W.W. GRAINGER, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 6, 2021

2020003626 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 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.
13/834,023 03/15/2013 Irena Gelfand 31083.51US1 7631
34018 7590 08/06/2021
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
HTAY, LIN LIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2021 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
jarosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte IRENA GELFAND1
_______________

Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023
Technology Center 2100
_______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 This paper is captioned by inventor name according to our pre-AIA
convention. The Applicant/Appellant and real party in interest is W.W.
Grainger, Inc. (see Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1–11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.

DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellant, the disclosed invention provides “an
improved system and method for searching within an electronic product
catalog” (Spec. 1:12–13). This is done by providing a user interface (see,
e.g., Fig. 2, 200) having an interactive product informational section (see
Fig. 2, 208). This application was the subject of a prior appeal, Appeal No.
2018-003751 decided December 18, 2018 (hereinafter, “Decision”). In that
appeal, the rejections of claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), based on the
same references applied in the instant rejections on appeal, were affirmed.
The key distinction, inter alia, in the current version of claim 1 on appeal is
that an amendment was filed on February 4, 2019, changing the term
“interactive product informational section” to “interactive product
informational table” (see Amendment filed Feb. 4, 2019, 2–3) (emphasis
added). Appellant cites element 208 in Figure 2 as support for both the
disclosed interactive product informational section (see Spec. 7:18–21) and
the claimed interactive product informational table (see Appeal Br. 3).
Exemplary Claim
Sole independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter,
and follows, with key limitations emphasized:
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

3
1. A non-transitory computer readable media embodied in
a physical memory device having stored thereon computer
executable instructions for facilitating product search result
within an electronic product catalog, the instructions perform
steps comprising:
receiving a request to search for product within a general
product category;
causing an user interface for the general product category
to be displayed in a consumer computing device, the user
interface for the general product category comprising an
interactive product informational table wherein the interactive
product informational table comprises a plurality of rows in each
of which is presented a first level of product information for
product within the general product category and a plurality of
user interface elements for use in expanding and collapsing in
place within the interactive product informational table
the corresponding one of the plurality of rows of the interactive
product informational table to thereby provide selective access
to a second level of product information for product within
the corresponding one of the plurality of rows of the interactive
product informational, table;
wherein the second level of product information caused to
be selectively presented within the corresponding one of the
plurality of rows of the interactive product informational
table comprises a further table having a plurality of further rows
and a plurality of vertically scrollable columns, wherein each of
the plurality of further rows corresponds to a uniquely
identifiable one of a plurality of products, wherein a one of a
plurality of characteristic information for the uniquely
identifiable one of the plurality of products within each of the
plurality of further rows is presented in a corresponding one of
the plurality of vertically scrollable columns, wherein each of the
vertically scrollable columns within the table includes a sticky
header in which is presented a label, and wherein the sticky
header of each of the plurality of vertically scrollable columns
within the further table will not move from an initially provided
display location in place within the interactive product
informational table in response to any subsequent scrolling of the
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

4
characteristic information listed in the plurality of vertically
scrollable columns; and
wherein each uniquely identifiable one of the plurality of
products has an associated user interface element for causing a
display of more detailed information for a corresponding one
of the uniquely identifiable one of the plurality of products.
Appeal Br. 9–10, Claims App.
The Examiner’s Rejections2
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1–3 and 6–11 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over unpatentable over L.L. Bean catalog (Sept.
23, 2011), http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/589?nav=gnro-hp, last visited
Nov. 3, 2014 (hereinafter, “L.L. Bean”),3 and Rauenzahn (US 2012/0246593
A1; published Sept. 27, 2012). Non-Final Act. 6–14.
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 4 and 5 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over L.L. Bean, Rauenzahn, and
Dicker (US 2010/0191582 A1; published July 29, 2010).4 Non-Final Act.
14–16.

2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date after to the AIA’s effective date (March 16,
2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3 The Examiner cites to L.L. Bean in the Final Office Action as having a
prior art date of September 23, 2011 (Non-Final Act. 6), prior to Appellant’s
application filing date of March 15, 2013. Appellant has not disputed this
date on the record before us.
4 Appellant’s briefs fail to present any separate arguments with regard to the
rejection of claims 4 and 5 under § 103(a) over L.L. Bean, Rauenzahn, and
Dicker (see generally Appeal Br. 4–7; Reply Br. 2–4). Therefore, Appellant
has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 5. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

5
Principal Issue on Appeal
Appellant presents general arguments as to L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn
without addressing a specific claim (see Appeal Br. 4–7). The disputed table
limitation is found in sole independent claim 1, as well as each of claims 2–
11 depending therefrom. We select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims rejected over L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn (claims 1–3 and 6–11), and
we decide the outcome of claims 4 and 5 (rejected over the base combination
of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn taken with Dicker) on the same basis as claim 1
from which claims 4 and 5 ultimately depend.
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 4–8)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–6), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–11 as being obvious over
the base combination of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn because the base
combination fails to teach or suggest a user interface with “an interactive
product informational table” having a plurality of rows and user interface
elements operable to access second level product information which is
presented in “a further table having a plurality of rows and a plurality of
vertically scrollable columns,” as recited in representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Non-Final Act. 6–14) in
light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (see Appeal Br. 4–8) and
the Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 2–6) that the Examiner has erred, along with
the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (see
Ans. 3–7). We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. With regard to
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

6
representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Non-
Final Act. 6–11), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–7) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner as to the obviousness
rejection of claim 1.
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification is “an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the
specification.’” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see also
MPEP § 2111 (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020) (“The broadest reasonable
interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the
meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and
customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special
definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the
claim term in the specification and drawings.”).
A person having ordinary skill in the art of user interfaces for
electronic catalogs would understand that “[a] table is a data structure that
organizes information into rows and columns. It can be used to both store
and display data in a structured format.”
https://techterms.com/definition/table, last visited July 18, 2021; see also
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+table+in+math&sxsrf=AL
eKk01fu1TOAVs8ex_5TCYNN3njo9L5Bw:1626638636659&ei=LIn0YO3
HJ_bS5NoPtdyGqAI&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjtjfaQte3xAhV2KV
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

7
kFHTWuASUQ8tMDegQIARA2&biw=1920&bih=1057 (posted June 6,
2011), last visited July 18, 2021.
Furthermore, we take judicial notice5 of the fact that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have recognized that electronic product catalogs of
products are displayed in the form of a table arranged in rows and columns,
were well known at the time of the filing of the instant application. This fact
is supported by (i) intrinsic evidence (Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art in the
Specification, see Spec. 1:6–9, citing Talib et al. (US 2001/0044758 A1;
published Nov. 22, 2001) (hereinafter, “Talib”);6 as well as (ii) extrinsic
evidence in the form of prior art patent references.
(I) Intrinsic Evidence
Appellant’s Specification discloses a searchable electronic product
catalog being displayed in table format as being known at the time of the
filing of Appellant’s Specification, e.g., Talib. Talib shows a product
catalog 1 for displaying product information 2 in a table arranged in rows

5 “Judicial notice permits proof by evidence to be dispensed with where
common knowledge supports the truth of a proposition. Judicial notice also
may be taken of facts though they are neither actually notorious nor bound to
be judicially known, yet they would be capable of such instant and
unquestionable demonstration, if desired, that no party would think of
imposing a falsity on the tribunal in the face of an intelligent adversary.” In
re Knapp-Monarch Company, 296 F.2d 230, 232 (CCPA 1961); see also In
re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) (explaining that “the Patent
Office appellate tribunals, where it is found necessary, may take notice of
facts beyond the record which, while not generally notorious, are capable of
such instant and unquestionable demonstration to defy dispute.”).
6 Talib shows a product catalog 1 for displaying product information 2 in a
table arranged in rows and columns (see Figs. 1, 2; ¶¶ 18, 23) that is used for
search and retrieval of product related information (see Title; Abstr.; ¶ 3).
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

8
and columns (see Figs. 1, 2; ¶¶ 18, 23) that is used for search and retrieval of
product related information (see Title; Abstr.; ¶ 3).
A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during
prosecution identifying the work of another as “prior art” is an admission
which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness
determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise
qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2003). Constant v. Advanced MicroDevices, Inc., 848 F. 2d 1560, 1570
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (“A statement in a patent that something is in the prior art is
binding on the applicant and patentee for determinations of anticipation and
obviousness.”); In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571 n.5 (CCPA 1975) (A
statement by an applicant that certain matter is prior art is an admission that
the matter is prior art for all purposes).
(II) Extrinsic Evidence
The Examiner finds (see Non-Final Act. 10–11), and we agree, that
Buczek (US 2010/0269031 A1; published Oct. 21, 2010) teaches an
electronic product catalog that is displayed in the form of a table arranged in
rows and columns. See Buczek, Title; Abstr.; Figs. 1–10; ¶¶ 17, 24, 26, 41.
Specifically, Buczek, in Figure 1, shows a view 100 of a display screen 102
(i.e., user interface) displaying a table 112 having rows 108 and columns 112
(see Fig. 1; ¶ 17). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (see, e.g., Non-Final
Act. 10–11; Ans. 6–7) that a web page or user interface being searchable and
set up in table format is not new.
It is well settled that, as part of the obviousness analysis, the prior art
must be viewed in the context of what was generally known in the art at the
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

9
time of the invention. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed.
Cir. 2013) (“[T]he [KSR] Court required an analysis that reads the prior art
in context, taking account of ‘demands known to the design community,’
‘the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art,’ and ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.’” (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007))); In re Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc., 589 F. App’x 967
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (the Board erred in failing to consider the prior art in the
context of the background knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have had). Art can legitimately serve to document the
knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the prior art
identified as producing obviousness. Randall, 733 F.3d at 1362–63.
In this light, and in view of Appellant’s Figure 2 and corresponding
description found at pages 6 through 10 of the Specification (see Spec. 6:19–
10:15), the Examiner finds, and we agree, that both L.L. Bean (see Non-
Final Act. 6–8, citing L.L. Bean 1–4; see also Ans. 4) and Rauenzahn (see
Non-Final Act. 9–10, citing Rauenzahn, Figs. 1, 2; see also Ans. 5–6) teach
user interfaces for displaying navigable information as a table with rows and
columns of information, i.e., the recited “interactive product informational
table” (claim 1). In this regard, we note Appellant misapprehends the
conclusion in our prior decision that Appellant’s arguments that L.L. Bean
alone did not disclose the recited table were not persuasive, as the collective
teachings and suggestions of both L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn were relied on
(see Dec. 5–6). Thus, Appellant incorrectly asserts that “it has been
acknowledged that L.L. Bean – when considered alone – does not disclose,
teach, or suggest an interactive product information table” (Appeal Br. 6).
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

10
In fact, L.L. Bean teaches a table, as does Rauenzahn, and as was well-
known in the art at the time of Appellant’s application filing data (see Talib;
Spec. 1:6–9). Therefore, the combination of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn has
not been shown to lack any of the subject matter recited in claim 1, including
the recited tables.
The Examiner also finds (see Non-Final Act. 7–10; Ans. 5–6), and we
agree, that both L.L. Bean (see Fig. 4) and Rauenzahn (see Figs. 1–3; ¶¶ 33,
34, 36, 37) teach electronic product catalogs of products that are displayed in
the form of a table arranged in rows and columns, where the columns are
vertically scrollable as claimed, i.e., the recited “further table” (claim 1).
In view of the foregoing, and the fact that Appellant’s Specification
does not give a detailed explanation or illustration for what constitutes “a
further table” (see claim 1) as claimed (see Fig. 2 (showing a table 208, but
no clear “further table”); see also Spec. 7:18–10:15, especially, Spec. 9:20–
10:1 (describing the use of a second level product informational area 231
accessed via user interface element 236 to expand/collapse the view showing
relevant second level product information), Appellant has not shown error in
the Examiner’s interpretation that the recited “further table” need not be
narrowly construed to mean ‘“an embedded table’” (Ans. 6) (emphasis
added).
We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not
in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as
a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references).
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

11
With regard to representative claim 1, Appellant’s contentions
(Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–5) that L.L. Bean individually fails to disclose
a table or a further table having a plurality of rows and a plurality of
vertically scrollable columns, as recited in representative claim 1, are not
persuasive in light of the Examiner’s’ application of a combination of the
teachings and suggestions of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn, and taken with the
knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellant’s invention.
In general, Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–5)
are drawn to L.L. Bean individually, and not to the combination articulated
by the Examiner. The Examiner (Non-Final Act. 9; Ans. 3–5) relies upon
Rauenzahn (Figs. 1–3) as teaching the recited table in claim 1, having a
plurality of rows and a plurality of vertically scrollable columns.7 The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that both L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn “are
directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, presentation of items and
their characteristic information on a graphical user interface (i.e. GUI)”
(Non-Final Act. 10). And, the Examiner determines, and we agree, that it
would have been obvious “to incorporate Rauenzahn’s teaching[s] in the L.
L. Bean system to display vertical scrollable columns in a table” (Non-Final
Act. 10). In this light, Appellant’s contention (Reply Br. 3) that the
Examiner has not provided any motivation for modifying L.L. Bean with

7 “Rauenzahn teaches a table having a plurality of rows and a plurality of
vertically scrollable columns” (Non-Final Act. 9). Rauenzahn’s “Figure 3
teaches a table with [a] plurality of rows and columns that are vertically
scrollable” (see Ans. 6).
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

12
Rauenzahn’s table having rows and columns, is unpersuasive.8 Similarly,
Appellant’s contention (App. Br. 7) that Rauenzahn fails to cure the
deficiencies of L.L. Bean as to teaching the recited table, is also
unpersuasive.
Although we agree with Appellant’s contentions (Appeal Br. 8) that
the Buczek reference cited by the Examiner at pages 10–11 of the Non-Final
Office Action (as explicitly teaching the recited tables) is not properly
included in the rejection of claim 1,9 as the Examiner recognizes (see Ans.
6–7), we have now considered Buczek in our statement of Judicial Notice as
set out above. As a result, we find the collective teachings and suggestions
of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn would have taught or suggested the subject
matter of claim 1, including the recited table and further table for displaying
second level product information.
We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and conclude that it would also have been obvious and
predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art of user interfaces for searching

8 And notably, as long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the
references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not
require that the references be combined for the precise reasons contemplated
by the inventor. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing
In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304 (CCPA 1976)). Any motivation,
“whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by
evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient.” Outdry
Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed Cir.
2017).
9 “Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a
‘minor capacity,’ there would appear to be no excuse for not positively
including the reference in the statement of the rejection.” In re Hoch, 428
F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

13
within electronic product catalogs to use tables with rows and columns with
user interface elements to allow users to browse and select specific products
(e.g., specific products, colors, types, or sizes) when searching a catalog.10
Appellant’s arguments (see Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 6) that there is
no motivation to combine L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn are conclusory and not
persuasive. The Examiner finds (see Non-Final Act. 4–5, 10; Ans. 6–7), and
we agree, that both L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn are directed to the same field
of endeavor, e.g., presentation of items and their related information on a
graphical user interface (such as in table format with columns and rows).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of representative
claim 1 as being obvious over the combination of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn,
as well as claims 2, 3, and 6–11 grouped therewith.

10 “‘[T]he question under 35 USC 103 is not merely what the references
expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft
Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545
F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added); see also Randall Mfg. v.
Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he [KSR] Court required an
analysis that reads the prior art in context, taking account of ‘demands
known to the design community,’ ‘the background knowledge possessed by
a person having ordinary skill in the art,’ and ‘the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’” (quoting KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007))); In re Taylor Made
Golf Company, Inc., 589 F. App’x 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (the Board erred in
failing to consider the prior art in the context of the background knowledge
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had); Finisar Corp. v.
DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (to determine the
“meaning of a prior art reference,” the Board must incorporate “the
understanding of an artisan of ordinary skill.”); MPEP § 2123.
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

14
Claims 4 and 5
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combination of L.L. Bean, Rauenzahn, and Dicker teaches or
suggests the non-transitory computer-readable media recited in claims 4 and
5 because Appellant does not address the merits of this rejection, or
otherwise present arguments on the merits with regard to claims 4 and 5.11
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (requiring that “[e]ach ground of rejection
contested by appellant must be argued under a separate heading,” and “any
arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused
consideration”). As such, Appellant has not argued that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 4 and 5 or otherwise shown this obviousness rejection to
be in error. See id.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting representative claim 1, and
claims 2, 3, and 6–11 grouped therewith, as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn.
(2) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner has erred in rejecting
claims 4 and 5 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of L.L. Bean, Rauenzahn, and Dicker.

11 We note the Appeal Brief lacks a separate and substantive argument on
the § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 5 over L.L. Bean, Rauenzahn, and Dicker
(see generally App. Br. 4–7).
Appeal 2020-003626
Application 13/834,023

15
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–
11
103(a) L.L. Bean,
Rauenzahn
1–3, 6–11
4, 5 103(a) L.L. Bean,
Rauenzahn, Dicker
4, 5
Overall
Outcome
1–11

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–11 are affirmed.
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