United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2022

2020006136 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2022)

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. 14/902,373 12/31/2015 Brad Powell 64620US02; 67097-2540PUS1 2210 54549 7590 01/27/2022 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER SEABE, JUSTIN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/27/2022 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRAD POWELL, ANTHONY R. BIFULCO, and PAUL E. CODERRE Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, 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 1-8, 12-17, and 21-31. See Final Act. 1 (Final Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “United Technologies Corporation.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to a cooling arrangement for a compressor” for a gas turbine engine. Spec. ¶ 1. Method claim 1 and apparatus claims 8 and 14 are independent. Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative of the claims on appeal and are reproduced below. 1. A method of cooling a compressor section of a gas turbine engine, comprising: diverting a flow from a core compressor flow through a heat exchanger, the core compressor flow moving in the compressor in a first direction; moving the diverted flow from the heat exchanger back to the compressor in a second direction; and moving the diverted flow out of the compressor section in the first direction along a path that is radially inward from at least one disc in the compressor section. 8. A spacer for a compressor of a gas turbine engine, comprising: a first side portion; a second side portion spaced apart from the first side portion; and a middle web arranged between the first and second side portions, wherein the middle web includes a first orifice to communicate a cooling flow in a direction that is opposite from a core flowpath flow direction, and at least one of the first and second side portions includes a second orifice to communicate the cooling flow in a direction that is generally perpendicular to the core flowpath flow direction, wherein the at least one of the first and second orifices includes a valve, the valve configured to vary a flowrate of the cooling flow through the at least one orifice. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Kervistin US 5,297,386 Mar. 29, 1994 Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 3 Lenahan et al. (“Lenahan”) US 5,685,158 Nov. 11, 1997 Friedel et al. (“Friedel”) US 2006/0239812 A1 Oct. 26, 2006 Desai et al. (“Desai”) US 7,993,102 B2 Aug. 9, 2011 Malmborg US 2012/0027606 A1 Feb. 2, 2012 Are et al. (“Are”) US 2012/0183398 A1 July 19, 2012 Suciu et al. (“Suciu”) US 2013/0108413 A1 May 2, 2013 Foust et al. (“Foust”) US 8,495,883 B2 July 30, 2013 Hirokawa JPH 11125199 (A) May 11, 1999 REJECTIONS Claims 8, 12, 13, 22, 23, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Final Act. 3-4. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hirokawa and Desai. Final Act. 4-5. Claims 3 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hirokawa, Desai and Foust. Final Act. 6-7. Claims 8, 12, 13, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Suciu, Friedel or Are, Kervistin or Lenahan, and Malmborg. Final Act. 7-9. Claims 14-16, 21, 22, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Suciu and Malmborg. Final Act. 9-11. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Suciu, Malmborg, and Friedel or Are. Final Act. 11-12. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Suciu, Malmborg, and Are. Final Act. 12. Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 4 ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 8, 12, 13, 22, 23, 30, and 31 as being indefinite The Examiner rejects claims 8, 12, 13, 30, and 31 separate from the rejection of claims 22 and 23. See Final Act. 3-4. Appellant proffers no argument regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 (or its dependent claim 23). See Appeal Br. generally. In fact, Appellant sought to cancel this claim 22 and amend the claim dependency of claim 23, but Appellant’s claim amendments were not entered by the Examiner. See Response dated December 30, 2019; Advisory Action dated January 13, 2020, 4.2 We, thus, summarily affirm the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 22 and 23. We also select claim 8 for review with respect to the first grouping. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Regarding independent claim 8 (and hence its dependent claims 12, 13, 30, and 31), the Examiner notes the use of the term “generally” therein. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner considers this term “a relative term” and that Appellant’s Specification “does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree” of such term. Final Act. 3. As expressed, “Appellant has not provided an understanding to the metes and bounds of the limitation.” Ans. 3. Appellant disagrees, stating, “[t]erms of degree are not necessarily indefinite” and that “terms of degree ha[ve] long been found definite where it provided enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention.” Appeal Br. 4 (quoting MPEP § 2173.05(b); see also Reply Br. 1. Appellant submits that Figure 3 of the present application “provide[s] the requisite disclosure from which one 2 Hereinafter “Advisory Act.” Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 5 skilled in the art could measure the degree of the term ‘generally.’” Appeal Br. 5. Claim 8 recites a “core flowpath flow direction” and also a “flow in a direction that is generally perpendicular to the core flowpath flow direction.” Italics added. We have been instructed that claims involving terms of degree “must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art” in the context of the invention while, at the same time, “a patentee need not define his invention with mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness requirement.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We have also been instructed that words of approximation, such as “generally” and “substantially,” are descriptive terms commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. See Anchor Wall Sys. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Regardless, “when a word of degree is used [a court] must determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also id. at 1350 (“to be definite [a claim term] requires an objective anchor”). In view of the above, the definiteness of a term of degree is problematic if its baseline for comparison is unclear to those of ordinary skill in the art. See Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.3d 1388, 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Hence, the question posed by the Examiner is whether Appellant’s Specification provides sufficient “objective boundaries,” “standard,” or “anchor” (see above) by which to determine whether a cooling flow path direction is or is not “generally perpendicular” to a “core flowpath flow direction.” See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 6 In the present matter, the base comparison is to a forward to aft air flow path through multiple compressor stages of a turbine engine. See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2, 35; Fig. 2 (item “C”). Such air rarely flows in a laminar manner through rotating compressor blades, but instead becomes quite turbulent along its path through these stages. However, despite the inability to portray such flow through moving components with any degree of accuracy, Appellant has provided a schematic view depicting the overall forward to aft flow that occurs within compressor section 24, and designates same as “core airflow C flowpath.” Spec. ¶¶ 25, 33, 35, Figs. 1, 2. We understand claim 8 to refer to this “core airflow C flowpath” as traveling along “a core flowpath flow direction.” The Examiner does not contend that a skilled person would have failed to understand the direction illustrated and described with respect to this core airflow path. Further, this “core airflow C flowpath”/“core flowpath flow direction” is the baseline or “anchor” used to ascertain whether the recited cooling flow is traveling “in a direction that is generally perpendicular” thereto. There is no indication that Figure 2 of Appellant’s Specification depicts this airflow with any degree of mathematical certainty, or even to scale, but this figure clearly shows baseline flow “C” as ultimately traveling forward-to-aft in a somewhat linear manner spaced some distance from the central axis of the compressor section. Appellant’s Figure 2 also depicts cooling stream D as having a flow path that travels radially inwardly between this baseline flow “C” and tie rod 66 towards axis A. In fact, Figure 3 of Appellant’s disclosure illustrates that this inward flow of stream D must first pass through radially extending orifices 88 before entering bores 74 located between adjacent discs 68. Appellant’s Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 7 Figure 2 depicts such flow exiting bores 74 via a pathway between the innermost surfaces of discs 68 and tie rod 66. See also Spec. ¶¶ 34-42. From such teachings and illustrations, and because mathematical certainty cannot be provided, we do not fault Appellant for reciting a “generally perpendicular” direction as indicative of the flow direction through these bores towards tie rod 66 and axis A. In fact, one might specifically correlate the requisite “objective boundaries” required for a finding of definiteness (see above) with the boundaries defining bores 74, which have an entrance 88 positioned radially outward from its inwardly located exit adjacent tie rod 66. See Spec. Fig. 2. Further, such entrances and exits are themselves depicted as being almost in perfect radial alignment. See Spec. Fig. 2. Thus, in view of such disclosures as to the “generally perpendicular” nature of cooling stream D within bores 74, we do not agree with the Examiner that Appellant has failed to provide sufficient criteria by which to determine what is meant by directing “the cooling flow in a direction that is generally perpendicular to the core flowpath flow direction.” Accordingly, and within the confines of Appellant’s gas turbine engine, we conclude that a skilled person would have understood a “core flowpath flow direction” and also would have comprehended the degree of perpendicularity required to ascertain a flow that is “generally perpendicular” thereto, such as that occurring when passing through orifices 88 and bores 74 prior to being axially redirected along tie rod 66. We thus do not agree with the Examiner’s statement that “Appellant has not provided an understanding to the metes and bounds of the limitation.” Ans. 3. Instead, we agree with Appellant that “Figure 3 thus provide[s] the requisite Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 8 disclosure from which one skilled in the art could measure the degree of the term ‘generally.’” Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 1. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 12, 13, 30, and 31 as being indefinite. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 24 as unpatentable over Hirokawa and Desai Appellant argues independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4-7, and 24 together. See Appeal Br. 5-7. We select claim 1 for review, with claims 2, 4-7, and 24 standing or falling therewith. Claim 1 recites a diverted flow path that exits the compressor section “along a path that is radially inward from at least one disc in the compressor section.” The Examiner acknowledges that the primary reference to Hirokawa does not teach this specific “radially inward” exit location.3 See Final Act. 5; see also Advisory Act. 2 (“Hirokawa doesn’t send the fluid radially inward of the disks themselves.”); Ans. 4. Instead, the Examiner relies on the teachings of Desai for such “radially inward” flow. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner provides a reason to modify Hirokawa with Desai’s flow location (“for the purposes of maintaining the flow pressure . . . improving the efficiency of the engine”) and concludes that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious in view of this combination. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5. The Examiner further provides an annotation of Figure 2 of Desai which identifies the specific flow the 3 Figure 4 of Hirokawa illustrates such flow exiting from a mid-section of the discs. Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 9 Examiner is referencing.4 See Advisory Act. 3. The Examiner’s annotation of Figure 2 of Desai is replicated below: The Examiner has annotated Figure 2 of Desai above to further describe the various arrows originally depicted in this figure. The Examiner depicts Desai’s bottom center arrow as being “same direction as core flow through the compressor, radially inward.” Advisory Act. 3 Appellant acknowledges the Examiner’s identified airflow arrow but contends that this arrow is indicative of flow that, instead, “is aft of the compressor rotor 12 and rotor wheels 20 and therefore does not represent any flow that is ‘along a path that is radially inward from at least one disc in the compressor section,’ as claimed.” Appeal Br. 6 (italics added); see also Reply Br. 1, 2. The Examiner disagrees with this “aft” description 4 Appellant’s contention that “[t]he Examiner does not point to any disclosure in Desai that supports the Examiner’s interpretation of Desai” is deemed moot in view of the Examiner’s annotation. Reply Br. 2; see also Ans. 4 (referencing Desai 2:43-45). Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 10 explaining that “in order for the fluid to leave the impellers (27) of the compressor disk, the fluid must be at least radially inward of at least one disc in the compressor section. The fluid cannot leave the compressor section to the turbine section any other way.” Ans. 4. The teachings of Desai support the Examiner’s position. Desai clearly states that impellers 27 are “in the bore sections of the compressor wheels.” Desai 2:40 (italics added). This is consistent with the Examiner’s finding that the identified flow within bore 22 encompasses flow surrounding impellers 27 (and rotor wheels 20) as well. See Desai Fig. 2. Hence, Appellant’s contention that “bore section 22 is aft of the compressor rotor 12 and rotor wheels 20” is not a proper understanding of the full breadth of Desai’s bore 22. Appeal Br. 6. Desai also teaches that “[f]low from the compressor stages is collected and combined at the centerline of the unit-rotor in the bore section 22 and channeled aft towards the second cooling path 24 for cooling the turbine rotor 14.” Desai 2:42-45 (italics added). We thus are again not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that such centerline flow (i.e., “radially inward from at least one disc”) instead occurs only “aft of the compressor rotor 12 and rotor wheels 20.” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 1, 2. In other words, Appellant has not provided persuasive arguments that Desai fails to teach the limitation of a flow “along a path that is radially inward from at least one disc in the compressor section” as recited. Appellant additionally contends that, to the extent the Examiner is relying on an inherent disclosure in Desai for teaching the claimed flow, “[t]he Examiner has not established that in Desai, there is necessarily a flow that moves” in the manner recited. Appeal Br. 7. We disagree with Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 11 Appellant’s contention because, even presuming for the sake of argument that there is a lack of an express disclosure, Desai clearly teaches flow that is “collected and combined at the centerline . . . and channeled aft” within bore 22 and hence such flow, by being within bore 22, would indeed flow inward of compressor rotor 12 and rotor wheels 20. Desai 2:42-44. Thus, Appellant’s attempt to discredit the Examiner’s findings based on a theory of inherency is not persuasive of Examiner error. See Appeal Br. 7. Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s motivation to combine Hirokawa and Desai stating that “the feature of Desai that provides these benefits is the high performance impellers 27, not the location of the flowpath that the Examiner proposes adding to Hirokawa.” Appeal Br. 7 (referencing Desai 2:39-43); see also Reply Br. 2. This cited section of Desai states that “[h]igh performance impellers 27 in the bore sections of the compressor wheels help maintain the flow pressure and swirl the flow to rotor speed.” Desai 2:39-42. Thus, Desai’s passage states that the benefit achieved is not only a result of the impellers themselves (as Appellant contends), but also the “flow pressure and swirl” caused by their rotation at that location within Desai’s compressor 12. It is this resulting flow at that location which the Examiner references, i.e., “to modify the compressor stage(s) of Hirokawa such that the fluid travels radially inward of the discs prior to transport to other parts of the turbine as taught by Desai.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner’s stated purpose for the combination of Hirokawa and Desai is for “maintaining the flow pressure and swirl the flow to rotor speed” thereby “improving the efficiency of the engine.” Final Act. 5. Hence, the Examiner is referencing more than just the presence of the Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 12 impellers themselves, as Appellant argues above. See Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Further, in view of the Examiner’s above expressed reason to combine Hirokawa and Desai, we are also not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that “the Examiner still fails to provide any reason to change the airflow of Hirokawa to the airflow allegedly taught by Desai.” Reply Br. 2. The Examiner has provided reasons as noted above. Hence, Appellant’s contention addressing the Examiner’s motivation to combine is not persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 24 as unpatentable over Hirokawa and Desai. The rejection of claims 3 and 25-27 as unpatentable over Hirokawa, Desai and Foust These claims all depend (indirectly) from claim 1. Appellant presents no argument disputing the rejection of these claims other than perhaps those presented with respect to claim 1 above. We affirm their rejection. The rejection of claims 8, 12, 13, 30, and 31 as unpatentable over Suciu, Friedel or Are, Kervistin or Lenahan, and Malmborg Appellant argues these claims together. We select independent claim 8 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling therewith. Appellant contends, “[t]he Examiner has not provided any reference that discloses an orifice in the middle web and another orifice in one of the first/second side portions.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant also addresses “the disclosure of Kervistin/Lenahan or Malmborg” stating that the Examiner “has not explained why . . . one of skill in the art would have taken the horizontal/vertical orifices [disclosed by these references] and Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 13 placed them in the specific claimed locations in the spacer of Suciu.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3. There is no dispute that Kervistin, Lenahan, and Malmborg teach orifices that are either radially or axially aligned. See Kervistin Fig. 1 (item 19); Lenahan Fig. 5 (item 135); Malmborg Fig. 3 (item 68). The question then becomes whether it would have been obvious to locate such radial/axial orifices within Suciu’s spacer as recited. Regarding “an orifice in the middle web” (Appeal Br. 8), Appellant does not dispute that Suciu teaches a spacer having “at least one orifice (“passages flanking ‘86’ forming the web, thereby establishing that the middle web includes at least one orifice).” Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 5. The Examiner also references Paragraph 63 of Suciu which teaches that “[t]he airflow may be communicated not only forward to aft toward the turbine section, but also aft to forward within the engine 20.” Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 5. In view of such teachings, the Examiner finds that “Suciu fails in the disclosed embodiment to teach the middle web including at least one orifice to communicate flow in a direction that is opposite from the core flowpath flow direction” as recited in claim 8. Final Act. 8 (italics added). Focusing on Suciu’s “aft to forward” flow direction language, the Examiner references both Kervistin and Lenahan as teaching, respectively, “holes 19” and “hole (134)” which transport downstream air to an upstream location consistent with Suciu’s teachings and also the limitations of claim 8. Final Act. 8, 9; see also Ans. 5. The Examiner reasons that “[b]ecause Suciu teaches a web with an orifice” and because Suciu teaches transporting “cooling air from ‘aft to forward,’” and because both Kervistin and Lenahan teach utilizing axially aligned orifices to achieve such a flow condition, it Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 14 would have been obvious “to modify the orifice of Suciu” in a manner similar to that taught in Kervistin or Lenahan. Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 5, 6. The stated reason for the modification is “for the purpose of cooling the compressor rim/rotor” (Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 6) which is consistent with the teachings of both Kervistin and Lenahan. See Kervistin Title, Abstract, 1:7-9; Lenahan Title, Abstract, 1:62-63. We thus do not fault the Examiner for relying on the teachings of Kervistin and Lenahan (combined with those of Suciu) for rendering obvious the recited middle web orifice limitation. As regarding an “orifice in one of the first/second side portions” (Appeal Br. 8.), Appellant does not dispute that Suciu’s spacer 62C is “H” shaped (laying on its side) and comprises a web and “first/second side portions,” similar to Appellant’s H-shaped spacer 76 and its orientation. See Suciu Fig. 3; Spec. ¶ 40, Fig. 3. Malmborg teaches a spacer 54 having forward and aft extensions, each extension further comprising a radially aligned orifice 68 therein. See Malmborg Fig. 3. Malmborg teaches that these orifices 68 “communicate the bleed airflow B thorough the disk spacer 54 and into the cavity 44 defined between adjacent rotor disks 36A and 36B” (analogous to Appellant’s bores 74). Malmborg ¶ 25; see also Fig. 3. We further note that Malmborg’s “bleed airflow B” passing through these orifices 68 also moves radially inwardly in a direction generally perpendicular to Malmborg’s “core flow path C.” See Malmborg Fig. 3. The Examiner identifies Malmborg’s spacer 54 and orifices 68 (the latter “extending perpendicularly to the core flow direction (C)”), and concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify the spacers of Suciu” in a similar manner with similarly oriented orifices “for the purposes of Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 15 directing bleed airflow to cool downstream turbine components.” Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 6. This reason is similar to that also expressed by Malmborg. See Malmborg ¶¶ 2 (“Cooling airflow of this type may be provided by extracting bleed airflow from the core flow path of the compressor section.”), 3 (“and prepare the bleed airflow to cool portions of the downstream sections of the gas turbine engine”). Accordingly, and in view of such explicit teachings in the cited art, we are not persuaded (as expressed by Appellant) that “[t]he Examiner has not provided any reference that discloses an orifice in the middle web and another orifice in one of the first/second side portions.” Appeal Br. 8. Likewise, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s assertion that “the Examiner has not explained why . . . one skilled in the art would have taken the horizontal/vertical orifices and placed them in the specific claimed locations in the spacer of Suciu.” Appeal Br. 8. Thus, based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 12, 13, 30, and 31 as unpatentable over Suciu, Friedel or Are, Kervistin or Lenahan, and Malmborg. The rejection of claims 14-16, 21, 22, 28, and 29 as unpatentable over Suciu and Malmborg Appellant argues these claims together. We select independent claim 14 for review. Appellant contends that “Malmborg does not have first and second side portions, wherein one is radially outward from the other.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant is not responding to the Examiner’s rejection which relies on Suciu for such “radially outward” orientation of the first and second side portions. Final Act. 10. Because Appellant’s Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 16 contention regarding Malmborg is the foundation upon which Appellant argues this rejection, we are not persuaded by such arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14-16, 21, 22, 28, and 29 as unpatentable over Suciu and Malmborg. We sustain their rejection. The rejection of (a) claim 17 as unpatentable over Suciu, Malmborg, and Friedel or Are, and (b) claim 23 as unpatentable over Suciu, Malmborg, and Are Claims 17 and 23 depend (indirectly) from claim 14. Appellant presents no argument disputing the rejection of these claims other than perhaps those presented with respect to claim 14 above. We affirm their rejection. CONCLUSION Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8, 12-17, and 21-31. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 8, 12, 13, 22, 23, 30, 31 112 Indefiniteness 22, 23 8, 12, 13, 30, 31 1, 2, 4-7, 24 103 Hirokawa, Desai 1, 2, 4-7, 24 3, 25-27 103 Hirokawa, Desai, Foust 3, 25-27 8, 12, 13, 30, 31 103 Suciu, Friedel, Are, Kervistin, Lenahan, Malmborg 8, 12, 13, 30, 31 Appeal 2020-006136 Application 14/902,373 17 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 14-16, 21, 22, 28, 29 103 Suciu, Malmborg 14-16, 21, 22, 28, 29 17 103 Suciu, Malmborg, Friedel, Are 17 23 103 Suciu, Malmborg, Are 23 Overall Outcome5 1-8, 12- 17, 21-31 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 5 As regarding claims 8, 12, 13, 30, and 31, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 states, in part, “[t]he affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that claim.” The rejection of claims 8, 12, 13, 30, and 31 are thus sustained.