter; rather, the Examiner finds all of the limitations of the body of claims 21 and 22 to be disclosed in Weiss. To the extent the Examiner has relied on 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Weiss fails to disclose the use of the wrist tablet for managing medicine consumption and/or dispensing, we do not give such a recitation of use in the preamble of claim 21 patentable weight. See Final Act. 4 (“Weiss discloses a device capable of . . .”). Notwithstanding, a disclosure that anticipates also may render the claim unpatentable as obvious, because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 102, 103. 4 Similar to Rejection II, the Examiner states the rejection as pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 but does not propose any modifications to the wrist notepad holder of Ryan to result in the claimed subject matter. To the extent the Examiner has relied on 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Ryan fails to disclose the use of the writs tablet for managing medicine consumption and/or dispensing, we again do not give such a recitation of use in the preamble of claims 23 and 38 patentable weight. See Final Act. 5 (“Ryan discloses a device capable of . . .”). Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 5 VIII. Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan, Yoshino, and Davis. IX. Claims 37 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Yoshino. X. Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Clark. Rejection I Regarding independent claim 39, the Examiner finds that Ryan discloses a device having a second surface (i.e., with reference to Figures 1, 5, and 8, “underside of 20”) spaced apart from a flat write-on first surface (i.e., notepad 23) to define a thickness and a peripheral edge surface of a body (i.e., with reference to Figure 7, “edge where 24 and 20 meet”). Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that Ryan discloses a slot (i.e., with reference to Figures 1, 3, and 8, “near 34 and 36 slots”) through a width of the body between two opposite peripheral edge surface portions of the body (identified as “W” between edge surface portions identified by arrows in the Examiner’s annotated version of Ryan’s Figure 2), and also a strap (i.e., wrist strap 22) with a portion passing through the slot and having a width that is smaller than a distance between the two opposite peripheral edge surface portions. Id. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 2 of Ryan, reproduced below. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 6 The Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 2 of Ryan depicts a body member 20 and a wrist strap 22, wherein a peripheral surface of body member 20 is in the shape of an octagon, and the Examiner identifies one side of the eight octagonal sides as having a width “W,” which is between the two adjacent octagonal sides of body member 20 as identified by the Examiner’s arrows. Id. at 4. Thus, according to the Examiner’s findings, the width “W” of the side of Ryan’s octagonal body 20 (as identified by the Examiner supra) also corresponds to the claimed distance between two opposite peripheral edge surface portions of a body, such that the width of Ryan’s wrist strap 22 is depicted as being smaller than the width “W.” Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner errs by interpreting the claim term “width” as “a distance between two points on the same peripheral edge portion of the body 20 of Ryan,” however, “such ‘width’ is not the entire width of the body 20 of Ryan” and such an interpretation is not consistent with Appellant’s Specification. Id. at 11; see also Reply Br. 5 (arguing that the Examiner’s interpretation is “unreasonably broad”). Claim 39 requires, in relevant part, “a width of [the] body between two opposite peripheral edge surface portions [of the body],” and the Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 7 Examiner has identified two portions (notably, a broad term) of the peripheral edge surface of Ryan’s body member 20 in the annotated Figure 2 of Ryan supra, wherein the portions are symmetrically opposite of each other when body member 20 is divided by a horizontal axis. In other words, Appellant does not provide persuasive argument or evidence as to why the Examiner’s two portions are not opposite to one another, or why the distance between them, identified by the Examiner’s “W” is not a width (i.e., an extent from side to side between the portions). See Ans. 5 (“the width W is shown between two points on opposite peripheral edge portions on the body”). We do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner has identified a width on the same peripheral edge portion, as the two peripheral edge surfaces portions identified by the Examiner are structurally distinguishable as separately angled surfaces of octagonal body member 20. However, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation of “a slot through a width” is unreasonably broad. Consistent with Appellant’s Specification (Spec. 14:19-22 (describing “a slot 122 formed through a width” of body 110); Fig. 5 (illustrating slot 122 extending through the width of body 110 from one side to the opposite side)), we interpret the claim limitation “a slot through a width” as requiring the slot to extend the entire extent of the width dimension. As shown in Ryan’s Figure 1, the slot does not extend the entire length of the width “W” as identified by the Examiner supra, but rather, the slot extends only in a middle portion of the width “W” identified by the Examiner.5 5 Notably, the slot identified by the Examiner extends through a dimension of body member 20 that is perpendicular to width “W,” but not through width “W.” Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 8 For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Ryan. Rejection II Regarding independent claim 21, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Weiss discloses a concave surface “formed by strap 17,” as claimed. Final Act. 4. Figure 5 of Weiss is reproduced below. Figure 5 of Weiss depicts “a longitudinal section through the holder [B]” (or frame) (Weiss 2:63-64), showing tablet D (or slate19), which is held by holder B, and a supporting device C (or strap 17) having a concave surface attached to holder B by a rivet 16. See, e.g., id. 2:68-95. Appellant argues that Weiss fails to disclose a concave surface, as claimed, but rather “two flat surfaces” of a holder B. Appeal Br. 13-14. Appellant submits that the Examiner erred by combining strap 17 with holder B to result in the claimed body comprising a concave surface. Id. at 14. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 9 We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation of Weiss’s holder B (i.e., a substantially rectangular frame having a bottom wall or plate 20, upstanding side walls 11, and end walls 12) and Weiss’s supporting device C (i.e., strap 17) as corresponding to the claimed “body” is arbitrary and unreasonably broad, where claim 21 defines the body as comprising a concave surface spaced apart from a flat write-on surface to define the body’s thickness and a peripheral edge surface. For example, although including Weiss’ strap 17 as part of the body of Weiss’ wrist table results in an opposing concave surface that may define a thickness of Weiss’ wrist tablet, it is unclear how the spacing apart of the narrow strip of the concave surface of strap 17 from the square, flat write-on surface of holder B defines a peripheral edge surface of a body in Weiss. In sum, we find this interpretation of Weiss by the Examiner arbitrary and lacking sufficient support from the description of the wrist table of Weiss. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Weiss, and claim 22, which depends therefrom. Rejection III Regarding independent claim 23, the Examiner finds that Ryan discloses a device having a second surface (i.e., “underside of 20”) spaced apart from a flat write-on first surface (i.e., notepad 23) to define a thickness and a peripheral edge surface of a body. Final Act. 5. The Examiner also finds that Ryan’s slots in lower edges 34, 36 are each a recess, as claimed, construing “a recess [as] being a receding part or space.” Id. The Examiner further finds that Ryan discloses a portion of the strap (i.e., wrist band 22) being disposed within the recess. Id. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 10 Appellant argues that “the claimed recess 124 spans the distance between two opposite edges of the body 110 and across the write-on surface.” Appeal Br. 17 (citing Spec., Fig. 7); id. (citing Spec. 15:9-12 (“recess of the strap 160B, along the width of the body 110, is exposed and may be flush with the rear surface 112”)). Appellant is arguing limitations that are not recited in claim 23. See also Ans. 7 (“the claim does not recite ‘and across the write-on surface’ or that the strap ‘is exposed and may be flush with the rear surface’”). In other words, claim 23 requires a recess in the second surface between two opposite edges of the second surface, and Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reliance on each of slots in lower edges 34, 36 as disclosing a recess in the second surface (i.e., “underside of 20”) between two opposite edges of the second surface (i.e., the edges defined by the arrows identified by the Examiner in the Examiner’s annotated Figure 2 of Ryan, as applied to independent claim 21 supra). Moreover, Appellant does not explain why Ryan’s slot is not a recess, as interpreted by the Examiner. See Reply Br. 9 (merely concluding that “[the] Examiner’s interpretation of ‘a recess being a receding part or space and the material of the body has receded at 34 and 36’ is in error”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan. Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claim 38, which depends from independent claim 23, and therefore, for essentially the same reasons as stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. Appeal Br. 16-17. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 11 Rejections IV-VI and X Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of claims 24-26, 34-36, and 41, which depend from independent claim 23. Appeal Br. 27 (“Claims 24-28, 32-36, 38 and 41 stand or fall with claim 23”). Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons as stated supra relative to independent claim 23, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 24-26, 34-36, and 41. Rejection VII Dependent claim 29 Claim 29 depends ultimately from independent claim 23 and recites, in relevant part, “wherein said body comprises a peripheral edge raised above said flat write-on first surface and wherein said cover comprises a peripheral flange that overlaps said peripheral edge of said body.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.). Regarding claim 29, the Examiner finds that Ryan discloses a body with a peripheral edge raised above a flat write-on surface (“where 24 and 20 meet”) and that Yoshino discloses a “cover 4´” that “overlaps” a peripheral edge of a body, because “the flange will meet the edge around the writing surface and thus overlap.” Final Act. 8 (citing Yoshino, Figure). The Examiner construes the claim term “overlaps” to mean “extends over each other and covers.” Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that claim 29 does not require that “the cover flange is sized larger.” Id. Figures 1 and 2 of Yoshino are reproduced below. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 12 Figures 1 and 2 of Yoshino depict a cover disposed in closed and open positions, respectively. Appellant argues that Yoshino fails to teach an “overlap,” as required by claim 29, because “Yoshino clearly illustrates flanges on the cover and body that touch each other at a respective edge,” but not that “the cover flange is sized larger so as to ‘overlap’ the flange on the ‘body.’” Appeal Br. 19-20; see also Reply Br. 10-11. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 13 Regarding the claim term “overlap,” the Specification discloses, without specific reference to the Figures, that [i]n one example, the cover 140 may be sized to fit, in a snap or friction manner, within the peripheral edge 111 raised above the write-on surface 130 so as to retain the cover 140 in a closed position covering the indicia identifier 19. In another example, the cover 140 may be adapted with an optional flange 141 that overlaps the peripheral edge 111. In another example, the cover 140 may be further adapted with optional finger pull portions 143 or a snap tab 144. In another example, the cover 140 may be configured to overlap the peripheral surface 113 of the body 110. . . . In one example, the cover 140 may simply contact the peripheral edge 111 or may be even positioned at a slight gap/distance therewith. Spec. 12:30-13:11 (emphasis added). Figure 1 of the Specification is reproduced below. Figure 1 of the Specification depicts (i) body 110 provided with member 128 having a flat write-on surface 130, wherein body 110 also has a peripheral Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 14 edge 111 raised above flat write-on surface 130 and also a peripheral surface 113; and (ii) cover 140 having an optional flange 141. See, e.g., Spec. 9:21- 10:2, 12:30-13:11. We accept the Examiner’s definition of the claim term “overlaps” to mean “extends over each other and covers,” which Appellant does not dispute. Claim 29 is not specific with respect to the structures, surfaces, or relative sizes of the raised peripheral “edge” of the body depicted, for example, as a ridge, or the peripheral “flange” of the cover, which is also depicted, for example, as a ridge. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that, when closed, a surface of the peripheral flange of the cover of Yoshino overlaps, by extending over and covering, a surface of the raised peripheral edge of the body of Yoshino, as the surfaces abut one another. Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Yoshino. Dependent claim 30 Claim 30 depends ultimately from independent claim 23 and recites, in relevant part, “wherein said cover comprises a peripheral flange that overlaps said peripheral edge surface of said body,” wherein claim 23 recites that the peripheral edge surface of the body is defined by the spacing apart of the first and second surfaces of the body. Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner’s again relies on Yoshino, as applied to claim 29. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 15 Appellant argues that “Yoshino fails to disclose a cover with a flange that would extend below the top surface of the body so as to ‘overlap the peripheral edge surface.’” Appeal Br. 21; Reply Br. 11. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Claim 30 has a different scope than claim 29, as claim 30 requires the peripheral flange of the cover to overlap, or extend over and cover, the body’s peripheral edge surface, as defined in claim 23. We agree with Appellant that Yoshino fails in this respect, because Yoshino’s peripheral flange on the cover merely overlaps the top surface of Yoshino’s peripheral edge of the body, and not the peripheral edge surface (or peripheral side surface) defined by the spaced apart top and bottom surfaces of Yoshino’s body.6 Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Yoshino based on the Examiner’s findings relative to Yoshino. Dependent claims 27, 28, and 33 Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of claims 27, 28, and 33, which depend from independent claim 23. Appeal Br. 27 (“Claims 24-28, 32-36, 38 and 41 stand or fall with claim 23”). Accordingly, for 6 Notably, regarding Davis’ “Wearable Case for Writing Materials” (Title), Davis discloses a body 102 with a peripheral edge raised above a flat write- on first surface and a cover comprising a flange or snap closure 103 that overlaps an outer surface of the body’s raised peripheral edge to hold the lid closed. See, e.g., Davis 3:29-50, Figs. 1, 2, 6. Additionally, Schreindl discloses that “covering 30 with snap-over edge 38 snaps down over write- on base plate 18 over base plate projecting ridges 24,” which appear to be on the peripheral sides surfaces of the body of Schreindl’s memorandum wristband. Schreindl 3:29-31, Figs. 6-9. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 16 essentially the same reasons as stated supra relative to independent claim 23, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27, 28, and 33. Rejection VIII Claim 31 depends ultimately from independent claim 23 and recites, in relevant part, “wherein said body comprises a peripheral edge raised above said flat write-on first surface and wherein said cover is sized to fit within said peripheral edge.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Davis discloses main body portion 406 having a peripheral edge (i.e., sides 409, 410) and also a cover or lid 401 sized to fit within the peripheral edge, as claimed. Final Act. 9 (citing Davis, Figs. 4, 5). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Ryan, as modified in view of Yoshino to have a cover hingedly connected to a body, to further have a cover that is sized to fit within a peripheral edge of the body, as taught by Davis, so that the device is “more compact” and also to “lessen the [likelihood that] of the cover being caught on other objects and torn off.” Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to articulate reasoning for modifying Ryan, as modified by Yoshino, in view of Davis. Appeal Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 13. We disagree, in that, as set forth supra, the Examiner expressly reasons that such a modification would provide a more compact device with a more secure cover. Regarding Appellant’s additional argument that the Examiner failed to “resolve the difference between the edge-to-edge contact of Yoshino and the ‘fit’ contact of Davis,” again, as set forth supra, the Examiner relies on Yoshino for disclosing a hinged cover, as required by intervening claim 27, and on Davis for sizing the cover, as Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 17 required by claim 31; thus, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning relative to claim 31. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan, Yoshino, and Davis. Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claim 32 apart from the arguments presented for independent claim 23, from which claim 32 ultimately depends, and therefore, for essentially the same reasons as stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner rejection of claim 32. Rejection IX Claim 37 depends from independent claim 23 and recites, in relevant part, “wherein said flat write-on first surface comprises a dry-erase surface.” Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Schreindl discloses a dry-erase surface (i.e., writing surface 28) and reasons that it would have been obvious to modify the write-on surface of Ryan to have a dry-erase surface, as taught in Schreindl, as a well-known substitution of one writing surface for another, and also “to create less [paper] waste” and “[to] prevent the user from running out of clean sheets of paper.” Final Act. 10. Appellant argues that because Schreindl issued on March 6, 1990 and Ryan was filed on June 21, 2002, “Ryan was in a possession of Schreindl’s teachings and yet decided to proceed in a different direction.” Appeal Br. 24. In addition, Appellant argues that because Ryan’s invention addresses advantages relative to self-stick notes, “Ryan was not compelled to concede” the Examiner’s motivation (i.e., less paper waste, prevention of running out of paper). Id. (citing Ryan ¶ 7). Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s modification “changes [the] principal operation” of Ryan and Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 18 renders Ryan “inoperative for [its] intended purpose,” because “[w]here Ryan uses [a] note pad, Schreindl uses [a] dry-erase surface.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 14-15. The Examiner’s modification is supported by the Examiner’s articulated reasoning, regardless of whether Ryan contemplated using a dry-erase surface in lieu of self-stick notes. Where “a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In addition, the Examiner correctly responds that “[m]odifying Ryan to include a dry-erase surface still allows Ryan to maintain [the] purpose and operation [of enabling the user to take notes] as there is a surface that notes can be written on.” Ans. 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Schreindl. The Examiner’s reliance on Schreindl for disclosing a dry-erase surface does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s finding with respect to Ryan as applied to independent claim 39 from which claim 40 depends. Accordingly, for essentially the same reason as stated supra relative to claim 39, we also cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ryan is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Weiss is reversed. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 19 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Schneider is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 34-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Weiss is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Stevens is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 27-29 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Yoshino is affirmed, and of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Yoshino is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Schreindl is affirmed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Schreindl is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryan and Clark is affirmed. Appeal 2021-004325 Application 15/934,030 20 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 39 102 Ryan 39 21, 22 103 Weiss 21, 22 23, 38 103 Ryan 23, 38 24 103 Ryan, Schneider 24 25, 34-36 103 Ryan, Weiss 25, 34-36 26 103 Ryan, Stevens 26 27-30, 33 103 Ryan, Yoshino 27-29, 33 30 31, 32 103 Ryan, Yoshino, Davis 31, 32 37, 40 103 Ryan, Schreindl 37 40 41 103 Ryan, Clark 41 Overall Outcome 23-29, 31- 38, 41 21, 22, 30, 39, 40 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART