Zaffir A. Chaudhry

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 13, 2020

14315396 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 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.
14/315,396 06/26/2014 Zaffir A. Chaudhry PA03121; 67097-689PUS2 5837
54549 7590 03/13/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
MEADE, LORNE EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2020 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ZAFFIR A. CHAUDHRY
____________________

Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, 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 1–14 and 16–22. We have jurisdiction
under § 6(b). We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Our Decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed Oct. 13, 2017), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 13, 2018),
and Specification (“Spec.,” filed June 26, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 25, 2018), Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed June
30, 2017), and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 19, 2017).
Appellant identifies the applicant, United Technologies Corporation as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “provid[ing] an effective,
lightweight fan variable area nozzle for a gas turbine engine” for an aircraft.
Spec. ¶ 7.
Claims 1, 14, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A nacelle assembly for a gas turbine engine
comprising:
a core nacelle defined about an axis for allowing core flow
to pass therethrough;
a fan nacelle mounted at least partially around said core
nacelle, said fan nacelle having a fan variable area nozzle that
defines a fan exit area between said fan nacelle and said core
nacelle, said nozzle having a plurality of pivotable flaps
pivotable about a pivot defined by each one of said plurality of
pivotable flaps;
a cable passing through an orifice defined by at least one
of said plurality of pivotable flaps; and
an actuator system operable to mechanically retract said
cable therein pivoting at least one of said flaps about said pivot
to lessen said fan exit area and mechanically extend said cable to
enable bypass flow to pivot at least one of said flaps about said
pivot and increase said fan exit area, wherein said actuator
system is engaged with said cable, and a segment of said cable,
opposite said actuator system, is attached to a fixed structure of
the fan nacelle.
REJECTIONS2
Claims 14, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with written description requirement.

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 17 as indefinite. See
Adv. Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

3
Claims 1–10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rey (US 6,318,070 B1, iss. Nov. 20, 2001), Arnold
(US 7,458,221 B1, iss. Dec. 2, 2008), Kallal (US 2,634,578, iss. Apr. 14,
1953), Rozmus (US 5,295,645, iss. Mar. 22, 1994), Barooah
(US 6,543,224 B1, iss. Apr. 8, 2003), and Stevenson (US 2,515,274, iss.
July 18, 1950).
Claims 1–10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rey, Arnold, Kallal, Rozmus, Barooah, Ivie
(US 4,850,535, iss. July 25, 1989), and Aalto (US 5,829,464, iss. Nov. 3,
1998).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rey, Arnold, Kallal, Rozmus, Barooah, Stevenson, and Adamson
(US 4,251,987, iss. Feb. 24, 1981).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rey, Arnold, Kallal, Rozmus, Barooah, Ivie, Aalto, and Adamson.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rey, Arnold, Kallal, Rozmus, Barooah, Stevenson, and
Webb (US 5,110,069, iss. May 5, 1992).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rey, Arnold, Kallal, Rozmus, Barooah, Ivie, Aalto, and
Webb.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rozmus, Kallal, and Rey.
Claims 17, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rey, Kallal, Arnold, and Rozmus.
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

4
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rey, Kallal, Arnold, Rozmus, Barooah, and Stevenson.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rey, Kallal, Arnold, Rozmus, Barooah, Ivie, and Aalto.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rey, Kallal, Arnold, Rozmus, and Webb.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rey, Kallal, Arnold, Rozmus, and Devaud (US 4,825,754, iss. May 2, 1989).
ANALYSIS
Written Description
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. See Appeal Br.
9–10; see also Reply Br. 8. The Examiner finds that there is no written
description support for the limitation “a segment of said cable, opposite said
actuator, is attached to a fixed structure,” as recited in independent claim 14.
See Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that the Specification at Figure 2C and
paragraph 49 provides support for this claim limitation. Appeal Br. 9–10;
see also Spec. ¶ 49, Fig. 2C.
The Examiner acknowledges that Appellant’s Specification describes
with reference to Figure 2C that “cable 58 is wound around a spool 66 at one
end segment 58A while the other end segment 58B is attached to a fixed
attachment[,] such as one of the fixed structure[s] 34R.” Final Act. 3
(quoting Spec. ¶ 49). However, the Examiner takes the position that the
claimed “fixed engagement point” (i.e., “second end [of the cable is]
engaged with a first engagement point of said structure”) and the claimed
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

5
“fixed structure” (i.e., “a segment of said cable . . . is attached to a fixed
cable”) refer to the same structure. See Adv. Act. 2 (“Appellant’s argument
misses the point. . . . Claim 14 cannot use two different claim limitations to
describe the same structure.); see also Ans. 54 (“Claim 14 cannot use two
different claim limitations to describe the same structure.”).
However, we agree with Appellant (see Reply Br. 8) that the
Specification discloses a plurality of fixed fan nacelle structures 34R,
individual ones of which could correspond to the claimed “fixed engagement
point” and the claimed “fixed structure,” respectively. That is, one fixed fan
nacelle structure 34R can constitute the claimed “fixed engagement point”
and another fixed fan nacelle structure 34R can constitute the claimed fixed
“structure,” but a single fixed fan nacelle structure cannot and does not
constitute both claim elements.
For example, the Specification at Figure 2A shows cable 58 passing
through eyelets in fixed fan nacelle structures 34R. The Specification
describes that cable 58 “engages each flap 50 at a flap engagement point 60
and a multiple of fixed fan nacelle structures 34R or such like at a fixed
engagement point 62.” Spec. ¶ 46. Cable 58 preferably passes through one
fixed engagement point 62, a flap engagement point 60, and a second fixed
engagement point 62, such that the flap engagement point 60 is intermediate
the fixed engagement points 62. Id. ¶ 47 (citing Fig. 2C). The fixed
engagement point 62 and flap engagement point 60 “are generally eyelets or
[the] like[,] which permit the cable to be strung therethrough.” Id. ¶ 47.
Referring to Figure 2C, the actuator engages an end segment 58A of the
cable 58 that is wound around spool 66, “while the other end segment is
attached to a fixed attachment[,] such as one of the fixed structure[s] 34R.”
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

6
Id. ¶ 49. Cable 58 is spooled or unspooled to decrease or increase its
circumferential length, thereby adjusting flaps 50 to decrease or increase the
fan nozzle exit area. Id. ¶¶ 48–49.
We find that the Specification at Figures 2A and 2C and paragraphs
44 through 49 conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that
Appellant, as of the filing date, was in possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 14 and
dependent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failure to
comply with the written description requirement.
The Examiner finds that claim 21 recites claim language similar to
claim 14, and rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for
reasons similar to those set forth in the rejection of claim 14. See Ans. 54
(finding that claim 21 also uses two different claim limitations to describe
the same structure); see also Final Act. 4–5. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failure
to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons
described above with respect to claim 14.
Obviousness
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2–10 and 21
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rey, Arnold, Kallal, Rozmus, Barooah, and Stevenson, because the
combination does not teach or suggest that “a segment of said cable,
opposite said actuator system, is attached to a fixed structure of the fan
nacelle,” as recited in claim 1. See Reply Br. 2–7, see also Appeal Br. 3–6.
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

7
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Rey describes a variable
area nozzle that uses a shape memory alloy (“SMA”) cable to pivot the flaps
of a variable area nozzle based on an application of heat. Ans. 3 (citing Rey,
Figs. 1–3), 7 (citing Rey 4:10–20, 32–43, 64–67, 6:40–52, Figs. 2, 3, 9).
The Examiner applies Arnold for teaching that SMA ropes or strands can be
replaced with an ordinary cable driven by a motor. Ans. 24; see also Final
Act. 13 (citing Arnold 4:41–43, 9:56–61). Additionally, the Examiner
applies Kallal to teach mechanically retracting an ordinary cable 7 using a
motor 8 and spool 9. Ans. 25.
The Examiner acknowledges that a combination of Rey, Arnold, and
Kallal does not teach that a segment of the cable opposite the actuator
system is attached to a fixed structure of the fan nacelle, as required by
claim 1. Final Act. 13; see also Ans. 10 (finding that Rey’s figures do not
show how SMA cable 68, opposite actuator system 81, terminates).
However, the Examiner finds that Rey teaches that cable 68 “may be
terminated in a variety of conventional mechanical terminations that are
typically used in conventional wire rope making art.” Id. (citing Rey 4:10–
20, Fig. 6). The Examiner additionally finds that Rozmus teaches “a cable
end termination opposite said actuator system (35) attached to a fixed
structure (51 or 23, 25, 26 or 83) within a variable area nozzle (15).” Final
Act. 13 (citing Rozmus 4:64–5:52); see also Ans. 13. In the Answer, the
Examiner annotates Figure 11 of Rozmus to indicate a cable end engaged
with a “first fixed engagement” point 83, a segment of cable attached to a
“fixed structure” as eyelet 84, and a second “fixed engagement point” at
sheath 23. Ans. 25. The Examiner, however, has not established that the
cited portions of Rey and Rozmus teach the argued limitation.
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

8
Rey describes that “SMA actuators 68 formed from substantially
flexible SMA strands, can be terminated in a variety of different
arrangements.” Rey 6:65–7:3 (emphasis omitted). In particular, “the SMA
strands 70 formed into arrays 72 can be also terminated in a variety of
conventional mechanical terminations that are typically used in conventional
wire rope making art.” Id. at 6:67–7:3. To the extent that the Examiner
finds this portion of Rey suggests attaching an end segment of SMA cable
68 to a fixed structure of a fan nacelle, we disagree. The cited portion of
Rey refers to the process of forming the SMA cable, e.g., treating the end
comprising a plurality of ends in the manner similar to a rope comprising a
plurality structure. The cited portion of Rey does not adequately describe or
suggest attaching cable 68 to any fixed structure.
Also, we agree with Appellant (see Reply Br. 5) that Rozmus does not
teach the argued claim limitation. Rozmus describes, with reference to
Figures 2A, 2B, 3, and 4, a nozzle actuation system for a scale model aircraft
that uses push-pull wire 35 threaded through eyelets that are attached to each
blade 40 of nozzle 15 by rivet 42.3 Rozmus 4:57–66. Rozmus teaches that
wire 35 first enters through entry eyelets 50 and 51, then passes through
each eyelet 45 to completely circumscribe the inside periphery of nozzle 15,
and finally reenters first and second entry eyelets 50, 51, anchoring wire 35
to second entry eyelet 51. Id. at 6:67–7:12, Figs. 2A–2B. Because
activation wire 35 is anchored to eyelet 51, when push-pull wire 35 is
withdrawn (pulled) from entry eyelet 50, the circumscribed diameter of wire

3 Rozmus describes that wire is used in the scale model, but in a full scale,
operational aircraft, an actuation rod appropriate for the application would
be used. See Rozmus 3:45–57.
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

9
loop decreases, closing the nozzle exit opening. Id. at 5:6–12. In contrast,
when wire 35 is pushed or advanced into entry eyelet 50, the diameter of the
wire loop within eyelets 45 increases, opening the nozzle. Id. at 5:12–18.
With respect to Figures 7, 10, and 11, Rozmus describes a similar
embodiment in which eyelets 70 are incorporated into hinge plates instead of
rivets. Id. at 5:28–30, 39–40. In that embodiment, actuation wire 35 enters
entry eyelet 86 of plate 55, eyelet 71, and proceeds circumferentially around
the nozzle until reentering entry eyelets and being rigidly affixed to anchor
eyelet 83 of plate 53.
Thus, Rozmus teaches terminating wire 35 at anchor eyelet 51
(embodiment shown in Fig. 2A), and terminating wire 35 at anchor eyelet 83
(embodiment shown in Fig. 11). But neither of these anchor eyelets is “a
fixed structure of the fan nacelle,” as required by claim 1. See Final Act. 13
(identifying anchor eyelet 51 and 83 as a fixed structure). Instead, anchor
eyelets 51, 83 are disposed on a blade 40 of the nozzle 15 by a rivet and
hinge plate, respectively. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding
that Rozmus’s anchor eyelet 51 of the embodiment shown in Figure 2A or
anchor eyelet 83 of the embodiment shown in Figure 11 teaches that a
segment of the cable opposite the actuator system 35 is attached to a fixed
structure of the fan nacelle, as require by claim 1. See Final Act. 13.
We also disagree with the Examiner’s alternative finding that
Rozmus’s elements 23, 25, and 26 teach the claimed fixed structure. See id.
(identifying sheath 23, push-pull rod 25, and stud 26 as a fixed structure).
Rozmus describes that sheath 23 extends from an anchoring bracket 21 on
attachment ring 20 to within close proximity of entry eyelet 51. See Rozmus
5:19–23, Fig. 2A. Rozmus provides that in scale model aircraft it is
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

10
desirable to replace a traditional metal bowden cable comprising a wire
passing through a flexible metal sheath with a flexible plastic bowden cable
comprising a hollow plastic sheath having a plastic push-pull rod 25. See id.
at 5:66–6:5. However, plastic push-pull rod 25 requires a transition piece to
metal wire 35. Id. at 6:8–11. To this end, Rozmus describes extending
wire 35 through a central bore of stud 26, such that an end of wire 35 is
fixed at an axial end of stud 26 by a globule of solder. Id. at 6:16–22, Fig. 9.
At the opposite end of stud 26, another globule of solder secures the wire,
and stud 26 is threaded into an inside diameter of push-pull rod 28. Id. at
6:23–31. The combination of elements 23, 25, and 26, thus, teaches an
actuator system, attached to a fixed structure 20, engaged with wire 35. But
elements 23, 25, 26 do not teach a segment of the cable, opposite the
actuator, being attached to a fixed structure of the fan nacelle, as required by
claim 1.
In the Answer, the Examiner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that Rey’s SMA cable 68 was
terminated/attached to a fan nacelle rib 83 because Rey’s ribs 83 “were the
only structural members in the downstream end portion of the fan nacelle
capable of carrying the structural load of the SMA cable (68).” Ans. 10.
Here, the Examiner ostensibly speculates that Rey inherently discloses
attaching the SMA cable to a fan nacelle rib. However, to establish
inherency, more than speculation is required. In particular, the Examiner
must provide evidence and/or technical reasoning that makes “clear that the
missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the
reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.”
Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

11
(Fed.Cir.1991). “Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. at 1269 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666
F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
The Examiner’s reliance on the remaining references does not cure
these deficiencies. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1, and dependent claims 2–10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rey, Arnold, Kallal, Rozmus, Barooah, and Stevenson.
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Rey, Arnold, Kallal, Rozmus, Barooah, Ivie, and Aalto
based on the same erroneous findings described above with respect to the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rey,
Arnold, Kallal, Rozmus, Barooah, and Stevenson. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2–10 and
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rey, Arnold, Kallal,
Rozmus, Barooah, Ivie, and Aalto for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 11–13
None of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11–13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) remedy the deficiencies set forth above with respect to the
rejections of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejections of claims 11–13 for the same reasons set forth
above with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1.
Independent Claim 14 and Dependent Claim 16
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rozmus, Kallal, and
Rey, because the Examiner improperly interprets the claimed phrases
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

12
“second end engaged with a first fixed engagement point of said structure”
and “a segment of said cable . . . is attached to a fixed structure” as
describing the same structure, and then applies this erroneous interpretation
to find that Rozmus teaches these claim limitations. See Final Act. 25–27;
see also id. at 54 (rejecting claim 14 for failing to comply with the written
description because “[c]laim 14 cannot use two different claim limitations to
describe the same structure.”)
For example, with respect to the limitation regarding a first fixed
engagement point, the Examiner identifies an end of Rozmus’s cable 35
located at anchor eyelet 83 of Figure 11 as the claimed second end of a cable
engaged with a first fixed engagement point. Final Act. 25 (“a second end
(83 – Fig. 11)”). Then, the Examiner finds that Rozmus’s anchor 83 teaches
a fixed engagement point attached to structure 20 via hinge plate 53 and
hinge 41, as required by claim 14. See id. (“[f]ixed engagement point (83 -
eyelet) . . . [is] attached to structure (20)”).
Turning to the limitation regarding a fixed structure, the Examiner
identifies the same end of the cable (namely, the end of the cable 35
positioned at anchor 83 of Figure 11) as the claimed segment of the cable.
Id. The Examiner then finds that the same attachment of cable 35 at anchor
83 that is relied upon for teaching the claimed “second end engaged with a
first fixed engagement point” also teaches the claimed “segment of cable
. . . attached to a fixed structure.” Id. at 25–26 (“a segment of said cable,
opposite (opposite end of cable from the end of the cable engaged with said
actuator system) said actuator system, is attached to a fixed structure (83 –
Fig. 11)”).
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

13
To the extent the Examiner determines that Rey, alone or in
combination with Rozmus, suggests the limitation at issue (see Final Ans. 7
(citing Rey 7:1–3)), we disagree for the same reasons set forth above with
respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
14 and dependent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent Claim 17 and Dependent Claims 18 and 22
Independent claim 17 recites similar language to claim 1. The
Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rey, Kallal, Arnold, and Rozmus suffers the same deficiencies
described with respect to the claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 17, and claims 18 and 22 depending
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rey, Kallal,
Arnold, and Rozmus.
Dependent Claims 19 and 20
Claims 19 and 20 depend from independent claim 17. The
Examiner’s rejections of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) do not
remedy the deficiencies set forth above with respect to the rejection of
independent claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 19 and 20 for the same reasons set forth
above with respect to the rejections of independent claim 17.
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

14
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14, 16,
21
112, first
paragraph
written description 14, 16, 21
1–10, 21 103(a) Rey, Arnold,
Kallal, Rozmus,
Barooah,
Stevenson
1–10, 21
1–10, 21 103(a) Rey, Arnold,
Kallal, Rozmus,
Barooah, Ivie,
Aalto
1–10, 21
11 103(a) Rey, Arnold,
Kallal, Rozmus,
Barooah,
Stevenson,
Adamson
11
11 103(a) Rey, Arnold,
Kallal, Rozmus,
Barooah, Ivie,
Aalto, Adamson
11
12, 13 103(a) Rey, Arnold,
Kallal, Rozmus,
Barooah,
Stevenson, Webb
12, 13
12, 13 103(a) Rey, Arnold,
Kallal, Rozmus,
Barooah, Ivie,
Aalto, Webb
12, 13
14, 16 103(a) Rozmus, Kallal,
Rey
14, 16
17, 18,
22
103(a) Rey, Kallal,
Arnold, Rozmus
17, 18, 22
19 103(a) Rey, Kallal,
Arnold, Rozmus,
19
Appeal 2018-004181
Application 14/315,396

15
Barooah,
Stevenson
19 103(a) Rey, Kallal,
Arnold, Rozmus,
Barooah, Ivie,
Aalto
19
20 103(a) Rey, Kallal,
Arnold, Rozmus,
Webb
20
20 103(a) Rey, Kallal,
Arnold, Rozmus,
Devaud
20
Overall
Outcome
1–14, 16–
22

REVERSED