RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 20, 20212020004900 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2021) 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. 15/651,521 07/17/2017 Rajesh Sur R60999 11860US.1 (1449.0) 2627 26158 7590 10/20/2021 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP ATTN: IP DOCKETING P.O. BOX 7037 ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/20/2021 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): BostonDocket@wbd-us.com IPDocketing@wbd-us.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAJESH SUR Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, 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 1–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a video analytics camera system for an aerosol delivery device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An aerosol delivery device comprising: a cartridge of aerosol precursor composition; and a control body coupled or coupleable to the cartridge, the control body including a control component configured to control delivery of components of the aerosol precursor composition in response to detection of airflow through at least a portion of the cartridge or control body, and including a camera system with a digital camera configured to capture video imagery of a scene in a field of view thereof, wherein the camera system or the control component is configured to perform video content analytics on the video imagery to detect a temporal or spatial event in the scene, and transfer information indicative of the temporal or spatial event externally to a computing device to cause the computing device to perform at least one control operation based on the information. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Watkins US 6,536,746 B2 Mar. 25, 2003 Phillips et al. US 2006/0270421 A1 Nov. 30, 2006 REJECTIONS Claims 1–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 3 matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 3–11 and 15–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020). Claims 1–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Watkins. OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) The Examiner finds that the claims do not set forth “[w]hat are the particular necessary components of the apparatus? How do they cooperate? What component(s) contain a processor and by what particular algorithms is it converted to a special purpose processor?” Final Act. 2. The Examiner further “suggests clarifying the claims as to the particular invention and particular problem in the art that it aims to solve. An aerosol delivery device that does not deliver aerosol but is directed to controlling lights or evaluating a parking situation [in the dependent claims] creates a serious lack of clarity in the claim language.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner also rejects claims 1–24 and finds that claims 1–12 are directed to “wherein the camera system or the control component is configured to ... perform video content analytics ... detect the temporal or spatial event that is a number of people in a room ... ,” however it is not clear whether this language is intended to limit the structure of the camera system, to limit the structure of the control component, to represent an Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 4 intended use language within the wherein clause (see claim construction below), or simply to indicate that the video content analysis is generic to camera systems and control components and thus does not represent a material limitation on the structure. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner wants Appellant to clarify which structure in the claimed device is capable of performing video processing and how it is particularly limited. Final Act. 5–7. The Examiner does not make specific findings regarding claims 13– 24, but we interpret the Examiner’s rejection to parallel those made for claims 1–12. Final Act. 5–7. The Examiner also finds claims 1–12 as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections and finds the claims seem to recite generic optical control system components (camera system, control component) and then simply state an intended result (wherein the camera system or the control component is configured to perform video content analytics ... to cause at least one control operation) without limitation to any processing capability or algorithms to be implemented. Final Act. 6. We disagree with the Examiner and find the functionality for processing is implied in the recited claim elements although they do not parallel specifically with the underlying disclosure, but we find the claims to be broad rather than indefiniteness based upon the Examiner’s analysis. The Examiner also rejects claims 3–11 and 15–23 as directed to: “the temporal or spatial event is a number of people in a room ... the temporal or spatial event is a person in an environment with an electric light ... the Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 5 temporal or spatial event is a person or number of people in an environment ... the temporal or spatial event in the scene is an open one of the parking spaces ...” however the claims fail to define how these descriptions (people, lighting, parking spaces) identify a temporal event. Final Act. 6–7 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further questions the scope of “temporal or spatial events” as a claim limitation for claim 7 where “the temporal or spatial event that is a person,” and the term “event” indicates some change in status, however a person is an object and does not by itself indicate a change in status. Ans. 15. We disagree with the Examiner and agree with Appellant that a person can be a spatial event under the alternative claim language. We disagree with the Examiner and find that a person in a room may be a “spatial event,” which is one of the two recited alternatives and further limits the claim. The Examiner questions the how the person limits the “temporal” alternative in the claim, but the “spatial” event rather than the “temporal” event is limited and therefore the claim is not indefinite. The Examiner also rejects claims 3–11 and 15–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections where claims 3–11 and 15–23 modify “[a]n aerosol delivery device” and “[a] control body of an aerosol delivery device,” to perform image and video analysis and to control a heating or cooling system, a lighting system, an alert notification system, a hazard detection and alert system, a facial detection system, and a parking detection system. Ans. 2–5 (emphasis omitted); Final Act. 5–7. The Examiner finds the claims omit a structural relationship between the claimed Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 6 aerosol delivery device and the systems in the dependent claims which indicate features of a video processor (not claimed) and not directed to an aerosol delivery device. Ans. 2–5; Final Act. 5–7. The Examiner suggests either claiming a coherent device with complete cooperative relationships between its elements of the aerosol delivery functionally connected to a video content processor), or electing a particular one of the devices (aerosol delivery or video content processor) that Applicant wants to particularly claim. Ans. 2–5; Final Act. 5–7. The Examiner also rejects the claims for an omission amounting to a gap in the necessary structural connections where the Examiner finds the dependent claims are directed to features of the disclosed video processor which is not claimed rather than the claimed aerosol delivery device. Although we agree with the Examiner that the claims are unusual in this aspect, the dependent claims do further limit the claimed aerosol delivery device by limiting the detection of airflow and communication elements rather than the aerosol delivery. If the Examiner’s intent was to question how the underlying disclosed invention that corresponds to the functionally claimed limitations (under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 (b) and (f)) processes the data or performs the communication, that is not a question for structural indefiniteness of the claims, but rather a written description or enablement rejection or a rejection based upon functional claim language and the corresponding structure, acts, or materials.2 We disagree with the Examiner and find the claims recite functional limitations rather than structural limitations, and the functional claim 2 We leave it to the Examiner to further evaluate the written description, enablement, and functional claiming under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 (b) and (f) in any further prosecution on the merits. Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 7 language is sufficient to achieve the recited functions as long as there is sufficient corresponding functional support in the Specification for the claimed limitations. Appellant argues that the claim recites the “camera system” or the “control component” is configured to perform video content analytics and “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not consider this inclusive or language unclear” where the Specification fully supports the claim language. Appeal Br. 4. We agree with Appellant and find that the use of alternative language in this instance does not make the claim unclear or indefinite, but merely makes the claim broader under the application of prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.3 3 The Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) seem to imply that the Examiner questions the written description support or the enablement of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), but the Examiner did not make a rejection under this basis. Nor did the Examiner reject the claim as directed to functional claim language under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), which would combine interpretations of the claim language in light of the broad disclosure in the Specification to carry out the recited functions in the claim language. We note that the disclosure is at a high level with little to no detail regarding the “video content analytics” in the Specification or other incorporated material and merely identifies three different cameras that may be used, but little detail regarding the "video content analytics." We leave it to the Examiner to further consider this in any further prosecution on the merits and note that if the 3 cameras contain the commercially available camera and video processing software as prior art, the Examiner should consider them in any further prosecution and prior art rejections. We further note that no specific detail regarding these 3 camera models by Analog Devices evidence a small profile camera and processing circuitry suitable for an aerosol delivery device, which would be controlled in response to airflow as in a smoking article/delivery device. (See “ADIS 1700x video analytics camera from Analog Devices. Other examples of a suitable camera system Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 8 Appellant further argues that Claims 1–12 recite “video content analytics” as a material function, and the claims do not omit a structural relationship. Appeal Br. 5. We agree with Appellant that the issue is the breath of the claims, and we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether there is sufficient corresponding structure for the “video content analytics” and whether the Specification contains any details of any algorithm to perform the claimed “video content analytics” functionality. Appellant also argues that the claims sufficiently describe types of temporal or spatial events that are detected in the scene, wherein the scene is sufficiently described in the independent claims with respect to “a camera system with a digital camera configured to capture video imagery of a scene in a field of view thereof.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Appellant also argues the dependent claims further describe the temporal or spatial event that is detected in the scene. Appeal Br. 6. We agree with Appellant that the claims are drafted in alternative language, which provides alternative interpretations with respect to any prior art rejections. Moreover, we do not agree with the Examiner that the claim language omits structural elements or relationships, but set forth the claim language in alternative embodiments. The Examiner finds that where Appellant omits structural limitations or relationships in the claims, the Specification does not remedy this omission. Ans. 12. The Examiner also notes that Appellant states a conclusion that the scope of the claim limitation would be known without include Blackfin® Low Power Imaging Platform (BLIP) systems and BLIP2 systems from Analog Devices.”) See generally Spec. 17. Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 9 analysis of the claim language, which includes the “wherein” clause combined with functional language “configured to perform video content analytics,” but specifically omits making limitations to using a processor which would allow such configurability. Ans. 12. The Examiner further finds that the Specification discloses the use of a powerful processor to perform the claimed “video content analytics,” but a separate processor structure is not claimed where this ambiguity in the claim language, as a point of novelty yet seem to require a processor as a matter of operability and understanding in the art. This ambiguity is indefiniteness. Ans. 12–13. We disagree with the Examiner and find this to be directed to the breath of claims. (See footnote 3.) The Examiner further questions “whether the ‘wherein’ clause limits the claim to including a structure of a processor (to allow camera system or controller to be configured), or whether it simply states an intended (and thus non-limiting) use of the aerosol delivery device.” Ans. 13. Although we agree with the Examiner’s analysis of the claimed invention, we do not agree that it makes the claims structurally unclear, but rather that the claims are broad with the use of the alternative language and by not reciting any specific structure to carry out the recited functions beyond the two alternatives claim elements. Consequently, the Examiner would be entitled to a broad yet reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention as interpreted in light of the broad written description in the Specification having a similar broad scope. Rather, the Examiner’s commentary seems more appropriate for a rejection based upon “functional” claim language rather than “structural” limitations in the written description or a lack of enabling description of a Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 10 structure to carry out the recited functions. The Examiner has not made such a rejection in the instant prosecution and we make no findings regarding the written description or enablement and the corresponding to the functional support for the claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 (b) and (f ).4 As discussed above, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejections based upon the use of alternative language and based upon the lack of structural elements or necessary elements in the claim language. We leave it to the Examiner to further consider the functional claim limitations and the corresponding disclosure in the Specification and whether there is disclosure of the specific algorithms to perform the claimed “video content analytics” or whether the specific algorithms are commercial off-the-shelf (“COTS”) software merely used in combination with a prior art commercially available aerosol delivery device as the supporting disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 1035 Appellant argues the independent claims together. Appeal Br. 7–10. We select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim for the group and find that independent claim 13 recites similar limitations to claim 1. 4 We further note that a “camera” or “control component” does not traditionally have the functional capability to perform the recited functions of “video content analytics,” as claimed. 5 Although we agree with the Appellant that the combination of the Phillips and Watkins references does not teach or suggest the claimed invention, we find the claims are as broad as using commercial off-the-shelf (“COTS”) software for video processing in combination with an aerosol delivery device and commercial off-the-shelf communication software to communicate and using commercial off-the-shelf software to control and Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 11 Appellant argues that, in the Phillips reference, the cited paragraphs do not teach the claim language, and paragraph 136 provides no teaching of performing “video content analytics,” and paragraph 118 teaches a separate location services facility that may analyze images received from a portable electronic facility 300 (which may be a mobile electronic device; see FIG. 3). Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant further argues that even if the analysis of images in paragraph 118 is considered a type of “video content analytics,” the Phillips reference teaches the images are analyzed by a location services facility, which is separate from the portable electronic facility 300. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 8–9. Appellant argues that the cited portions of the Phillips reference do not teach “video content analytics” performed by the portable electronic facility 300 (which the Office contends maps to the claimed aerosol delivery device) and therefore does not teach the “video content analytics” performed by the aerosol delivery device. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 8–9. Appellant further argues that the Watkins reference is directed to a device that provides localized delivery of scented aerosols, but there is not a teaching of “a control component configured to control delivery of components of the aerosol precursor composition in response to detection of external device. We note that the Specification provides no (enabling) disclosure of the video processing, the communication processing, or the communication processing and the functionality is either well-known and commercially available or it is not enabled or has a lack of written description support. In that case, the Examiner may find some teaching or suggestion of the Internet of Things (“IoT”) in combination with an end user commercial product having a camera and some control function of the Internet of things in combination with an aerosol delivery device for determination of an obviousness rejection. Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 12 airflow through at least a portion of the cartridge or control body” as recited in the claim. Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 11–12. Appellant also contends that the Watkins reference does not teach or suggest any controlling of delivery of components of aerosol precursor composition “in response to detection of airflow,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 11–12. Appellant contends that columns 7–8 of the Watkins reference when read in its proper context, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that this portion of Watkins is directed to an embodiment of a cartridge 22, whereas the claimed feature is clearly recited as being within a control body of the aerosol delivery device and not within a cartridge. Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 11–12. We find the Examiner generally opines that [t]he record cites prior art weighing in favor of obviousness of integrating the claimed peripherals with a smart device or system as in the claims, in order to [sic] “to control the delivery of the Scent to the Specific target”. Watkins, Column 1, lines 32-50. Appellant cites no objective evidence weighing against obviousness, for example, there is no citation to support unexpected results from connecting an aerosol delivery device to a smart system. Ans. 15 (emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellant that the portable electronic facility 300 has been indicated by the Examiner to teach the aerosol delivery device as claimed where the camera and control components are included with the control body coupled to the cartridge, but in the Examiner’s application of the prior art, the elements corresponding to the claimed “control body” do not perform the function of “video content analytics,” as claimed. As a result, we find the Examiner has not made the requisite factual findings to Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 13 support the conclusion of obviousness or provided a convincing line of reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to have modified the prior art structures or functions to meet the claim limitations. We find the Examiner’s reliance upon the Watkins reference for “control the delivery of the [s]cent to the [s]pecific target” to not be on point with respect to the aerosol device to “transfer information indicative of the temporal or spatial event externally to a computing device to cause the computing device to perform at least one control operation based on the information” (controlling a separate and distinct device from the aerosol device). The Examiner finds the claims are not particular as to how “the camera system or the control component” implements the “video content analytics” capability, and thus cannot preclude obvious variants in the prior art that perform the identical function (analyze content of video). Ans. 16. The Examiner further finds the claims do not particularly define “video content analytics” to exclude “analysis of images” performed in the prior art, which performs the same functions such as “tracking people within a facility” in claim 3 and Phillips, Paragraphs 140, 150. Ans. 16. We disagree with the Examiner and find that the Examiner has not made a persuasive showing or a persuasive line of reasoning why the prior art teaches or suggests the claimed invention. Additionally, the Examiner finds (1) the claims are not clear or particular as to what structure performs the processing, (2) the analysis under section 103 is obviousness not anticipation/equivalence, (3) it is obvious to perform video analytics of a camera recording using one of the available local or networked processing resources as indicated in Phillips, and (4) to the extent Appellant argues that “video Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 14 content analytics are performed by the aerosol delivery device” without limiting the claim to a processor as a claim limitation; un-recited claim limitations do not distinguish over the prior art. And the invention indicates an indifference and thus substitutability as to where the image processing is performed, as in Claim 1: “configured to ... transfer at least one of the video imagery or information indicative of the temporal or spatial event externally to a computing device to cause the computing device to perform at least one control operation.” Thus there is nothing to indicate that processing video using one of the available processors is in any way non-obvious. Ans. 17 (emphasis omitted). We note that the Examiner does not specifically identify where in the Phillips reference teaches or suggests both local or networked processing resources for processing video content analytics. The Examiner finds that paragraph 98 of the Phillips reference discloses a laundry list of data from the location services from a sensor facility including camera and aerosol sensor (Ans. 15–16), but we find no teaching or suggestion of where processing of video content analytics may be performed in the control body of an aerosol delivery device. The Examiner proffers that the claim does not set forth a “processor,” but rather that the “aerosol delivery device” performs the processing. Unfortunately, the Examiner has not shown that the Phillips reference teaches or suggests this limitation, and as applied by the Examiner, the Watkins reference does not remedy the deficiency in the Phillips reference. Ans. 17. The Examiner also finds that Appellant essentially complains that Watkins delivers scent aerosols while Appellant intends (but does not limit) a use as a smoking device, and the intended use is irrelevant, the claims are Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 15 rejected because Watkins teaches every claimed component and function of aerosol delivery. Ans. 18. We disagree with the Examiner and find the claim does not merely set forth an intended use. Rather, the claim language expressly recites a control step based upon airflow detection, and we agree with Appellant that the claim language does not require use as a smoking device, but the prior art must teach or suggest the recited condition precedent. The Examiner in the statement of the rejection relies upon the Phillips reference in paragraph 136 to teach the “control body,” but the Phillips reference does not detect airflow through at least a portion of the cartridge or the control body, as claimed. The Examiner identifies columns 4, 5, and 8 of the Watkins reference and generally identifies various structures, but does not specifically identify an element that functions “in response to detection of airflow through at least a portion of the contract cartridge or control body.” (Because the scent delivery is not a smoking type device where there would be a flow of air as a triggering event.) Final Act. 13–14. Although we agree with the Examiner that the Watkins reference delivers scent in the aerosol delivery device, the Watkins reference does not include a camera and furthermore does not teach or suggest “control component configured to control delivery of components of the aerosol precursor composition in response to detection of airflow through at least a portion of the cartridge or control body.” Ans. 18. The Examiner further finds that Appellant further argues on page 9: “this portion of Watkins is directed to an embodiment of a cartridge 22, whereas Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 16 the claimed feature is clearly recited as being within a control body of the aerosol delivery device and not within a cartridge.” Examiner notes that a person of skill in the art would not interpret Watkins to place its microcontroller inside the liquid chamber, simply because Appellant prefers a narrower definition of the word “cartridge” in its own specification. The recognition that Appellant uses the word “cartridge” differently than Watkins, does not mean that the claimed control (microcontroller) is different than the Watkins controller (microcontroller). On page 10, Appellant argues: “The portable electronic facility 300 in Phillips is not equivalent to the claimed aerosol delivery device because it does not cause the location services facility to perform at least one control operation ...” Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant naming a claimed element “aerosol delivery device” as opposed to the prior art “portable electronic facility” neither limits the claim to a step or structure readily recognizable in the art, nor serves to distinguish the substance of the claims from that of the prior art. . . . Ans. 19 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner interprets the claimed elements and finds that the Phillips reference teaches or suggests equivalent elements, but we disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation. We find Examiner does not appreciate the totality of the claimed invention and the interrelationship of the recited claim elements which provide specific claimed functions. The Examiner further finds: Second, the present claims are only limited to an ability of the aerosol delivery device to “transfer at least one of the video imagery or information indicative of the temporal or spatial event externally ...” This is explicitly taught by “images of surrounding terrain may be captured by the camera and may be transmitted to the location services facility” in Phillips, Paragraph 118. The Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 17 claims are not limited to the components and uses external to the aerosol delivery device. The notion that additional functions may be implemented “externally . . . to a computing device to cause the computing device to perform at least one control operation based on the information” does not limit the claimed aerosol delivery device, this is intended use. Even so, prior art is capable of this intended use too: “the portable electronic facility 300 may be controlled remotely” in Phillip’s, Paragraph 136, and with applications to various intended control functions. There is nothing in the claims to indicate a particular limitation (i.e. control operation “to cause” the external results) which is non-obvious over the information transfer and use in the prior art. Ans. 19–20 (emphasis omitted). We disagree with the Examiner and find that the claimed invention also requires detection of airflow through the control body, which the Examiner has relied upon the Watkins reference to teach this element, but as discussed above, we do not agree with the Examiner that the Watkins reference discloses the claimed detection of airflow and the use thereof to deliver components of the aerosol precursor composition. Although the Examiner acknowledges a narrower definition of the “cartridge” in the Specification, the Examiner generally finds that the Watkins reference “microcontroller” is not different than the claimed “controller.” Ans. 19. We agree with the Examiner that the end control operation is an “intended use,” but the communication is an express limitation of the result of the “video content analytics.” While the Examiner merely identifies the “images of the surrounding terrain” are transmitted to the “location services facility,” the claim recites “perform video content analytics on the video imagery to detect a temporal or spatial event in the scene, and transfer Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 18 information indicative of the temporal or spatial event externally to a computing device to cause the computing device to perform at least one control operation based on the information.” (Emphases added.) As a result, merely transferring the imagery is insufficient to meet the language of illustrative independent claim 1 where “video content analytics” must be performed and then “and transfer information indicative of the temporal or spatial event externally to a computing device.” Therefore, we find the Examiner has not made the requisite factual findings to support the ultimate conclusion of obviousness based upon the prior art references, and the Examiner’s claim interpretation unreasonably dissects and unreasonably interprets the claimed invention rather than addressing the claim as a whole. We further disagree with the Examiner and find the Examiner is further speculating regarding the prior art and attempting to reconstruct Appellant’s claimed invention from the disparate teachings of the prior art references. Additionally, we find the Examiner does not provide specific factual findings or convincing line of reasoning why one skilled in the art would have modified the relied upon teachings of the prior art references to meet the language of illustrative independent claim 1. As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of illustrative independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 2–12, and we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 13 which contains similar limitations and its dependent claims 14–24. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejections and the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. Appeal 2020-004900 Application 15/651,521 19 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–24 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–24 3–11, 15–23 112(b) Indefiniteness 3–11, 15–23 1–24 103 Phillips, Watkins 1–24 Overall Outcome 1–24 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation