Maclay, William H. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

14835850 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 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.
14/835,850 08/26/2015 William H. Maclay 14-2458-US-
NP 800-0065US
7021
107112 7590 01/02/2020
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
225 S. Meramec, Suite 725
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
COLLINS, TIMOTHY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
docket@splglaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM H. MACLAY, KEVAN WITHERS,
PETER J. ZARKOWSKYJ, CHARLES C. JENSEN,
MARK E. WENTLAND, and ALEXANDRU IASZFALVI
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant, The Boeing Company,1
appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1‒20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as indefinite, anticipated
by the prior art, and unpatentable over various combinations of the prior art.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies itself as the sole real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

2
Appellant argues that the claims are clear and neither anticipated by, nor
unpatentable over, the prior art. For the reasons explained below, we agree
with Appellant that the claims, while broad, are not indefinite. We do not
agree, however, with Appellant as to the assertions of error in the prior art
rejections. Thus, we affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to light-limiting header assemblies configured
to be secured to curtains within an interior cabin of an aircraft. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A header assembly configured to be secured
between an inboard structure and an outboard structure within
an internal cabin of an aircraft, the header assembly comprising:
a main body including a first panel connected to an
opposed second panel by a base panel,
wherein the main body is configured to limit light from
passing therethrough; and
at least three separate and distinct anchoring members
that are configured to securely connect the main body to at least
three separate and distinct reciprocal structures of the inboard
and outboard structures.
Appeal Br. 32 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bright US 2,710,731 June 14, 1955
Breuer2 WO 2009/036738 A2 Mar. 26, 2009
Roach US 2012/0043028 A1 Feb. 23, 2012
Ulbrich-Gasparevic US 2012/0273613 A1 Nov. 1, 2012
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are on appeal:
1. Claims 10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite.
2. Claims 1‒6, 9, 12‒16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Breuer.
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Breuer and Roach.
4. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Breuer and Bright.
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Breuer.
6. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Breuer and Bright.
7. Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Breuer and Ulbrich-Gasparevic.
8. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Breuer, Bright, and Ulbrich-Gasparevic.

2 Although the first named inventor is Gerold Hupperich, the Examiner and
Appellant refer to this reference using the second named inventor “Breuer.”
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

4
OPINION
Rejection of claims 10, 17, and 20 as indefinite
Claim 10 recites that the inboard reciprocal structure is a connection
fastener, the inboard support fitting is a grommet having a bracket that
defines an internal channel that is configured to receive and retain a bayonet
of the connection fastener, and each of the first and second outboard support
fittings of the anchoring members is configured to latchably engage or be
latchably engaged to a structure. Appeal Br. 33 (Claims Appendix). Claims
17 and 20 contain similar language. Id. at 35, 36.
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 17, and 20 as indefinite because the
Examiner found it unclear whether the recitation of “a structure” refers to
the previously recited “reciprocal structures” or “the inboard structure” or a
different structure. Non-Final Act. 4, 21‒22. We disagree with the
Examiner’s determination that the claim language is unclear.
The recitation of “a structure” in claims 10, 17, and 20 is so broad as
to encompass the recited reciprocal structures and different structures. The
fact that the claim does not further limit the scope of “a structure” to require
it to include or exclude particular structures is a matter of breadth, not
indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971); In re
Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).
Appellant argues that “the claims recite ‘a structure,’ which differs
from the ‘reciprocal structures,’ and ‘an inboard structure.’” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s argument, which seeks an interpretation of “a structure” that
excludes the “reciprocal structures,” is contrary to the description in
Appellant’s Specification that the outboard support fittings 166 and 168
latchably engage the reciprocal structures, i.e., latching protuberances 224
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

5
and 226 of outboard structure 202. Spec. ¶ 56. We decline to adopt an
interpretation of “a structure” that does not encompass, and is incompatible
with, the embodiment described in the Specification. See In re Smith Int’l,
Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383‒84 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The correct inquiry in
giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification . . . is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the
inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation
that is consistent with the specification.”) (citation and internal quotation
marks and omitted).
For these reasons, we find that the claim language of “a structure,”
though broad, is not indefinite. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 10, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Rejection of claims 1‒6, 9, 12‒16, and 19 as anticipated by Breuer
Independent claim 1
The Examiner found that Breuer discloses a header assembly
comprising a main body and “at least three separate and distinct anchoring
members that are configured to securely connect the main body to at least
three separate and distinct reciprocal structures of the inboard and outboard
structures.” Non-Final Act. 5. Specifically, the Examiner found that the
three anchoring members consist of two mounting elements 25 at mounting
point 2 and threaded sleeve 28 at mounting point 3. Id. at 5‒6. The
Examiner found that the two mounting elements 25 are “separate and
distinct” because they are provided on each side of the header. Id.
Alternatively, the Examiner found that Breuer discloses five anchoring
members, including the three anchoring members discussed above and
connectors 19 and 20. Id. at 7.
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

6
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Breuer
discloses “at least three separate and distinct anchoring members that are
configured to securely connect the main body to at least three separate and
distinct reciprocal structures of the inboard and outboard structures” because
Breuer discloses only two mounting points 2, 3. Appeal Br. 13. As to the
Examiner’s finding that mounting elements 25 constitute two of the claimed
anchoring members, Appellant argues that mounting elements 25 are merely
fasteners for mounting point 2. Id. Appellant argues that “[e]ven if multiple
fasteners 24 or 25 are used with respect to each of the two mounting points 2
and 3, there are still only two mounting points 2 and 3, each of which may
include multiple fasteners 24 or 25 connected together by a common
structure (namely, the mounting points 2 or 3).” Id. at 14.
The Examiner’s finding of anticipation of the claimed subject matter
is supported by Breuer. Appellant’s argument turns on the meaning of
“three separate and distinct anchoring members.” Appellant argues, in
essence, that mounting elements or fasteners 25 are not “separate and
distinct anchoring members.” Appellant fails to provide in its brief a
proposed interpretation of this claim language that would exclude fasteners
from being “anchoring members” or that would explain why Breuer’s
fasteners 25, which are disposed on opposite sides of element 1, are not
separate and distinct.
We agree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation that, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, an “anchoring member” encompasses a
fastener. Non-Final Act. 22; Ans. 12. The Specification describes that
“[t]he anchoring members and reciprocal structures cooperate to secure the
header assembly to the inboard and outboard structures.” Spec. ¶ 8.
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

7
Although the Specification describes examples of specific support fittings
that may be used as anchoring members, independent claim 1 is not limited
to any particular anchoring member structure. Spec. ¶¶ 14, 50, 52.
We further agree with the Examiner that Breuer’s mounting elements
25 are “separate and distinct.” As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 10), Breuer
describes that a mounting element 25 is provided on both sides of
lightweight element 1, i.e., on the side of shell 6 and on the side of shell 5.
Breuer 12, second paragraph. The Examiner further found that each
mounting element 25 has a plate-shaped section 30 for fixing against the
ceiling, and these parts of the ceiling are separate and distinct because they
lie on opposite sides of the header. Non-Final Act. 6. We find no error in
the Examiner’s finding that i.e., mounting elements 25 are “separate” and
“distinct.” Ans. 10, 13‒14 (Examiner finding that “distinct,” when read in
light of Appellant’s Specification, does not require the anchoring structures
to be different types of structures).
We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that the three anchoring
members, i.e., mounting elements 25 and threaded sleeve 28, are configured
to securely connect the main body to three separate and distinct reciprocal
structures. Id. at 11, 15; Non-Final Act. 6. Specifically, Breuer discloses
that each mounting element 25 has a plate-shaped section for fixing against
the ceiling of the aircraft, and Breuer discloses that threaded sleeve 28,
which is fixed to shells 5, 6, is used to attach element 1 to the aircraft.
Breuer 12, first and second paragraphs, Figs. 6, 8.
The Examiner further observed in the Answer that Appellant did not
specifically address the Examiner’s alternative finding that Breuer’s
anchoring members include connectors 19 and 20. Ans. 16. Indeed,
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

8
Appellant did not address these alternative findings in the Appeal Brief.
And despite the Examiner’s highlighting of this omission in the Answer,
Appellant still failed to address these alternative findings in the Reply Brief.
Thus, Appellant has not identified error in the Examiner’s finding that
Breuer’s connectors 19 and 20 serve as additional separate and distinct
anchoring members.
For these reasons, Appellant has not identified error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Breuer. Appellant does not present
separate arguments for the patentability of claims 3‒6, which depend from
claim 1. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3‒6 as anticipated by
Breuer.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites, in relevant part, that the at
least three anchoring members comprise first and second anchoring
members proximate to the outboard end of the main body and a third
anchoring member proximate to the inboard end of the main body. Appeal
Br. 32 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner relied on the same findings as to
the disclosure of anchoring members in Breuer to find the subject matter of
claim 2 anticipated by Breuer. Non-Final Act. 7. Appellant reiterates that
Breuer does not anticipate because it discloses only two mounting points.
Appeal Br. 15. For the same reasons discussed above, we find no error in
the Examiner’s findings as to Breuer’s disclosure of the claimed anchoring
members. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 as anticipated by Breuer.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that the at least three
anchoring members comprise an inboard support fitting, a first outboard
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

9
support fitting, and a second outboard support fitting. Appeal Br. 33
(Claims Appendix). The Examiner relied on the same findings as to the
disclosure of anchoring members in Breuer to find the subject matter of
claim 9 anticipated by Breuer. Non-Final Act. 9. Appellant reiterates that
Breuer does not anticipate because it discloses only two mounting points.
Appeal Br. 16. Appellant further argues that even if each mounting point 2
and 3 included multiple fasteners 24 or 25, there would still remain just two
mounting points 2 and 3, but not three separate and distinct fittings. Id.
The Examiner replied that the two separate and distinct mounting
elements 25 are located on the outboard side of the header assembly, and,
thus, are first and second outboard support fittings and mounting element 24
having threaded sleeve 28 is on the inboard side of the header assembly, and,
thus, is a first inboard support fitting. Ans. 18.
Appellant has not identified error in the Examiner’s findings. First,
Appellant has not proposed an interpretation of “support fitting” that
structurally distinguishes over either mounting elements 25 or threaded
sleeve 28. Appellant’s arguments are conclusory, and do not propose an
interpretation of a support fitting in light of Appellant’s Specification in a
manner different from the structures in the prior art. Further, the
Specification gives examples of “fittings” but does not define this term.
For these reasons and those discussed above, we find no error in the
Examiner’s findings as to Breuer’s disclosure of the claimed anchoring
members. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 as anticipated by Breuer.
Independent Claim 12
Independent claim 12 is directed to an aircraft assembly including a
header assembly having a main body and “at least three separate and distinct
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

10
anchoring members that are configured to securely connect the main body to
at least three separate and distinct reciprocal structures of the inboard and
outboard structures.” Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner
relied on the same findings discussed above as to the disclosure of anchoring
members in Breuer to find the subject matter of claim 12 anticipated by
Breuer. Non-Final Act. 9‒10. Appellant reiterates that Breuer does not
anticipate because it discloses only two mounting points. Appeal Br. 16‒18
(reiterating the same arguments presented against the rejection of claim 1).
For the same reasons discussed above, we find no error in the Examiner’s
findings as to Breuer’s disclosure of the claimed anchoring members. For
these reasons, Appellant has not identified error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 12 as anticipated by Breuer. Appellant does not present separate
arguments for the patentability of claims 14‒16 and 19, which depend from
claim 12. Thus, we sustain the rejection claims 12, 14‒16, and 19 as
anticipated by Breuer.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and contains the same claim
limitations as dependent claim 2. Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix). The
Examiner relied on the same findings as to the disclosure of anchoring
members in Breuer to find the subject matter of claim 13 anticipated by
Breuer. Non-Final Act. 10. Appellant reiterates that Breuer does not
anticipate because it discloses only two mounting points. Appeal Br. 18‒19.
For the same reasons discussed above, we find no error in the Examiner’s
findings as to Breuer’s disclosure of the claimed anchoring members. Thus,
we sustain the rejection of claim 13 as anticipated by Breuer
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

11
Rejections of claim 7 over Breuer and either Roach or Bright
Appellant relies on the arguments asserting error in the rejection of
independent claim 1 over Breuer as the basis for seeking reversal of the
rejections of dependent claim 7 over Breuer and either Roach or Bright.
Appeal Br. 19. Because we did not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, we likewise sustain the rejections of claim 7 as unpatentable over
Breuer and either Roach or Bright.
Rejection of claim 8 over Breuer
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites that the header assembly
further comprises “an extension beam secured to the main body, wherein the
at least three anchoring members are secured to the extension beam.”
Appeal Br. 33 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner found that Breuer
discloses an extension beam in its description of reinforcement 8 formed as
integrated support rib 15, which extends over shells 5, 6, and 7. Non-Final
Act. 15 (citing Breuer, Figs. 12, 13). The Examiner acknowledges that
Breuer does not explicitly teach that the anchoring members are secured to
the extension beam. Id. The Examiner finds, however, Breuer teaches that
“composite shells may have greater thickness in areas that contribute more
strongly to the transmission of forces.” Id. (citing Breuer 10, second to last
paragraph). Based on this teaching in Breuer, the Examiner determined that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to secure anchoring
members 25 and 28 to an extension beam because one would understand that
it is desirable to have the area of the main body to which the anchoring
members attach thicker than the remainder of the main body. Id. at 15‒16
(Examiner acknowledging that the area into which mounting element 24 and
threaded sleeve 28 is fixed is thicker than other regions of the shell).
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

12
Appellant first contests the rejection of claim 8 based on the
arguments presented in support of claim 1. Appeal Br. 21. We find these
arguments unavailing for the reasons discussed above.
Appellant next contests the rejection of claim 8 because the Examiner
“fails to point to anything in which three separate and distinct anchoring
members are secured to an (that is, a single) extension beam.” Id. This
argument does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Indeed, the Examiner acknowledged Breuer does not explicitly disclose that
its mounting elements 25 and 28 are secured to its reinforcement 8. The
Examiner provided, however, a reason, based on explicit teachings in
Breuer, as to why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
attach the anchoring members (i.e., mounting elements) to an extension
beam in the manner claimed. Appellant has not identified error in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning in this regard.
For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable
over Breuer.
Rejection of claims 10 and 17 over Breuer and Bright
Claim 10
Appellant relies on the arguments asserting error in the rejection of
independent claim 1 over Breuer as the basis for seeking reversal of the
rejection of dependent claim 10 over Breuer and Bright. Appeal Br. 21‒22.
Because we did not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we
likewise sustain the rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Breuer and
Bright.
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

13
Claim 17
Appellant relies on the arguments asserting error in the rejections of
claims 1, 8, and 9 as the basis for seeking reversal of the rejection of
independent claim 17 over Breuer and Bright. Appeal Br. 22‒24. Because
we did not find error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 8, and 9, we
likewise sustain the rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Breuer and
Bright.
Rejection of claims 11 and 18 over Breuer and Ulbrich-Gasparevic
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites that the main body is
configured to be moved between a secured position and a pivoted position.
Appeal Br. 33 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner found that
Ulbrich-Gasparevic teaches a mounting device for a similar visual barrier in
an aircraft, wherein the mounting device is attached to a rail of coupling
device 404, which is a type of pivot joint with slide 407, that allows the
mounting module and curtain to be stowed in the luggage bin when not in
use. Non-Final Act. 19. The Examiner determined that it would have been
obvious to replace one set of Breuer’s anchoring members with the pivot and
sliding joint of Ulbrich-Gasparevic, to enable the header assembly and
curtain to be moved to a pivoted position so as to increase the visible range
in the cabin and store the header assembly and curtain within the aircraft
when not in use. Id. at 19‒20.
Appellant first contests the rejection of claim 11 based on the
arguments presented in support of claim 1. Appeal Br. 24. We find these
arguments unavailing for the reasons discussed above.
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

14
Appellant next argues that Breuer teaches that its “mounting points 2
and 3 are screwed/bolted in position” and thus Breuer’s structure “is
incapable of being pivoted downward into a service position.” Appeal Br.
24‒25 (Appellant arguing that “Breuer teaches away”) (emphasis omitted).
First, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate in scope with the claim language, which does not require the
main body to be pivoted “downward.” Ans. 26 (Examiner stating that “[t]he
claim does not recite any limitation regarding the direction or manner of
pivoting, nor does it recite any limitation regarding the degree of pivoting).
Second, we agree with the Examiner Breuer does not teach away from
the proposed modification. Appellant has not identified any teaching in
Breuer that would have discouraged a person of ordinary skill from making
the proposed modification based on the teachings of Ulbrich-Gasparevic.
See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A reference may be
said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant”). We do not find, nor does Appellant direct us to,
any disclosure in Breuer that discourages or discredits the proposed
modification of Breuer’s anchoring members with the pivoting assembly of
Ulrich-Gasparevic. Breuer is silent as to any means other than those
described to anchor element 1 to the aircraft. Further, Breuer explicitly
teaches that the mounting elements allow adjustment of element 1 in several
directions, e.g., the height and angular position of element 1 can be adjusted.
Breuer 6‒7. Thus, we do not find any disclosure in Breuer that would teach
away from the proposed modifications to the anchoring members. Rather,
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

15
the Examiner identified explicit teachings in Ulbrich-Gasparevic that would
have led one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the improvement
of a pivotable anchoring member to achieve the benefit of a stowable header
assembly.
Appellant also argues that neither Breuer nor Ulrich-Gasparevic
“describes, teaches, or suggests a main body pivotally secured at one end,
and disconnected from another end in a pivoted position.” Appeal Br. 24.
As can be seen in Figures 4A, 4B, 5, 7, and 8 of Ulbrich-Gasparevic, the
header assembly pivots around the pivot joint 407 so that in the pivoted
position, the header is secured at the inboard end and disconnected from the
outboard end. Thus, we find adequate support for the claimed subject matter
in the combined teachings of the prior art.
For these reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not identified error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim
11 as unpatentable over Breuer and Ulbrich-Gasparevic.
Claim 18
Appellant contests the rejection of claim 18 based on the arguments
presented in support of claims 11 and 12. Appeal Br. 24‒26. We find these
arguments unavailing for the reasons discussed above.
Rejection of claim 20 over Breuer, Bright, and Ulbrich-Gasparevic
Appellant contests the rejection of claim 20 based on the arguments
presented in support of claims 1, 2, 8, and 11. Appeal Br. 26‒31. We find
these arguments unavailing for the reasons discussed above.
Appeal 2019-003179
Application 14/835,850

16
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 17, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We sustain the Examiner’s rejections under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 of claims 1‒20. Because we sustain at least one
ground of rejection as to each of the claims on appeal, we affirm the
Examiner’s decision on unpatentability of claims 1‒20.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10, 17, 20 112(b) Indefiniteness 10, 17, 20
1‒6, 9, 12‒
16, 19
102(a)(1)
102(a)(2)
Breuer 1‒6, 9, 12‒
16, 19

7 103 Breuer, Roach 7
7 103 Breuer, Bright 7
8 103 Breuer 8
10, 17 103 Breuer, Bright 10, 17
11, 18 103 Breuer,
Ulbrich-Gasparevic
11, 18
20 103 Breuer, Bright,
Ulbrich-Gasparevic
20
Overall
Outcome
1‒20
AFFIRMED