Petit, Rock J. et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 22, 202015136437 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/136,437 04/22/2016 Rock J. Petit CMD 245 9375 22222 7590 01/22/2020 GEORGE R CORRIGAN CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE 2168 COLLADAY POINT DRIVE STOUGHTON, WI 53589 EXAMINER STCLAIR, ANDREW D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/22/2020 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): gcorrigan@new.rr.com george.corrigan@corrigan.pro kari.brekke@corrigan.pro PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROCK J. PETIT, MITCHELL J. HEIN, and PAUL A. SELLE ____________ Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated September 26, 2018, and as further explained in the Advisory Action dated April 8, 2019, rejecting claims 1–11, 20–23, and 30–33. Claims 12–19, 24–29, and 34 have been withdrawn. 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. CMD Corporation (“Appellant”) is the applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 2 BACKGROUND The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to the art of dispensing gaseous fuels to vehicles.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 10, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below, with emphasis added: 1. A gaseous fuel station for filling vehicle tanks with fuel, comprising: a plurality of storage vessels, including a first storage vessel at a first pressure, and a second storage vessel at a second pressure, wherein the first pressure is less than or equal to the second pressure; a plurality of dispensing sub-stations, each dispensing sub-station comprising a dispensing hose, and a control valve; wherein the plurality of dispensing sub-stations includes a first dispensing sub-station that is in controllable fluid communication with each of the first and second storage vessels such that fluid can flow in a first fluid path from each of the first and second storage vessels through the first dispensing sub-station to a vehicle tank, and wherein the dispensing hose, and the control valve of the first dispensing sub-station are in the first fluid path; wherein the plurality of dispensing sub-stations further includes a second dispensing sub-station that is in controllable fluid communication with each of the first and second storage vessels such that fluid can flow in a second fluid path from each of the first and second storage vessels through the second dispensing sub-station to a vehicle tank, and wherein the dispensing hose, and the control valve of the second dispensing sub-station are in the second fluid path; and a controller, connected to receive feedback indicative of a pressure from each of the first and second dispensing sub- stations and to provide control signals to the control valves of the first and second dispensing sub-station to implement a desired fill scheme, wherein the controller includes an output on which usage data is communicated to at least one of a station manager and an offsite location. Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 3 REFERENCES Name Reference Date O’Connor US 5,400,253 Mar. 21, 1995 Cohen US 7,028,724 B2 Apr. 18, 2006 Tiberghien US 8,616,524 B2 Dec. 31, 2013 Mutter US 2002/0053365 A1 May 9, 2002 Graham US 2003/0164202 A1 Sept. 4, 2003 Allidieres US 2009/0151812 A1 June 18, 2009 Uemura US 2010/0307636 A1 Dec. 9, 2010 Mori US 2012/0125482 A1 May 24, 2012 Takata US 2012/0216915 A1 Aug. 30, 2012 Thiessen US 2015/0083273 A1 Mar. 26, 2015 Sasaki Japanese Publication No. 2003- 172497A (and machine translation) June 20, 2003 REJECTIONS 1. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. 3. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mutter, and O’Connor. 4. Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mutter, O’Connor, and Thiessen. 5. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mutter, O’Connor, and Takata. 6. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mutter, O’Connor, and Tiberghien. Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 4 7. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres and Cohen. 8. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Cohen, and Uemura. 9. Claims 20 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sasaki, Mori, and O’Connor. 10. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sasaki, Mori, O’Connor, and Thiessen. 11. Claims 1, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mori, and O’Connor. 12. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mori, O’Connor, and Graham. DISCUSSION Rejections 1 and 2 – The rejections of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b) The Examiner rejected dependent claim 4, finding that its claim language (1) lacks adequate written description support (see Final Act. 2–3) and (2) is indefinite (see id. at 3–4). In an amendment filed February 26, 2019 (i.e., after the Final Office Action on appeal), Appellant proposed revisions to certain language in claim 4 highlighted by the Examiner in these Rejections. Compare Amendment, at 3 (dated Feb. 26, 2019), with Final Act. 2–4. As acknowledged by Appellant in its Appeal Brief, however, the Examiner did not enter the amendment. See Appeal Br. 6 (“Claim 4 was amended after the Final Action, and that amendment was not entered.”); Adv. Act. 2. Appellant does not list these Rejections in the “GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL” and does not present any Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 5 arguments addressing these Rejections. See Appeal Br. 10–13; see generally Reply Br. Under these circumstances, we deem Appellant to have waived any arguments as to these Rejections. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, . . . the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018) (“The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant. Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”). To the extent Appellant requests the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to direct the Examiner to enter the amendment, we cannot grant the requested relief. The refusal by an examiner to enter an amendment filed after a final rejection is a petitionable matter, not one for appeal. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967) (stating that the predecessor to the PTAB “does not consider the issue of whether the examiner’s refusal to enter the proposed amendment after final rejection constituted an abuse of discretion”)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.127 (“From the refusal of the primary examiner to admit an amendment, in whole or in part, a petition will lie to the Director under § 1.181.”). For these reasons, we summarily sustain these Rejections. Rejection 3 – The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 For this Rejection, Appellant argues the patentability of independent claim 1 and does not provide separate arguments for claims 3, 5, 6, and 9, Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 6 which depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 2–3. Thus, we address claim 1, with claims 3, 5, 6, and 9 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For claim 1, the Examiner relied on a combination of Allidieres, Mutter, and O’Connor for the recited limitations, and the Examiner provided reasons to modify Allidieres based on Mutter and based on O’Connor. See Final Act. 4–7. First, Appellant states that claim 1 requires “that the controller ‘receive feedback indicative of a pressure from each of the first and second dispensing sub-stations’” (as recited in the claim language shown with emphasis above), and argues that “[t]his is not found in the prior art.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant contends that “[t]he Examiner relied on [Mutter] for this claimed feature,” but, according to Appellant, Mutter instead “teaches to sense the pressure in the tank of the vehicle being filled, not in the dispensing substation.” Id. In support, Appellant quotes a passage from Mutter describing sensors 32, 33 as “arranged in the vehicle fuel tank 31.” Mutter ¶ 36, quoted at Appeal Br. 12; see also Mutter, Fig. 1 (showing sensors 32, 33 inside tank 31). With this argument, Appellant does not address the rejection as articulated. As clarified in the Answer, the Examiner relied on Allidieres— not Mutter—to satisfy the recited “feedback indicative of a pressure from each of the first and second dispensing sub-stations” in the context of the proposed modified device. Ans. 3. Specifically, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner found that Allidieres teaches that “each sub-station monitors pressure (via pressure sensors 133, 1[43]; figure 1 and paragraph 0035).” Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 7 Final Act. 52; Ans. 3 (stating that Allidieres “accounts for a pressure sensor (133, 1[43]) in each sub-station”). As to this claim language, the Examiner clarifies that “[t]he first substation (13) of Allidieres has a first pressure sensor (133), and the second substation (14) of Allidieres has a second pressure sensor (143).” Ans. 3 (discussing Allidieres, Fig. 1). Second, highlighting a statement in the Final Office Action, Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner was correct - Allidieres . . . does not teach a controller using pressure sensed from a dispensing sub-station to implement a desired control scheme.” Reply Br. 2 (discussing Final Act. 5). According to Appellant, “[w]hile one prior art publication teaches sensing pressure and another teaches controlling a valve[,] nothing teaches a controller that implements a desired fill scheme and receives pressure feedback from the dispensing substations.” Id. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking prior art references individually when the rejection is based on the teachings of a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, as clarified in the Answer, the Examiner generally relies on Mutter “for the teaching of a controller that controls a valve” and generally relies on Allidieres “for a pressure sensor (133, 1[43]) in each sub- station.” Ans. 3. The Examiner states that “[p]roviding a controller to the system of Allidieres for controlling each substation (13, 14), based on the 2 Although the Rejection refers to “pressure sensors 133, 134,” in the Answer, the Examiner clearly references sensors 133 and 143 in Allidieres. See Ans. 3 (“The first substation (13) of Allidieres has a first pressure sensor (133), and the second substation (14) of Allidieres has a second pressure sensor (143).”). Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 8 teaching of Mutter, accounts for the system of claim 1.” Id. Thus, the Examiner relies on the combination of Allidieres and Mutter to address the limitation argued by Appellant. By arguing that neither Allidieres nor Mutter alone teaches all aspects of the limitation at issue, Appellant does not address the rejection as articulated, in which the Examiner relies on certain combined teachings of the prior art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis added)). Third, Appellant argues that “there is no suggestion in the prior art to have a controller that implements a desired fill scheme and receives pressure feedback from the dispensing substations.” Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, Allidieres “suggests two reasons for sensing pressure: 1) to pressurize the storage tanks (¶34); and 2) safety venting (¶35)” and Mutter “does not teach pressure sensing at all.” Id. at 2–3. To the extent this argument is distinct from the prior argument, Appellant contends that the prior art lacks an express “suggestion” to combine the aspects of Allidieres and Mutter relied on by the Examiner. An express teaching, suggestion, or motivation, however, is not a requirement for an obviousness determination. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19 (2007) (holding that when the teaching-suggestion- motivation test is applied as a rigid formula, it is incompatible with Supreme Court precedent). Here, Appellant has not addressed or shown error in the reasoning articulated to modify Allidieres based on Mutter. See Final Act. 6. Moreover, to the extent Appellant asserts error in that the disclosed reasons to sense pressure in Allidieres may not align with the Examiner’s Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 9 stated reasoning, we note that “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mutter, and O’Connor. Claims 3, 5, 6, and 9 fall with claim 1. Rejections 4 through 6 – The rejection of claims 2, 4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 2, 4, 7, and 8 depend from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.). Appellant argues that claims 2, 4, 7, and 8 are allowable based on their dependence from claim 1. See id. at 12 (arguing that “[c]laim 1 (and thus dependent claims 2–9” are allowable (emphasis added)). Appellant does not provide additional arguments for claims 2, 4, 7, and 8. For the reasons above, we are not apprised of error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mutter, and O’Connor. See supra Rejection 3. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mutter, O’Connor, and either Thiessen (Rejection 4), Takata (Rejection 5), or Tiberghien (Rejection 6). Rejections 7 and 8 – The rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Independent claim 10 requires, among other limitations, “a fitting capable of connecting to the vehicle tank and capable of connecting to at least two dispensing substations, whereby the flow into the tank is from at least two dispensing sub stations.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Cohen for this limitation: Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 10 Cohen teaches a fitting (20) capable of connecting to the vehicle tank (column 6, lines 45-47) and capable of connecting to at least two dispensing substations (at 204) (capable of connecting at 204 to two dispensing substations, for example sequentially, by detaching and reattaching at 204), whereby the flow into the tank is from at least two dispensing sub stations (capable of, see figure 4 and MPEP 2114; the system of Cohen is capable of directing flow into the tank from two dispensing sub stations for example sequentially). Final Act. 12. Appellant argues that the term “fitting” in the limitation at issue “is explicitly defined in the specification as [‘]the hardware and/or controller used to effectively combine two or more fluid flow paths to fill one vehicle tank.’” Appeal Br. 13 (quoting Spec. ¶ 138). Appellant states that the Examiner found that certain structure in Cohen “is capable of sequential connection of first one substation and then a second substation,” but Appellant argues, “this does not teach to combine to [sic – two] or more fluid flow paths as required by the claimed fitting.” Id. We agree with Appellant that the Specification here defines the term “fitting” as “the hardware and/or controller used to effectively combine two or more fluid flow paths to fill one vehicle tank.” Spec. ¶ 138. The Examiner takes the position that “the portion of the specification referred to by the Appellant[] is not sufficiently specific to put the public on notice of a special definition.” Ans. 4 (citing MPEP § 2111.01). We disagree. When an applicant acts as a lexicographer, definitions for terms must be set out in a specification “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Specification here provides a “Glossary,” stating that the “following terms used herein have the meaning set forth below.” Spec. ¶ 127. The next Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 11 eighteen paragraphs are an alphabetical list of various terms and what each term “refers to.” Spec. ¶¶ 128–145. The definition of “fitting” relied on by Appellant is in that list. Although the Examiner is correct that “none of the actual claim language uses the term ‘combine’” (Ans. 4), that misses the point. As discussed above, the definition of “fitting” relied on includes the word “combine.” Spec. ¶ 138. On this record, the definition of “fitting” is set forth with sufficient “clarity, deliberateness, and precision” to provide public notice. Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. The statements in paragraph 68 of the Specification, highlighted by the Examiner (Ans. 4), do not undermine this finding. The Examiner does not identify (nor are we independently aware of) any instance in which our reviewing courts have allowed such generalized language to override a specific, express definition of a term. For these reasons, we construe “fitting” in claim 10 in line with the definition provided in paragraph 138 of the Specification. See Reply Br. 3 (arguing that “the word ‘fitting’ must be given the definition explicitly provided in the specification”) (citing MPEP § 2111.01 (IV)(A) (“Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim.”)). The Examiner has not explained how Cohen satisfies the limitation at issue under the proper construction of “fitting” (discussed above). Instead, the Examiner only asserts that Cohen satisfies the limitation at issue under the Examiner’s own construction of “fitting,” which does not overlap with the proper construction. See Final Act. 12 (first full paragraph); Ans. 4–5 (“The coupler shown in figure 3 of Cohen . . . is capable of being connected to two different substations, such as sequentially. . . . Appellant’s Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 12 arguments effectively contend that the claim must be interpreted to require a two-into-one coupler which simultaneously dispenses fluid from two inlets through a single outlet, but the claim language is not nearly so specific.”). For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10, or the rejection of claim 11 (which depends from claim 10) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Rejections 9 and 10 – The rejection of claims 20–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sasaki, Mori, and O’Connor, and rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sasaki, Mori, O’Connor, and Thiessen. Final Act. 13–17. Appellant does not list these Rejections in the “GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL” and does not present any arguments addressing these Rejections. See Appeal Br. 10–13; see generally Reply Br. Appellant also does not list claims 20–23 as “on appeal.” Appeal Br. 5. Under these circumstances, we deem Appellant to have waived any arguments as to these Rejections. See Hyatt, 551 F.3d at 1314; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For these reasons, we summarily sustain these Rejections. Rejection 11 – The rejection of claims 1, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 For this Rejection, Appellant argues the patentability of independent claim 1 and does not provide separate arguments for claims 32 and 33, which depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 2–3. We address claim 1, with claims 32 and 33 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For claim 1, the Examiner relied on a combination of Allidieres, Mori, and O’Connor for the recited limitations, Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 13 and the Examiner provided reasons to modify Allidieres based on Mori and based on O’Connor. See Final Act. 17–20. Appellant argues that the Examiner relied on Mori “as teaching the claimed ‘feedback indicative of a pressure from each of the first and second dispensing sub-stations,’” but, according to Appellant, “Mori teaches to control using tank pressure, not dispensing substation pressure.” Appeal Br. 12–13 (discussing aspects of Mori ¶¶ 32, 61). Like the first argument regarding Rejection 3 (discussed above), this argument does not apprise us of error because Appellant does not address the rejection as articulated. As clarified in the Answer, in the context of this Rejection, the Examiner again relied on Allidieres—not Mori—to satisfy the recited “feedback indicative of a pressure from each of the first and second dispensing sub-stations” in the context of the proposed modified device. Specifically, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner again found that Allidieres teaches that “each sub-station monitors pressure (via pressure sensors 133, 1[43]; figure 1 and paragraph 0035).” Final Act. 18; id. (stating that Allidieres “accounts for a pressure sensor (133, 1[43]) in each sub- station”). As to this claim language, the Examiner again clarifies that “[t]he first substation (13) of Allidieres has a first pressure sensor (133), and the second substation (14) of Allidieres has a second pressure sensor (143).” Ans. 3 (discussing Allidieres, Fig. 1); see also id. at 4 (relying on the remarks on page 3 to address Rejection 11). Moreover, to the extent Appellant relies on the arguments in the Reply Brief (characterized as the second and third arguments in the context of Rejection 3) in the context of this Rejection, for reasons similar to those discussed above, we are not apprised of error based on those arguments. For Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 14 these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mori, and O’Connor. Claims 32 and 33 fall with claim 1. Rejection 12 – The rejection of claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner rejected claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mori, O’Connor, and Graham. Final Act. 20– 21. Appellant does not list this Rejection in the “GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL.” See Appeal Br. 10–13; see generally Reply Br. Appellant does assert, however, that claims 30 and 31 are allowable based on their dependence from claim 1. See id. at 12 (arguing that “[c]laim 1 (and thus dependent claims . . . 30–33” are allowable (emphasis added)). Appellant does not provide additional arguments for claims 30 and 31. For the reasons above, we are not apprised of error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mori, and O’Connor. See supra Rejection 11. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allidieres, Mori, O’Connor, and Graham. CONCLUSION We affirm in part the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11, 20–23, and 30–33. More specifically, we (1) affirm the decision to reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), (2) affirm the decision to reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), (3) affirm the decision to reject claims 1–9, 20–23, and 30–33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and (4) reverse the decision to reject claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2019-005103 Application 15/136,437 15 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 4 112(a) Written Description 4 4 112(b) Indefiniteness 4 1, 3, 5, 6, 9 103 Allidieres, Mutter, O’Connor 1, 3, 5, 6, 9 2, 4 103 Allidieres, Mutter, O’Connor, Thiessen 2, 4 7 103 Allidieres, Mutter, O’Connor, Takata 7 8 103 Allidieres, Mutter, O’Connor, Tiberghien 8 10 103 Allidieres, Cohen 10 11 103 Allidieres, Cohen, Uemura 11 20, 23 103 Sasaki, Mori, O’Connor 20, 23 21, 22 103 Sasaki, Mori, O’Connor, Thiessen 21, 22 1, 32, 33 103 Allidieres, Mori, O’Connor 1, 32, 33 30, 31 103 Allidieres, Mori, O’Connor, Graham 30, 31 Overall Outcome 1–9, 20–23, 30–33 10, 11 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation