PharmaSeq, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2021

2019005464 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 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.
14/631,321 02/25/2015 Wlodek Mandecki PHSQ011 6055
39731 7590 02/02/2021
Moser Taboada / Art Jackson
1030 BROAD STREET, SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
SHALABY, MINA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2021 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WLODEK MANDECKI, EFRAIN RODRIGUEZ,
ROBERT PATTI, and IOANNIS KYMISSIS

Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, 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 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, 14–16, 18 and 20–25.
Claims 5, 10, 13, 17, and 19 are cancelled. 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
PharmaSeq, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to data collection and communication systems
and, more particularly, to an all optical identification and sensor system with
power on discovery. Spec. ¶ 2. Appellant summarizes the invention as an
optical identification and sensor system that powers on with a first light
beam and substantially simultaneously with discovery, transmits data via a
second light beam. Appellant refers to this system as an all-optical micro-
transponder (“OMTP”). The OMTP may be configured for implantation in a
single cell and an OMTP reader for communicating with the OMTP, where
the OMTP may gather data from within the cell and transmit the data to a
remote reader. Spec. ¶ 7. Claim 1, reproduced below is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An optical integrated circuit comprising:
an optical transmitter configured for sending a data signal
to an external optical receiving device; and
one or more photovoltaic power sources powered by
receiving light from a light source, said one or more photovoltaic
power sources necessary and sufficient to power the optical
transmitter;
one or more logic circuits and memory coupled to the
optical transmitter for transmitting data comprising identification
data for the integrated circuit;
wherein the integrated circuit is configured to concurrently
receive from the light source (a) a synchronization signal and (b)
power from the light source; and
wherein the integrated circuit comprises a clock extraction
function configured to extract a clock from the synchronization
signal to establish a data rate frequency for transmitting the data.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

3
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kantrowitz et al. US 2005/0258939 A1 Nov. 24, 2005
Potyrailo et al. US 2008/0012577 A1 Jan. 17, 2008
Funada US 2008/0025729 A1 Jan. 31, 2008
O’Connor US 2008/0030305 A1 Feb. 7, 2008
Tidhar US 8,103,167 B2 Jan. 24, 2012
REJECTIONS3
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, and 20–25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a), for lack of written description. Final Act. 2–3.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), for improper
dependent form. Final Act. 3–4.
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kantrowitz, O’Connor, and Funada. Final Act. 4–7.
Claims 11, 12, 14–16, 18, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kantrowitz, O’Connor, Funada,
and Tidhar. Final Act. 7–10.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kantrowitz, O’Connor, Funada, and Potyrailo. Final Act. 10–11.

2 All citations herein to the references are to the first named inventor/author
only.
3 The headings associated with the various claim rejections in the final
Office Action are incorrect. We identify the claim rejections based on the
claims substantively addressed by the Examiner in the body of each
rejection.
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

4
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the limitation “one or
more photovoltaic power sources necessary and sufficient to power the
optical transmitter,” as recited in the independent claims 1 and 21, lack
support in the Specification?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the limitation
“wherein the integrated circuit does not have an RF antenna” as recited in
the dependent claim 23, lacks support in the Specification?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being in improper dependent form?
Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in determining Funada is
analogous art to the claimed invention?
Fifth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kantrowitz, O’Connor, and Funada teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation “wherein the optical transmitter for transmitting data comprises an
LED,” as recited in claim 3?
Sixth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references
teach or suggest the limitations of “one or more separate pieces of silicon,”
as recited in claims 9 and 21?
Seventh Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Tidhar, relied upon
in rejecting claims 11, 12, 14–16, 18, 20, 22, and 23, is analogous art to the
claimed invention?
Eighth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kantrowitz, O’Connor, Funada, and Tidhar teaches or suggests “a laser light
source powering the photovoltaic power source,” as recited in claim 11?
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

5
Ninth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kantrowitz, O’Connor, Funada, and Tidhar teaches or suggests “powering at
least one photovoltaic cell of the optical integrated circuit,” as recited in
claim 16?
Tenth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kantrowitz, O’Connor, Funada, and Tidhar teaches or suggests “wherein the
laser light source is modulated for simultaneously providing energy and
synchronization signals,” as recited in claim 12?
Eleventh Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Kantrowitz,
O’Connor, Funada, and Potyrailo to arrive at the invention as recited in
dependent claim 25?
ANALYSIS
First Issue—Written Description of Independent Claims
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, and 20–25
for lack of written description. Final Act. 2. Specifically, the Examiner
finds the Specification lacks support for the limitation “one or more
photovoltaic power sources necessary and sufficient to power the optical
transmitter” as recited in independent claims 1 and 21. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner finds the Specification is silent about whether other sources of
power are used to supply power to the transmitter or if sufficient power is
supplied by the photovoltaic power sources. Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because paragraphs 2–5, 7, 21,
23, 25, 26, 35, 38, 44, 47, 48, 56, 57, and Figures 1 and 1B of the
Specification support the limitations at issue and describe that the
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

6
photovoltaics provide the power necessary and sufficient to power the
optical transmitter. Appeal Br. 6–11. We agree with Appellant.
Paragraph 2 of the Specification describes the invention is to “an all
optical identification and sensor system with power on discovery.” The
Specification further describes that the OMTP is “typically powered on
when illuminated with an excitation beam 132 from the OMTP reader 102.
In embodiments, the OMTP 104 is not reliant on battery energy storage, RF,
or inductive power transfer to be powered.” Spec ¶ 21.
The disclosures identified by Appellant demonstrate that power is
delivered via light energy and not from other, external sources. Moreover,
there are no embodiments in the Specification where power is delivered
from anything other than light energy. These descriptions are, therefore,
sufficient to show possession by the inventor of the “necessary and
sufficient” limitation of the claims. As such, we are persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims for lack of written description.
Second Issue—Written Description of Claim 23
The Examiner rejects claim 23 for lack of written description, finding
the limitation “wherein the integrated circuit does not have an RF antenna”
lacks support in the specification. Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Specification describe the
shortcomings of RFID prior art including the detrimental impact of antennae
size on miniaturization. Appeal Br. 12. We agree with Appellant.
The portions of the Specification cited by Appellant detail the
limitations and drawbacks of using RFID in tagging small objects. Based on
the description of these drawbacks, it would have been apparent to a person
of ordinary skill in the art that the invention would be employed in such a
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

7
way as to avoid the drawbacks associated with RFID. As such, we agree
with Appellant that this disclosure is sufficient to show possession on the
part of the inventor for an invention that does not have an RF antenna, and
we do not sustain the written description rejection of claim 23.
Third Issue—Improper Dependent Form of Claim 22
The Examiner rejects claim 22 for being in improper dependent form
for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it
depends, because the claim depends from itself. Final Act. 3–4. That is, the
Examiner rejects the claim because claim 22 recites that it depends from
claim 22.
Appellant concedes that there is a typographical error in claim 22, and
it was intended to depend from claim 21. Appeal Br. 12. We affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under U.S.C. § 112(d).
Fourth Issue—Whether Funada is Analogous Art
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combination of
Kantrwitz, O’Connor, and Funada. The Examiner finds that Kantrowitz
teaches most of the limitations of claim 1, but “does not expressly teach that
the power source is a photovoltaic power source and a clock extraction
function configured to extract a clock from the synchronization signal to
establish a data rate frequency for transmitting the data.” Final Act. 4. The
Examiner relies on Funada as teaching a clock extraction function
configured to extract a clock from the synchronization signal.” Final Act. 6.
The Examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
establish the tramsit data rate of the transceiver based on the
clock extracted from the received signal, as taught by Funada, in
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

8
the modified circuit of Kantrowitz to facilitate variable
distribution of the available bandwidth downstream/upstream
and thus efficient bandwidth utilization.
Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Funada is improper
because it constitutes non-analogous art. More specifically, Appellant
argues:
The Funada device always has an external electrical
signal TxE1 that it seeks to send forward as an optical signal
TxO. All clock functions are about modulating the output that
forwards this external electrical signal. This is not at all the
identification data stored in the claimed optical integrated
circuit.
These major differences in the focus and field of Funada
mean that it is clearly non-analogous art.
Appeal Br. 14, 16; see also Reply Br. 7.
We are not persuaded of error. A reference is analogous art if it
satisfies one of two separate tests: (1) the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor's endeavor, the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d
436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA
1979)).
The Examiner cites to Funada as teaching a clock extractor that
extracts a clock from the optical signal received and adjust the transmission
rate of the data. Final Act. 6.
We observe that both Funada and Appellant’s invention can be fairly
characterized as being in the field of optical signal transmission and optical
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

9
communication, which satisfies the first prong of the analogous art test.
Even assuming that Funada was not in the same field of endeavor (due to
Funada’s application of optical signal transmission to telecommunications
instead of tagging of microscopic devices), Funada satisfies the second test
for analogous art—that the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem
faced by the inventor. The Specification describes that “there is a need in
the art for an optical identification and sensor system with power on
discovery that transmits data wirelessly to a data processor, able to be
directly embedded within a cell.” Spec. ¶ 6 (emphasis added). Funada
addresses synchronization of optical signals. Funada Abstract.
We agree with the Examiner that Funada’s approach to synchronizing
optical signals would reasonably have commended itself to the inventor’s
attention because signal synchronization is beneficial to optical sensor
systems, such as those claimed by Appellant. See Ans. 16 (“Assuming that
Fun[a]da is not in the field of Applicant’s endeavor, it is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the Appellant was concerned
(i.e., synchronization of the optical signal).”).
Accordingly, the Examiner has not erred in finding a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Kantrowitz,
O’Connor, and Funada to arrive at the invention as recited in independent
claims 1 and 21, and also in dependent claim 22.
Fifth Issue—Dependent Claim 3
In rejecting claims 3, 9, and 21, the Examiner finds Kantrowitz,
Funada and O’Connor teach the limitations of claim 3, with O’Connor
specifically teaching or at least suggesting “wherein the optical transmitter
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

10
for transmitting data comprises an LED.” Final Act. 6 (citing O’Conner
¶ 31); Ans. 15.
Explaining the pertinence of O’Connor, the Examiner notes that “[t]he
claim merely discloses that the optical transmitter comprises an LED. A
teaching of an optical transmitter comprises an LED is sufficient to
[disclose] the claimed limitation.” Ans. 15.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Paragraph [0031] relates
to a reader and not to a transmitter. Appeal Br. 15.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner cites to O’Connor for
teaching an LED – not an optical transmitter. The Examiner cites to
Kantrowitz for teaching an optical transmitter. Final Act. 4. As such,
Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the findings made by the
Examiner, and we sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Sixth Issue—Claims 9 and 21 (“one or more pieces of silicon”)
Independent claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the optical
transmitter is formed of one or more pieces of silicon, and at least one
photovoltaic power source is formed of one or more separate pieces of
silicon.” Similarly, claim 9, which depends from claim 1, recites the same
limitation. The Examiner finds these limitations obvious over the teachings
of O’Connor. Final Act. 7 (citing O’Connor ¶¶ 31, 41).
Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because although the cited
portions of O’Connor teach an LED positioned on a silicon, the LED in
O’Connor is part of an optical reader and not an optical transmitter as
claimed. Appeal Br. 15–16.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner relies on O’Connor as
demonstrating that it was known for photovoltaic power sources to be
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

11
formed of separate pieces of silicon. As noted above in connection with
claim 3, the Examiner cites Kantrowitz as teaching the claimed “optical
transmitter.” Kantrowitz demonstrates that it was known to use silicon
substrates (see Kantrowitz claim 21) in connection with optical transmitters,
and O’Connor demonstrates that it was known for photovoltaic materials to
be positioned on a silicon substrate (O’Connor ¶ 41). Taken together, we
agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to form the optical transmitter of Katrowitz on silicon, and
then have a separate power source silicon substrate as taught by O’Connor.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error with respect to claims 9 and 21,
and we sustain their rejection. Id.
Seventh Issue—Tidhar as Analogous Art
The Examiner rejects claims 11, 12, 14–16, 18, 20, 22, and 23 as
being obvious over Kantrowitz, O’Connor, Funada, and Tidhar. Appellant
challenges the Examiner’s reliance on Tidhar because it is “clearly non-
analogous art.” Appeal Br. 17. More specifically, Appellant argues that
“Tidhar was filed for the benefit of a defense contractor and relates to ‘free
space optical’ (FSO) communication systems” and that it “discusses the
problem of wide field of view optical transmitters.” Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant further argues “[t]he photodetectors cited by the Office in the
Answer are photodiodes, i.e., optimized for light detection, not for energy
collection further indicating that the FSO system is non-analogous.” Reply
Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Appellant
does not adequately explain why Tidhar does not satisfy either prong of the
analogous art test. As the Examiner correctly explains, Tidhar is reasonably
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

12
pertinent to problems associated with interrogating optical signals. Ans. 17.
Appellant argues that “use of a laser in a FSO communication system is not
reasonably pertinent to triggering an optical transponder with a laser.”
Reply Br. 9. However, Appellant does not explain why this is so. Without
such an explanation, this argument amounts to only an unsupported assertion
that Tidhar is not analogous art. Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner
erred in relying on Tidhar as analogous art.
Eighth Issue—Dependent Claim 11
Appellant also argues separately for patentability of dependent
claim 11, which recites in part “an optical reader comprising a laser light
source.” The Examiner relies on Tidhar as teaching this limitation. Final
Act. 8 (citing Tidhar Figs. 1, 2). Appellant argues that “the Office has not
provided a valid citation reciting a laser” (Appeal Br. 17) ostensibly because
Tidhar is not analogous art. Because we disagree with Appellant that Tidhar
is non-analogous art, we are not persuaded of error, and we sustain the
rejection of claim 11.
Ninth Issue—Dependent Claim 16
Claim 16 recites a communication method between an optical
integrated circuit and optical reader that includes “powering at least one
photovoltaic cell of the optical integrated circuit.” The Examiner finds this
limitation taught by O’Connor. Ans. 17 (citing O’Connor ¶ 37, Fig. 3).
Appellant argues “there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art
(including O’Connor) of powering [an] optical transmitter with one or more
photovoltaic cells.” Appeal Br. 17. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument because O’Connor’s photovoltaic module 302, which receives and
transforms the incoming light into electrical energy used to provide power to
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

13
the tag 106, teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation. See
O’Connor, Fig. 3, ¶ 0037; Ans. 17. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has
not erred in rejecting claim 16.
Tenth Issue—Dependent Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 11, and recites the limitation “wherein
the laser light source is modulated for simultaneously providing energy and
synchronization signals to the optical integrated circuit.” The Examiner
finds this limitation obvious because “Kantrowitz et al. teaches in FIG. 1 and
paragraph [0019] that both power 5, 6 and signal 4 are derived from
incoming optical energy 2. Final Act. 9.
Appellant argues that the rejection is in error because “nothing in
Kantrowitz teaches or suggests that the signal 4 is a synchronization signal.”
Appeal Br. 17.
In the Answer, the Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument,
stating that Kantrowitz teaches the claimed synchronization signal because a
“[s]ynchronization signal is reasonably interpreted to mean a signal carrying
information.” Ans. 18.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts the Examiner’s interpretation is
unreasonably broad because it is divorced from the word “synchronization”
and the context provided in the Specification. Reply Br. 9.
We agree that the Examiner’s interpretation of “synchronization
signal,” as encompassing any signal carrying information is unreasonably
broad. The Examiner’s interpretation effectively reads the word
“synchronization” out of the claim, as all signals can be reasonably
characterized as carrying information. At the same time, we do not discern
in the portions of the Specification cited by Appellant any specific definition
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

14
of “synchronization signal.” Nevertheless, from the context of the
Specification, it seems reasonably clear that the “synchronization signal”
relates to timing of operations that are performed in the system. We agree
with Appellant that Kantrowitz’s signal 4 is not described as being related to
timing. Nevertheless, we buttress the Examiner’s findings by finding that
O’Connor also describes the use of synchronization signals. O’Connor ¶ 49
(“An example of synchronization is to use an encoding of the data on the
carrier signal that is DC balanced whereby the reader 102 and the tag
receiver 106 can be phase locked.”). As such, we are not persuaded that the
prior art fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 12.
Eleventh Issue—Dependent Claim 25
The Examiner rejects claim 25 as obvious over Kantrowitz,
O’Connor, Funada, and Potyralio. Final Act. 10. Claim 25 recites:
A method of operating an integrated circuit of claim 4,
comprising embedding the integrated circuit in a biological cell
and remotely obtaining therefrom environmental data from the
sensor.
The Examiner finds that Kantrowitz, O’Connor, and Funada teach the
integrated circuit of claim 4, but do not teach a method of operating an
integrated circuit comprising “embedding the integrated circuit in a
biological cell and remotely obtaining therefrom environmental data from
the sensor.” Final Act. 10. The Examiner introduces Potyralio, finding that
it teaches a container for an integrated circuit that is a “single biological
cell” that includes a sensor for obtaining data. Final Act. 10–11.
Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because
Potyrailo concerns wired or radio-in, radio-out device, with the
radio device taking power from the radio signal. Nothing in
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

15
Potyrailo discloses or suggests the desirability of utilizing light-
in, light-out, and fully powered photovoltaics in the device.
Appeal Br. 18.
In response, the Examiner states finds that the “embedding” step is
merely an intended use, and not entitled to patentable weight:
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must
result in a structural difference between the claimed invention
and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed
invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable
of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Ans. 18.
We are persuaded of error. As an initial matter, we do not agree with
the Examiner that the claimed “embedding” step is an intended use.
Although written in an unorthodox fashion, claim 25 is a method claim, and
the “embedding” step is a method step that must be performed to infringe the
claim. The claim is unorthodox in that it also requires that the method step
be performed by a specific structure—the integrated circuit recited in
claim 4. The Examiner appears to interpret the claim as a device claim with
the method reciting its intended use. However, this interpretation is
incorrect, as the preamble of the claim unambiguously states that the claim is
to a “method of operating an integrated circuit.”
We agree with Appellant that Potyralio’s statement that its device
could be integrated into a “single biological cell” is insufficient to show
obviousness. As correctly noted by Appellant, Potyralio’s device is a “wired
or radio-in, radio-out device, with the radio device taking power from the
radio signal.” Reply Br. 9. Thus, the device incorporated by Potyralio into a
single cell differs significantly from the light powered optical circuit claimed
by Appellant. The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

16
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to use the modified circuit of Kantrowitz in [a] biological cell
because it merely amounts to selection of expedients known to the artisan of
ordinary skill as design choices.” Final Act. 11. The Examiner does not
provide any explanation for why or how a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified Kantrowitz so that it would be possible to embed it in
a cell. Potyralio teaches that RFID tags are embeddable in biological cells.
It provides no suggestion, however, that an optical circuit, such as the optical
circuit taught by Kantrowitz, could be used in the same way. Accordingly,
we are persuaded the Examiner has failed to sufficiently explain how the
teachings of the cited references render obvious the “embedding” limitation
of claim 25, and we do not sustain its rejection.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12,
14–16, 18 and 20–24 under 112(a), for lack of written description.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(d), for improper dependent form.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–9, 21, and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kantrowitz, O'Connor,
and Funada.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11, 12, 14–16, 18,
20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kantrowitz,
O'Connor, Funada and Tidhar.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kantrowitz, O'Connor, Funada
and Potyrailo.
Appeal 2019-005464
Application 14/631,321

17
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, 14–16, 18 and 20–24 on appeal, the
decision to reject these claims is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–9,
11, 12, 14–
16, 18, 20–
25
112(a) Written description 1–4, 6–9,
11, 12, 14–
16, 18, 20–
25
22 112(d) Improper
dependent form
22
1–4, 6–9,
21, 24
103 Kantrowitz,
O’Connor, Funada
1–4, 6–9,
21, 24

11, 12, 14–
16, 18, 20,
22, 23
103 Kantrowitz,
O’Connor, Funada,
Tidhar
11, 12, 14–
16, 18, 20,
22, 23

25 103 Kantrowitz,
O’Connor, Funada,
Potyrailo
25
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–9,
11, 12, 14–
16, 18, 20–
24
25

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