SUUNTO OY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2020

2019004659 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/803,795 03/14/2013 Aimo Heikkinen SUUN 41 US 4159
95002 7590 06/29/2020
Laine IP Oy
PO Box 339
Helsinki, FI-00181
FINLAND
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2020 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):
USDesk@laineip.fi
posti@laineip.fi
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AIMO HEIKKINEN and TONI LESKELÄ

____________

Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JULIA HEANEY, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–13, 15–18, 21, and 22.2 We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Suunto Oy as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief filed February 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2.
2 Non-Final Office Action entered March 12, 2018 (“Office Act.”) at 1.
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant claims a method of monitoring or planning a dive of a diver
(independent claims 1 and 21), and a diving computer for monitoring a dive
of a diver (independent claim 13). Appeal Br. 3–8. Independent claims 1
and 13 illustrate the subject matter on appeal, and read as follows:
1. A method of monitoring or planning a dive of a diver,
comprising:
–providing data on a composition of breathing gases
containing helium using a gas composition observation
unit;
–providing data on the diving depth or the ambient pressure of
the diver, using a pressure measurement unit;
–providing an original safe ascent profile for the diver based on
the data on the composition of breathing gases and on the
depth or ambient pressure;
–monitoring the composition of gases for an abrupt rise in
nitrogen partial pressure of said breathing gases, which
may lead to a deep tissue isobaric counter diffusion
(ICD) situation; and
in response to a detected abrupt rise in the nitrogen partial
pressure of said breathing gases, providing a temporal
ascent profile comprising an immediate temporal
retardation of said original safe ascent profile.

13. A diving computer for monitoring a dive of a diver,
comprising:
–a pressure sensing unit;
–a gas composition observation unit to sense gas composition
and output data on the composition of gases breathed by
the diver during the dive;
–a processor operably coupled to the pressure sensing unit and
to the gas composition observation unit, the processor
configured to receive the data on the composition of
gases breathed by the diver during the dive from the gas
composition unit, the processor configured to receive
data on the depth or ambient pressure of the diver from
the pressure sensing unit;
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

3
–an algorithm associated with the processor including a
programmed model adapted to provide a safe ascent
profile for the diver based on the data on the composition
of gases and the depth or ambient pressure;
–a display configured to provide information on the safe ascent
profile to the diver,
wherein the processor is adapted to detect a deep tissue isobaric
counter diffusion (ICD) situation, based on the data on
the composition of gases indicating an abrupt rise in
nitrogen partial pressure of the breathing gas when the
breathing gas initially contains helium, and
wherein the processor is configured to immediately form and
present on the display a temporally retarded ascent
profile in response to the detected ICD situation as
indicated by the abrupt rise in nitrogen partial pressure of
the breathing gas when the breathing gas initially
contains helium.

Appeal Br. 25, 27–28 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis and spacing
added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered March 22, 2019 (“Ans.”):3
I. Claims 13 and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for
failing to comply with the written description requirement;
II. Claims 13 and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter the applicant regards as the invention;
III. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10–13, 17, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.

3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1–5, 7–13, 15–18, 21, and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter (Office
Act. 7–8) in the Answer. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

4
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Leskelä4 in view of Johnson5 and Wikipedia;6
IV. Claims 3, 4, 9, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Leskelä in view of Johnson, Wikipedia, and Survanshi7;
and
V. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leskelä
in view of Johnson, Wikipedia, and Leach.8

FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 13 and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to
comply with the written description requirement and rejection of claims 13
and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite, for
reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and below, and we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7–13, 15–18, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for reasons set forth in the Office Action, the Answer,
and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the Appellant provides for each issue the Appellant
identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637

4 Leskelä et al., US 2010/0250208 A1, published September 30, 2010.
5 Johnson, US 2011/0102177 A1, published May 5, 2011.
6 Isobaric counterdiffusion, August 16, 2012,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120816174411/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I
sobaric_counterdiffusion (“Wikipedia”).
7 Survanshi et al., US 5,363,298, issued November 8, 1994.
8 Leach et al., US 4,658,358, issued April 14, 1987.
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

5
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had
failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections”)).
Rejections I and II
We first address the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 15–18
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the written
description requirement (Rejection I), and rejection of claims 13 and 15–18
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite (Rejection II). We
limit our discussion to claim 13, the sole independent claim subject to these
grounds of rejection.
The Examiner interprets the recitation in claim 13 of “a gas
composition observation unit to sense gas composition and output data on
the composition of gases breathed by the diver during the dive” under 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph because, according to the Examiner, a “gas
composition observation unit” is a generic placeholder that is not preceded
by a structural modifier, and is coupled with functional language that does
not recite sufficient structure to achieve the recited function. Office Act. 3.
Because the Examiner thus determines that the phrase “a gas
composition observation unit to sense gas composition and output data on
the composition of gases breathed by the diver during the dive” invokes 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the Examiner interprets the phrase “to cover
the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the
claimed function, and equivalents thereof.” Office Act. 4. The Examiner
finds, however, that the Specification does not disclose any “corresponding
structure.” Id. Consequently, the Examiner rejects claim 13 for failing to
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

6
comply with the written description requirement because, the Examiner
determines, the lack of corresponding structure in the Specification “leaves it
unclear as to whether the inventors had possession of the claimed invention
at the time the application was filed.” Id. at 5–6. The Examiner also rejects
claim 13 as indefinite because, the Examiner further determines, the lack of
corresponding structure in the Specification “leaves the scope of the terms
unclear.” Id. at 6.
We determine, however, that “a gas composition observation unit to
sense gas composition and output data on the composition of gases breathed
by the diver during the dive” as recited in claim 13 does not invoke § 112,
sixth paragraph, for reasons expressed by Appellant (Appeal Br. 10–12) and
discussed below.
When evaluating whether a claim limitation invokes § 112, sixth
paragraph, the essential inquiry is “whether the words of the claim are
understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently
definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online,
LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). This determination
must be made under traditional claim construction principles, on an element-
by-element basis, and in light of intrinsic evidence, including the
Specification, and extrinsic evidence, such as prior art references. Zeroclick,
LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted);
Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348; Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 702–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“Whether certain
claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 is an exercise in claim
construction”); Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (noting that whether § 112 ¶ 6 is invoked involves an analysis of the
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

7
“patent and its prosecution history,” and consulting a dictionary definition to
understand if one of skill in the art would understand a recited term to
connote structure); Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580,
1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Applying these principles, we first look to Appellant’s Specification
to determine whether “a gas composition observation unit” as recited in
claim 13 would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art “to have
a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson, 792
F.3d at 1348.
The Specification explains that in deep water scuba diving, nitrogen,
helium, and other inert gases collect in a diver’s blood and tissues through a
process driven by pressure gradients between gas inhaled by the diver and
the diver’s tissues. Spec. ¶ 4. The Specification indicates that when the
diver rises towards the surface, the ambient pressure decreases, causing
nitrogen and other gases accumulated in a diver’s tissues to be released,
which leads to an increased risk of decompression sickness (DSC). Id. The
Specification explains that “[t]he partial pressure of precisely nitrogen and
helium is therefore monitored carefully when diving.” Id.
The Specification describes carrying out such a monitoring process by
real time measurement of “the composition, i.e., partial pressures of
components” of gas breathed by a diver during diving using a “gas
composition observation unit.” Spec. ¶¶ 19, 27, 28; claims 6, 13, and 19.
The Specification explains that a “gas composition observation unit” detects
changes in breathing gas composition by detecting changes in partial
pressures of components of the breathing gas, such as a change in nitrogen
partial pressure. Id. The Specification further describes a diving computer
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

8
for use by a diver during diving that includes such a gas composition
observation unit, and includes a display for communicating information to
the diver. Spec. ¶¶ 40, 41; Fig. 4.
In view of this description in Appellant’s Specification, one of
ordinary skill in the art reasonably would understand a “gas composition
observation unit” as recited in claim 13 to refer to a component of a diving
computer that detects changes in partial pressures of components of gas
breathed by a diver to sense changes in the composition of the gas.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a “gas
composition observation unit” as recited in claim 13 to denote a particular
structure described in the Specification—a component of a diving computer
that determines the composition of breathing gas by sensing the partial
pressures of components of the breathing gas.
Supporting this determination that a “gas composition observation
unit” would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to denote or
name structure, we point out the Examiner’s statement in the Answer that
“[t]he recited ‘gas composition observation unit’ would appear to be a
sensor because it performs the recited function of ‘sens[ing] gas composition
and output[ting] data on the composition of gases breathed by the diver
during the dive.’” Ans. 6 (emphasis added). This statement indicates that
the Examiner understands a “gas composition observation unit” to denote
structure—a sensor.
Furthermore, although not subject to the present grounds of rejection,
independent claims 1 and 21 both recite “providing data on a composition of
breathing gases containing helium using a gas composition observation
unit.” In rejecting these claims under § 103(a) (discussed below), the
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

9
Examiner finds that sensors disclosed in Johnson for obtaining data relating
to the composition of a diver’s breathing gas, including the helium and
nitrogen concentration of the gas, constitute “a gas composition observation
unit” as recited in claims 1 and 21. This finding again supports the position
that a “gas composition observation unit” would be understood by persons of
ordinary skill in the art to denote or name structure—a sensor. Office Act.
10 (“Johnson discloses the use of a gas composition observation unit for
detecting nitrogen and helium concentration in the gas breathed by SCUBA
divers”); see also Johnson ¶¶ 57–60, 65, 66, 103, 108.
Accordingly, contrary to the Examiner’s determination, “a gas
composition observation unit to sense gas composition and output data on
the composition of gases breathed by the diver during the dive” does not
invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph because it would be understood by
persons of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as
the name for structure” in view of the description provided in the
Specification of corresponding structure, and the knowledge and
understanding of such structure in the art, as evidenced by Johnson.
Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352 (“Structure disclosed in the specification
qualifies as ‘corresponding structure’ if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or
associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.”); Greenberg,
91 F.3d at 1583 (“It is true that the term ‘detent’ does not call to mind a
single well-defined structure, but the same could be said of other
commonplace structural terms such as ‘clamp’ or ‘container.’ What is
important is not simply that a ‘detent’ or ‘detent mechanism’ is defined in
terms of what it does, but that the term, as the name for structure, has a
reasonably well understood meaning in the art.”).
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

10
Because the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 for failing to comply
with the written description requirement, and rejection of claim 13 for
indefiniteness, are both premised on the Examiner’s assertion of lack of
corresponding structure in the Specification for “a gas composition
observation unit to sense gas composition and output data on the
composition of gases breathed by the diver during the dive,” we do not
sustain these rejections of claim 13, and claims 15–18, which each depend
from claim 13.
Rejection III
We turn now to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10–13,
17, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leskelä in
view of Johnson and Wikipedia. To address this rejection, Appellant
presents arguments directed to each of independent claims 1, 13, and 21.
Appellant’s arguments for claims 13 and 21 are the same as arguments
Appellant presents for claim 1, however. Appeal Br. 18–22. We, therefore,
select claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal as to claims 1, 2, 5, 8,
10–13, 17, 18, 21, and 22 based on claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1 requires the recited method of monitoring or planning a dive
of a diver to comprise, in part, providing data on a composition of breathing
gases containing helium using a gas composition observation unit,
monitoring the composition of gases for an abrupt rise in nitrogen partial
pressure of the breathing gases, and in response to a detected abrupt rise in
the nitrogen partial pressure of the breathing gases that may lead to a deep
tissue isobaric counter diffusion (ICD) situation, providing a temporal ascent
profile comprising an immediate temporal retardation of an original safe
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

11
ascent profile.
Leskelä discloses a method for determining the ascent time for a dive
(planning a dive) using a diving computer. Leskelä ¶ 9. Leskelä discloses
that the method involves entering data on the composition of primary
breathing gas A and secondary breathing gas B into the diving computer
before the dive (providing data on a composition of breathing gases).
Leskelä ¶¶ 20, 21. Leskelä discloses that during the dive, the computer
receives information indicating the prevailing pressure (ambient pressure)
from pressure sensors on the diver’s gas tanks, and calculates an ascent time
based on this information, the diving time, and the stored data for primary
gas A. Leskelä ¶¶ 11, 19. Leskelä discloses that if something goes wrong
during the dive, such as a device failure in the primary gas tank, the diver
selects from the diving computer secondary gas B as the gas to be used, and
the diving computer calculates a revised ascent time “assuming that the
primary gases are not available, but that the ascent will take place using
solely the selected secondary gas” (monitoring the composition of gases for
a gas composition change). Leskelä ¶¶ 23, 31. Leskelä refers to the revised
ascent time as “a securing dive plan,” and discloses that “[t]he surfacing
time of the securing dive plan will usually be quite long, because the
preferred primary surfacing gases are not available, but instead reserve gases
are used” (providing a temporal ascent profile comprising an immediate
temporal retardation of said original safe ascent profile). Leskelä ¶ 23.
The Examiner finds that Leskelä does not disclose that data on the
composition of gases breathed by the diver during the dive is provided using
a gas composition observation unit. Office Act. 10. Johnson, however,
discloses a system for monitoring a diver that includes one or more sensors
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

12
disposed on the diver’s equipment for obtaining data relating to the
composition of the diver’s breathing gas, including the nitrogen
concentration and helium concentration (gas composition observation unit).
Johnson ¶¶ 57–60, 66, 73.
In view of this disclosure in Johnson, the Examiner concludes that
“[i]t would have been obvious to include a gas composition observation unit
with the dive computer [disclosed in Leskelä], so that a change in gas
composition could be automatically detected and used to update the ascent
profile.” Office Act. 10.
The Examiner finds that Leskelä also does not disclose that detecting
a change in the breathing gas composition is carried out by detecting an
abrupt rise in nitrogen partial pressure of the breathing gas, which may lead
to a deep tissue isobaric counter diffusion (ICD) situation. Office Act. 13.
The Examiner determines, however, that it would have been obvious to
modify Leskelä’s method to identify an abrupt rise in nitrogen partial
pressure in breathing gases using sensors as disclosed in Johnson because
Wikipedia “teaches that changing breathing gases from one that is helium-
rich to a breathing gas that is nitrogen-rich can lead to an ICD situation.” Id.
at 13–14.
Appellant argues that Leskelä does not disclose measuring gas partial
pressures during a dive as a reason for recalculating an ascent time for the
dive. Appeal Br. 19–20. Appellant argues that Leskelä relies on a diver’s
selection of alternate pre-entered data to calculate a securing dive plan,
rather than an abrupt rise in nitrogen partial pressure, to trigger a temporal
retardation of the original ascent profile. Id. Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s “motivation” for utilizing Johnson’s sensors in Leskelä’s system
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

13
“so that a change in gas composition could be automatically detected and
used to update the ascent profile,” therefore, relies on impermissible
hindsight because “[a]utomated monitoring for a gas composition change, let
alone an ‘abrupt change in partial pressure,’ does not appear to be
supported by either the disclosures of the cited art or by the knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” Appeal Br. 20–
21 (citing Office Action 10).
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection, however, for reasons that follow.
As discussed above, Leskelä discloses using a diving computer to
determine the ascent time for a dive, and Leskelä discloses that if something
goes wrong during the dive, such as a device failure in the primary gas tank,
the diver must indicate (or select) to the diving computer that a secondary
gas is being used, and the diving computer then calculates a revised ascent
time based on use of the selected secondary gas. In view of Johnson’s
disclosure of disposing sensors on a diver’s equipment for obtaining data
relating to the composition of the diver’s breathing gas, one of ordinary skill
in the art reasonably would have been led to incorporate such a breathing gas
composition sensor into Leskelä’s dive computer, to allow the computer to
monitor the composition of the diver’s breathing gas, and automatically
recalculate the ascent profile in response to a change in the composition of
the gas. As the Examiner explains, modifying Leskelä’s dive computer in
this manner would advantageously “eliminate[] the need for the diver to
manually make a selection that the breathing gas composition has been
changed,” and would also “eliminate[] the possibility that a diver makes an
error when doing so.” Ans. 11.
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

14
Furthermore, in view of Wikipedia’s disclosure that changing from a
helium-rich to a nitrogen-rich breathing gas can lead to an isobaric counter
diffusion (ICD) situation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to utilize Johnson’s sensors—incorporated into Leskelä’s dive
computer—to monitor the diver’s breathing gas for an abrupt rise in nitrogen
partial pressure, to prevent occurrence of an isobaric counter diffusion (ICD)
situation.
Thus, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner’s rationale for
modifying Leskelä’s method in view of Johnson and Wikipedia is not based
on impermissible hindsight. Rather, the Examiner’s rationale is based on
explicit disclosures of Leskelä, Johnson, and Wikipedia, and what those
disclosures reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of Appellant’s invention.
Appellant argues that Johnson is silent as to automated recalculation
of an ascent profile based on gas composition changes. Appeal Br. 20.
Appellant argues that based on “the teachings [of] Johnson it would appear
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would, at most, modify Leskelä such
that the diver would no longer need to preenter the gas groups, but would
still rely on a diver’s selection to recalculate an ascent profile.” Id.
(emphasis omitted)
Appellant’s arguments, however, do not address the basis of the
Examiner’s reliance on Johnson, or the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Leskelä in view of the relied-upon disclosures in Johnson. Appellant’s
arguments, therefore, do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Specifically, as discussed above, the Examiner acknowledges that
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

15
Leskelä does not disclose providing data on the composition of gases
breathed by a diver during a dive using a gas composition observation unit,
and the Examiner relies on Johnson’s disclosure of sensors disposed on a
diver’s equipment that provide data relating to the composition of the diver’s
breathing gas. Office Act. 10. As the Examiner determines, in view of this
disclosure in Johnson, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
include a gas composition observation unit (or sensor) in Leskelä’s dive
computer to allow the dive computer to monitor the composition of the
diver’s breathing gas, and automatically recalculate the ascent profile in
response to a change in the composition, thereby eliminating the need for the
diver to manually indicate a change in the selected breathing gas to the
computer. Id.; Ans. 11.
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8,
10–13, 17, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejections IV and V
Finally, we turn to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 15, and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leskelä in view of
Johnson, Wikipedia, and Survanshi (Rejection IV), and rejection of claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leskelä in view of Johnson,
Wikipedia, and Leach (Rejection V).
To address these rejections, Appellant relies on the arguments
Appellant presents for claim 1 (discussed above), and argues that the
additional references applied in these rejections do not cure the deficiencies
of Leskelä, Johnson, and Wikipedia. Appeal Br. 22–23. Because
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments
Appeal 2019-004659
Application 13/803,795

16
also do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3,
4, 9, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leskelä in
view of Johnson, Wikipedia, and Survanshi (Rejection IV), and rejection of
claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leskelä in view of
Johnson, Wikipedia, and Leach (Rejection V), which we accordingly
sustain.
CONCLUSION

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
13, 15–18 112, first
paragraph
Written
Description
13, 15–18
13, 15–18 112,
second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 13, 15–18
1, 2, 5, 8,
10–13, 17,
18, 21, 22
103 Leskelä, Johnson,
Wikipedia
1, 2, 5, 8,
10–13, 17,
18, 21, 22

3, 4, 9, 15,
16
103 Leskelä, Johnson,
Wikipedia,
Survanshi
3, 4, 9, 15,
16

7 103 Leskelä, Johnson,
Wikipedia, Leach
7
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–13,
15–18, 21,
22

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).

AFFIRMED