MasterCard International Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 20, 2021

2021000019 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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.
14/789,361 07/01/2015 Ashfaq Kamal P01747-US-
UTIL (M01.312)
1092
125619 7590 04/20/2021
Mastercard International Incorporated
c/o Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC
50 Locust Avenue
New Canaan, CT 06840
EXAMINER
KERITSIS, DENNIS G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2021 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):
colabella@bmtpatent.com
martin@bmtpatent.com
szpara@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ASHFAQ KAMAL and
GREGORY D. WILLIAMSON

Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) as
lacking a written description and indefinite, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MasterCard
International Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 19–22, 24, 29, 30, and 34 in the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”; mailed Feb. 19, 2019) as follows:
1. Claims 19–22, 24, 29, 30, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 6.
2. Claims 19–22, 24, 29, 30, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Final
Act. 8.
3. Claims 29, 30, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Chatterjee et al. (US 8,577,803 B2, issued Nov. 5, 2013) (“Chatterjee”).
Final Act. 11.
4. Claims 19, 21, 22, 24, 29, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Chatterjee, Shibata et al. (US 5,880,444, issued Mar. 9,
1999) (“Shibata”), and Li et al. (US 2014/0162692 A1, June 12, 2014)
(“Li”). Final Act. 13.
5. Claims 20 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Chatterjee, Shibata, Li, and Sezille (US 8,064,645 B1, issued Nov. 22, 2011)
(“Sezille”). Final Act. 17.
Claims 19 and 29 are representative and reproduced below (annotated
with bracketed numbers and letters to reference the limitations in the claim):
19. An authentication process, comprising:
[1] receiving, by a consumer mobile device via a
touchscreen, an input from a consumer selecting a consumer
identity application;
[2] receiving, by the consumer mobile device from an
authentication service platform in response to the selection of
the consumer identity application, [2a] shopping data
comprising [2ai] merchant identification information and [2aii]
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

3
a transaction amount of a consumer purchase transaction
initiated by the consumer using an electronic device;
[3] displaying, by the consumer mobile device on the
touchscreen, [2a] the shopping data, [3a] a first option to close
the consumer identity application and [3b] a second option to
launch an authentication application;
[4] launching, by the consumer mobile device in response
to touchscreen input selecting the second option, the
authentication application;
[5] displaying, by the consumer mobile device on the
touchscreen, a confirmation user interface comprising [5a]
payment card account information, [5b] a verify identity option
and [5c] a decline option;
[6] receiving, by the consumer mobile device via the
touchscreen, input selecting the verify identity option;
[7] displaying, by the consumer mobile device on the
touchscreen in response to the selection of the verify identity
option, consumer biometric data input instructions concerning
input of at least one form of biometric data;
[8] receiving, by the consumer mobile device from an
authenticator, consumer biometric data in accordance with the
consumer biometric instructions; and
[9] displaying, by the consumer mobile device on the
touchscreen, [9a] a successful identity verification message and
[9b] consumer purchase transaction confirmation information
instructions.

29. A transaction system comprising:
[A] an assurance platform;
[B] an electronic device of a consumer; and
[C] a consumer mobile device of the consumer, the
consumer mobile device operably connected to the assurance
platform, the consumer mobile device comprising [C1] a
touchscreen, [C2] at least one authenticator, [C3] a mobile
device processor and [C4] a storage device, the storage device
storing processor-executable instructions which when executed
cause the mobile device processor to:
[1] receive an input from a consumer via the touchscreen
selecting a consumer identity application;
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

4
[2] receive shopping data in response to the selection of
the consumer identity application concerning a consumer
purchase transaction from the assurance platform, [2a] the
shopping data comprising [2ai] merchant identification
information and [2aii] a transaction amount initiated by the
consumer using the electronic device;
[3] display [3a] the shopping data, [3b] a first option to
close the consumer identity application and [3c] a second
option to launch an authentication application on the
touchscreen;
[4] launch, in response to touchscreen input selecting the
second option, the authentication application;
[5] display, on the touchscreen, a confirmation user
interface comprising [5a] payment card
account information, [5b] a verify identity option and [5c] a
decline option;
[6] receive input selecting [5b] the verify identity option;
[7] display, on the touchscreen in response to the
selection of [5b] the verify identity option, a message
comprising consumer biometric data input instructions
concerning input of at least one form of biometric data;
[8] receive customer biometric data input in accordance
with the consumer biometric instructions from the at least one
authenticator; and
[9] display on the touchscreen [9a] a successful identity
verification message and [9b] consumer purchase transaction
confirmation information instructions.

1. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
The Examiner rejected the claims under § 112(a) as lacking a written
description because the Specification “fails to disclose an algorithm for the
operation of ‘launching’ . . . because the IdentityCheck application is already
running and the Spec. does not disclose any other application.” Ans. 4. In
other words, the Examiner asserts that the launching of the “authentication
application” in step [4] of claim 19 lacks written descriptive support because
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

5
it is already launched and running in step [1] of the claim when the “identity
application” is opened. The Examiner’s position is that there is only one
application disclosed in the Specification, and not both a “consumer identity
application” as in step [1] and “an authentication application” in step [4]. As
explained below, we do not agree.
We begin with claim interpretation to understand what the claims
mean and whether the claim limitations are described in the Specification.
Claim 19 is directed to an authentication process initiated after a
consumer makes a purchase of an item so that the consumer may
authenticate the purchase transaction.
In step [1] of the claim, a consumer selects a “consumer identity
application” from a touchscreen of the consumer’s mobile device. The
consumer identity application, in steps [2] and [3] of the claim, causes the
display of [2a] “shopping data comprising [2ai] merchant identification
information and [2aii] a transaction amount of a consumer purchase
transaction.” The shopping data is received from “an authentication service
platform.” The “consumer purchase transaction” of [2ai] is initiated by the
consumer using an “electronic device.” The electronic device can be the
consumer’s laptop computer which the consumer uses to shop at a website
and place items in a virtual shopping cart. Spec. 7:6–8.
Three items are displayed on the touchscreen of the mobile device:
[2a] the shopping data, [3a] a first option to close the consumer identity
application, and [3b] a second option to launch an authentication application.
We understand the display of these items to be in response to the consumer’s
selection of the “consumer identity application” in step [1] of the claim.
Spec. 7:12–25.
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

6
As explained in the Specification, after the consumer initiates an
electronic transaction at a website to buy items (see claim 19, [2aii]), the
website can direct the user to use the consumer identity application on the
consumer’s mobile device to authenticate the purchase. Spec. 7:8–17. That
is, the consumer shops on a website using their laptop and then authenticates
the purchase on their mobile device.
The Examiner’s rejects the claim as lacking a written description of
the “consumer identity application.” We disagree. The Specification
describes an “IdentityCheck application,” which when selected, causes a
query box to open with [2a] the shopping data, [3a] a first option to close the
consumer identity application, and [3b] a button to launch the authentication
process, the same features recited in step [3] of the claim. The
“IdentityCheck application” described in the Specification corresponds to
the recited “consumer identity application.” The Specification explains
(annotated to reference the limitations in claim 19):
Next, the user utilizes his or her Smartphone and selects the
IdentityCheck application by tapping an IdentityCheck icon
(not shown) on a touch screen 207 [step [1] of claim 19], which
causes a query box 208 to appear on the mobile device display
screen.
. . .
In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 2A, the query
box 208 appearing on the user’s mobile device display screen
includes a question and statement for the user: “Are you
attempting to make a purchase from MasterShop for $20.00?
Please verify your identity.” [shopping data [2a] of claim 19]
Thus, in some implementations information and/or data
regarding the consumer’s shopping cart is pushed to the
consumer’s mobile device for authentication processing
[shopping data [2a] of claim 19]. As shown, the query box 208
also includes a “Close” button 210 [[3a] first option to close the
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

7
consumer identity application] (if the consumer does not wish
to proceed with the purchase) and a “Launch” button 212 [[3b]
a button to launch the authentication process].
Spec. 7:12–24.
The “IdentityCheck application” is the “consumer identity
application” recited in claim 19 because it causes the shopping data [2a] and
first and second options [3a] and [3b] to be displayed on the touch screen.
After the consumer identity application is used to display the [3b]
“authentication application,” the authentication application is selected and
launched in step [4]. A “confirmation interface” of the authentication
application is displayed in step [5] which is used to display “[5a] payment
card account information, [5b] a verify identity option and [5c] a decline
option” to initiate the authentication process. The [5b] “verify identity is
selected on the touchscreen and, in response, “consumer biometric data input
instructions concerning input of at least one form of biometric data” are
received in steps [6] and [7], respectively.
The Examiner rejected the claims as lacking written description,
finding that the authentication application was already launched in step [1]
and therefore could not be launched in step [4] of the claim and that such
embodiment is not described in the Specification. In other words, the
Examiner did not distinguish the “consumer identity application” from the
“authentication application.” The Examiner’s interpretation of the claim as it
would be understood in the context of the Specification is not correct.
The Specification describes a launch button which, when selected,
initiates the authentication application. The Specification describes a
“confirmation interface” associated with the “authentication application.” As
explained in the Specification:
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

8
When the consumer selects the “Launch” button 212, then the
IdentityCheck application initiates and causes a Confirmation
interface screen 214 to appear, which in some embodiments
includes a count-down timer 216 that indicates the time
remaining for the user or consumer to verify his or her identity.
Spec. 7:24–27.
The Specification states that the “Confirmation interface screen 214”
that is launched by button 212 can also include transaction detail
information. Spec. 8:3–7. The Confirmation interface screen 214 includes a
“Verify Identity” button and therefore provides the screen through which the
authentication process is accomplished. Spec. 8:7–29.
We interpret the “authentication application” recited in claim 19 to be
the application which, when launched by launch button 212, results in the
display of the “Confirmation interface screen” that displays the functionality
that enables the authorization process. The Specification therefore describes
both the consumer identity application and authentication application as
recited in the claim. The Examiner therefore erred in finding that the
Specification fails to describe the recited consumer identity application and
authentication application.
The subsequent step [8] of the claim involve receiving the biometric
data which is used to authenticate the purchase. Biometric data can be a
digital photograph of the consumer’s face, voice data, fingerprints, etc.
(Spec. 8: 20–25; 10: 9–11; 11:16–21). The last step of claim is receipt of
“[9a] a successful identity verification message and [9b] consumer purchase
transaction confirmation information instructions.”
For the foregoing reason, we conclude that the Specification provides
a written description of all the steps recited in claim 19. Claim 29 has the
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

9
same limitations as claim 19 and the rejection of it is reversed for the same
reasons.
The written description rejection of claims 19–22, 24, 29, 30, and 34
is reversed.

2. INDEFINITENESS REJECTION
The Examiner rejected the claims as indefinite.
We begin with the indefiniteness rejection of claim 19.
Claim 19 recites “receiving, by a consumer mobile device via a
touchscreen, an input from a consumer selecting a consumer identity
application.” Claim 19 also recites receiving “a transaction amount of a
consumer purchase transaction initiated by the consumer using an electronic
device.” Thus, the claim refers to a “consumer mobile device” and an
“electronic device.”
Claim 29 recites the same steps as claim 19, but also recites a system
that comprises [B] an electronic device of a consumer and [C] a consumer
mobile device of the consumer.
The Examiner appears to be confused by the recitation of the two
devices, stating that the “claims circumscribe both the consumer mobile
device and the electronic device.” Ans. 5.
There is no ambiguity in the claim. The consumer mobile device and
electronic device may be different devices. The electronic device can be a
laptop used to shop at a website for items. Spec. 6:32–7:1. The consumer
mobile device may be separate and is used in the claim to authenticate the
transaction made using the electronic device. Spec. 7:1–17. Even in the
situation where the electronic device represents a browser on the mobile
device and the mobile device has an authentication application, Spec. 10:12–
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

10
30, this is not indefinite, but just broadly recognizes that a mobile
smartphone is one type of electronic device on which the claimed process
may function. Breadth does not mean claims are indefinite. In re Johnson,
558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n. 17 (CCPA 1977). Even “undue breadth is not
indefiniteness.” Id.
The Examiner also complains that the recitation of “a storage device,
the storage device storing processor-executable instructions” has “no metes
and bounds” because, under its definition in the Specification, it can be
“composed” of any type of device and is not limited to “non-transitory”
devices. Ans. 6.
The Specification defines storage device as follows:
Storage devices utilized in the devices and/or system
components described herein may be composed of or be any
type of non-transitory storage device that may store instructions
and/or software for causing one or more processors of such
electronic devices to function in accordance with the novel
aspects disclosed herein.
Spec. 4:21–24.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s reading of the definition of
storage device. The storage device is described in the Specification (1) as
being composed of a non-transitory storage device, or, (2) as being “any
type of non-transitory storage device.” The storage device “may store
instructions and/or software for causing one or more processors of such
electronic devices to function in accordance with the novel aspects disclosed
herein.” In both instances, the device comprises “non-transitory storage”.
The skilled worker would readily understand that the instructions or
software is stored on the “non-transitory” component of the storage device.
In the case of (1) above, the skilled would understand the device can have
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

11
other components as long as it is composed of the “non-transitory”
component or device for storing the instructions and/or software. Thus, we
find no ambiguity in the claim term “storage device” nor what it
encompasses.
The Examiner also found that claims 29 is a “hybrid claim.” Rejecting
the claim as indefinite, the Examiner stated:
[I]t is unclear whether infringement occurs when the consumer
uses the consumer mobile device (“selecting a consumer
identity application [. . .] using the electronic device [. . .]
selecting the second option”), when the consumer starts a
transaction (“a purchase transaction initiated by the consumer”),
or when infringement occurs when the consumer mobile device
is assembled.
Ans. 8.
The claim is not indefinite as asserted by the Examiner. The claim is
reasonably interpreted to comprise the claimed components [A] an assurance
platform, [B] an electronic device of a consumer, and [C] a consumer mobile
device of the consumer. The consumer mobile device is operably connected
to the assurance platform. The consumer mobile device comprises [C1] a
touchscreen, [C2] at least one authenticator, [C3] a mobile device processor
and [C4] a storage device. All of these components are required by the
claim.
The [C4] storage device comprises the instructions for carrying out
recited steps [1]–[9]. The claim does not require these steps be
accomplished; rather, the only requirement is that the storage device
comprises instructions for carrying out the steps.
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

12
The claim, therefore, comprises specific components, where one
component carries instructions for carrying out a recited process. There is no
ambiguity in the scope of the claim.
For the foregoing reasons, the indefiniteness rejection of claims 19–
22, 24, 29, 30, and 34 is reversed.

3. ANTICIPATION
Claim 29 is directed to a transaction system comprising [A] an
assurance platform, [B] an electronic device of a consumer, and [C] a
consumer mobile device of the consumer. The mobile device has a storage
device which stores “processor-executable instructions which when executed
cause the mobile device processor to” carry out the same steps in claim 19.
The Examiner found that the “instructions are functional language and do
not have patentable weight as the claimed machine-readable non-transitory
storage medium merely stores instructions which is inherent to all memory.”
Final Act. 12.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim. The
claim preamble requires the mobile device to comprise “[C1] a touchscreen,
[C2] at least one authenticator, [C3] a mobile device processor and [C4] a
storage device.” The storage device is a part of mobile device that comprises
the processor used to carry out the instructions stored on it.
The Examiner’s rejection appears to be based on Ex parte Jung, 2 but
the claims in this appeal are distinguishable from Jung claims. In Jung, the
claims were directed to a “non-transitory media bearing one or more

2 Ex parte Edward K.Y. Jung, Royce A. Levien, Robert W. Lord, Mark A.
Malamud, and John D. Rinaldo (Appeal 2013-003143; Sept. 28, 2015;
Application No. 12/799,367; Technology Center 2600).
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

13
instructions for facilitating operations.” Ex parte Jung, at 4. The claims were
found to encompass “non-functional descriptive matter because it recites
instructions on non-transitory media without reciting that the non-transitory
media is used or usable with a computer or machine.” Id. The Examiner in
Jung had complained that “‘the scope of the presently claimed non-
transitory media can range from paper on which the program is written, to a
program simply contemplated and memorized by a person.’” The Board
agreed, holding that “claim 95 does not preclude embodiments that are
merely printed instructions on paper, which is a non-transitory medium.” Ex
parte Jung, at 5.
Here, the instructions are required to be on a storage device of mobile
device that comprises the processor that executes these instructions to
perform the method. The storage device is defined in the Specification to
store the instructions in a non-transitory fashion. Spec. 4:21–24. Therefore,
the claim is not defective for the reasons described in Jung because the
instructions, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are limited to
instructions stored on a non-transitory storage device and usable with a
processor; they do not cover the same instructions written on a sheet of
paper or any other media but a storage device that is part of a computer.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 29, 30,
and 34 as anticipated by Chatterjee is reversed.

4, 5, OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
The Examiner found that Chatterjee generally describes steps [2]–[9]
of claim 19, but not the specific steps involved in [1], [2] (displaying the
shopping data in response to the selection of the consumer identity
application), 5c (the “decline option”), and 9a (“successful identity
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

14
verification”). Final Act. 14–15. To meet these deficiencies, the Examiner
cited Li for steps [1] and [2] and Shibata for steps [5c] and [9a]. Final Act.
15. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to modify the
verification screen in Chatterjee with a cancel button (“decline option”) as
described in Shibata to cancel the transaction. Id. The Examiner further
found it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify
Chatterjee to “activate” an application as steps [1] and [2] of the claim to
download the website date on the mobile device. Id. at 15–16.
Appellant argues that steps [1], [2], and [3] of claim 1 are not
described by Chatterjee. Appeal Br. 23. Appellant does not specifically
identify the deficiencies in Chatterjee in the Appeal Brief. Appellant, in the
Reply Brief, Appellant points out that Chatterjee describes a virtual wallet,
but just generally asserts that such wallet does not disclosed the limitations
of claim 19. Reply Br. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred.
The claimed consumer identity application, when selected in step [1]
of claim 19, results in the display of [2a] the shopping data, [3a] a first
option to close the consumer identity application, and [3b] a second option
to launch an authentication application.
Chatterjee describes an “application user interface.” The application
user interface of Chatterjee “may provide an indication of a pay amount due
for the purchase of the product.” Chatterjee 9:34–35. This corresponds to the
claimed shopping data of [2a] of claim 19. The application user interface in
Chatterjee also has an option to launch an authentication application,
“VerifyChat,” as in step [3b] of claim 19. Specifically, Chatterjee teaches:
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

15
FIGS. 3A-C show application user interface diagrams
illustrating example features of a virtual wallet card selection
mobile app for securing user data and preventing fraud in some
embodiments of the VWCS. In some implementations, the app
executing on the user’s device may provide a “VerifyChat”
feature for fraud prevention (e.g., by activating UI element 213
in FIG. 2).
Chatterjee 10:35–41.
The “UI element 213” serves as “[3b] a second option to launch an
authentication application” because it is activated to initiate the verification
process.
For further clarity, the application user interface shown in Figure 2 of
Chatterjee is copied below:

The figure, reproduced above, shows [2a] “shopping data comprising
[2ai] merchant identification information and [2aii] a transaction amount of
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

16
a consumer purchase transaction” at the top of screen, namely (“Merchant:
Acme Technology Store” and the amount of the transaction (“$2,345.67”).
“2 13,” on the bottom right of the screen. The figure also shows an icon 2 13
“VerifyChat” on the bottom right of the screen as for launching the
authentication application. ([3b] of claim 19) (see Fig. 3A of Chatterjee for
an example of the launched authentication application).
Thus, Chatterjee describes an application that displays [2a] and [3b]
of step [3] of claim 19.
The Examiner found that Chatterjee does not describing selecting the
application shown in Figure 2 as required by step [1] and closing it with the
option to close button of [3a]. Final Act. 15. However, the interface
described by Chatterjee is an application that runs on the mobile device, and
it is commonplace that applications that run on mobile phones can be
launched/opened and closed by the user of the device. The Examiner cited Li
¶ 45 to establish this fact (“In one implementation, the data comprises one or
more device-executable actions to be executed by the device. These device-
executable actions may be to open or close an application.”). Based on this
evidence, we agree with the Examiner that it would been obvious to provide
Chatterjee with a button to select the consumer identity application as
required step [1] of the claim and also an option to close it as in step [3a] of
the claim to provide the user with the ability to open and close the
application.
Appellant attempts to distinguish Li by arguing that Li pertains to
geofencing and doesn’t describe any of the specific steps in the claim.
Appeal Br. 25. Appellant also argues that Li is non-analogous art. Id. at 26.
Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

17
Because the Examiner simply relied on Li to show the commonplace
knowledge that applications can be opened and closed, and because
Appellant did not identity a deficiency in Li for what it was actually relied
upon for, we find Appellant’s argument to be unpersuasive. Moreover, the
use of an application on a smartphone in Li is certainly pertinent to how one
might use an application on a smartphone in Chatterjee.
With respect to the rejection of claims 20 and 30 based on Sezille,
Appellant repeats certain limitations in the claim, and states without further
explanation they are not described by Sezille, and that Sezille does not
“cure” the deficiencies in Chatterjee, Shibata, and Li. That is not sufficient
to demonstrate error by the Examiner. We therefore affirm the rejection for
the reasons set forth by the Examiner.
In sum, the obviousness rejection of claim 19, 20, and 30 are affirmed.
Claim 29 has substantially the same limitations as claim 19 and is therefore
affirmed for the same reasons. Claims 21, 22, 24, and 34 were not separately
argued and therefore all with claim 19.

Appeal 2021-000019
Application 14/789,361

18
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19–22, 24,
29, 30, 34
112 Written
Description
19–22, 24,
29, 30, 34
19–22, 24,
29, 30, 34
112 Indefiniteness 19–22, 24,
29, 30, 34
29, 30, 34 102 Chatterjee 29, 30, 34
19, 21, 22,
24, 29, 34
Chatterjee,
Shibata, Li
19, 21, 22,
24, 29, 34

20, 30 Chatterjee,
Shibata, Li, Sezille
20, 30
Overall
Outcome
19, 20–22,
24, 29, 30,
34

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

AFFIRMED