AIRBUS HELICOPTERS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2021

2020004059 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 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.
15/078,399 03/23/2016 Pierre PRUD'HOMME-LACROIX EUR0777PUSA 8601
22045 7590 06/02/2021
Brooks Kushman
1000 Town Center
22nd Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, VICENTE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2021 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
kdilucia@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIERRE PRUD’HOMME-LACROIX
and PATRICE GARCIN
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, 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 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

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 Airbus Helicopters.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a shock absorbing system for a
helicopter, and a method for employment thereof. Claims 1, 6, and 17 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
1. Landing gear for an aircraft, the landing gear comprising:
a longitudinal bearing first skid and a longitudinal
bearing second skid;
a front cross-member and a rear cross-member, each of
the front and rear cross-members extending transversely and
suitable for connecting the first skid and the second skid to a
fuselage of the aircraft, each of the front and rear cross-
members having a first branch connected to the first skid and a
second branch connected to the second skid, the first skid and
the second skid situated transversely on either side of a vertical
anteroposterior plane of symmetry; and
a pair of shock absorbers comprising a first shock
absorber and a second shock absorber arranged transversely on
either side of the anteroposterior plane, each shock absorber
attached to one of the front and rear cross-members, each shock
absorber comprising a cylinder defining an inside space and a
rod carrying a piston, the inside space subdivided at least into a
primary chamber possessing an inside volume that decreases
when the rod is pushed into the cylinder and into a secondary
chamber, each of the primary and secondary chambers filled
with a fluid, each shock absorber including a throttling orifice
fluidly connecting the secondary chamber and the primary
chamber, each piston defining at least part of one of the primary
and secondary chambers of the corresponding shock absorber in
order to move the fluid,
wherein the primary chamber of the first shock absorber
is directly connected to the secondary chamber of the second
shock absorber via a first pipe, and the secondary chamber of
the first shock absorber is directly connected to the primary
chamber of the second shock absorber via a second pipe.
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sterrett US 2,574,299 Nov. 6, 1951
Maltby US 2,933,270 Apr. 19, 1960
Coffy US 4,645,143 Feb. 24, 1987
Dalal US 6,296,235 B1 Oct. 2, 2001
Kincaid US 6,517,094 B1 Feb. 11, 2003
Cook US 2006/0091635 A1 May 4, 2006
Dunn US 2011/0133378 A1 Jun. 09, 2011
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3–6, and 12–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dunn and Kincaid.
II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dunn, Kincaid, and Sterrett.
III. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dunn, Kincaid, and Cook.
IV. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dunn, Kincaid, and Dalal.
V. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dunn, Kincaid, and Coffy.
VI. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dunn, Kincaid, and Maltby.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I; Claims 1, 3–6, 12–20
The Examiner finds that Dunn discloses aircraft landing gear
including the limitations of the claimed design, except for pipes connecting
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

4
the primary chamber of the first shock absorber to the secondary chamber of
the second shock absorber, and the secondary chamber of the first shock
absorber to the primary chamber of the second shock absorber. Final Act.
5–6. The Examiner finds that Kincaid discloses an anti-roll suspension
having this connection of first and second shock absorbers, and concludes
that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to connect Dunn’s
shock absorbers as in Kincaid, “to help stabilize the vehicle against roll and
leaning action during operation.” Id. at 6.
Regarding the limitations of damping vertical movement and damping
roll movement, which are recited in independent claim 17, the Examiner
contends that “a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must
result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior
art . . . to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.”
Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner also contends that “[i]f the prior art structure
is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.” Id. at 3.
The Examiner finds that Dunn, as combined with Kincaid, results in a
suspension system where cylinder fluid flows through the first and second
pipes to damp vertical movement in an aircraft landing mode, and through a
throttling orifice within each shock absorber to damp roll movement in an
aircraft roll mode. Id. at 10 (citing Kincaid, Fig. 2 and Dunn ref. 38).
Appellant argues claims 1, 3–6, and 12–15, and 17–20 as a group.
We select claim 17 as the representative claim for the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 1, 3–6, 12–15, and 18–20 stand or fall with
claim 17.

Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

5
Appellant argues that Kincaid does not have cylinders with throttling
orifices and is directed to a suspension for a motor vehicle, not an aircraft, or
a helicopter. Appeal Br. 6. We are not persuaded by this argument, because
it does not address the Examiner’s proposed combination of Dunn and
Kincaid, and therefore does not show error in the Examiner’s findings or
conclusions.
Claim 17 recites, inter alia, fluid flowing “through the first and
second pipes to damp vertical movement in a landing mode” and fluid
flowing “through the throttling orifice of each of the . . . shock absorbers to
damp roll movement in a roll mode.” Appellant’s Specification discloses
During a roll mode of operation, the fuselage of the
aircraft oscillates on the ground about a roll axis relative to the
landing gear. The piston moves relative to the cylinder through
a small amplitude and at a slow speed of the order of a few
centimeters per second. In order to be effective during such a
roll mode of operation in limiting any risk of the ground
resonance phenomenon appearing, the shock absorber is
dimensioned so as to exert a predetermined opposing force
when the piston is traveling relative to the cylinder with such an
amplitude and at such a speed.
Spec. ¶ 18. Appellant’s Specification also discloses that “[d]uring a landing
mode of operation, the fuselage then moves substantially vertically relative
to the landing gear. The piston then moves relative to the cylinder at a high
speed of the order of a few meters per second.” Id. ¶ 19. Appellant’s
Specification goes on to state that “[d]uring a landing mode of operation, the
pipes tend to neutralize the throttling orifices. The fluid tends to flow via the
pipes and not via the throttling orifices.” Id. ¶ 37. Further, “during a roll
mode of operation, the pipes coupling the two shock absorbers together do
not prevent the hydraulic fluid from passing through the throttling orifices as
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

6
a result of the relative movements of the pistons and the cylinders.” Id. ¶ 40.
Appellant’s Specification indicates that it is the orifice/pipe size and the
nature of the force(s) exerted on the shock absorbers that determines fluid
flow patterns during the various modes of damping. See id. at 37–43. There
is no controller causing fluid to flow as claimed – fluid flow is determined
by the structure of the shock absorbers (orifice/pipe size) and the forces
resulting from aircraft movement.
Appellant argues that neither Dunn nor Kincaid discloses “the
structure and modes that damp vertical movement and roll movement as
required by claim 17.” Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, Dunn
discloses damping vertical movement, but not connecting adjacent shock
absorbers for such damping, and Kincaid discloses connecting adjacent
shock absorbers, but not for damping vertical movement. Id. (citing Kincaid
4:25–27 (disclosing that Kincaid’s anti-roll suspension system “‘tends to
level the sprung portion of the vehicle.’”). Appellant contends that Dunn’s
use of poppet valves to damp vertical movement by fluid flow in a single
cylinder “is the opposite of” transferring fluid between two cylinders for
vertical damping. Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner responds that Appellant is arguing against the
references separately, rather than arguing against the proposed combination
of references. Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that Dunn’s dampers 10A,
10B would be understood to dampen helicopter vertical movement, because
they are “oriented vertically between the body and landing skid.” Id.
Further, the Examiner explains, Dunn uses the terms/phrases
“‘downwardly,’” “‘linear movement . . . compresses,’” and “‘moves linearly
upward’” in describing operation of its dampers –– which a skilled artisan
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

7
would understand means that Dunn’s dampers 10A, 10B at least damp
vertical movement during landing. Id. at 4–5 (quoting Dunn ¶ 35).
Regarding Kincaid’s anti-roll suspension, the Examiner contends that
its fluid distribution “between the laterally opposite cylinders 48a and 48b
tends to level the sprung portion of the vehicle,’” and the fluid in Kincaid’s
circuit 66 will be distributed “‘until the forces exerted on pistons 54a, 54b by
the fluid in their associated upper and lower fluid chambers reaches a
substantial equilibrium.’” Id. at 5 (citing Kincaid 4:25, 4:27). The
Examiner contends that Kincaid’s anti-roll “‘leveling’” is damping, because
it dissipates forces “affecting the suspension to cause an imbalance.” Id.
The Examiner concludes that modifying Dunn in accordance with the
teachings of Kincaid would have been obvious to stabilize Dunn’s vehicle
“against roll and leaning action during operations.” Id. The Examiner is
reasoning that, if you add anti-roll structure to a vertical damping system,
you will have a system that damps both vertical and roll movement.
Appellant replies that the Examiner’s proposed combination of Dunn
and Kincaid “require[s] that structure in Dunn be used to achieve the
function in Kincaid, and vice versa,” which does not meet the limitations of
claim 17. Id. at 1–2. Appellant provides the following annotated versions
of Figure 3A of Dunn (left) and Figure 2 of Kincaid (right), with Dunn’s
poppet valve 38 labeled and Kincaid’s cylinders 48a, 48b labeled. The
connection between Kincaid’s cylinders 48a, 48b is shown as lines 62, 64.
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

8

Reply Br. 2.
According to Appellant, Dunn is relied on to disclose the throttling
valves 38, but Dunn uses its valves 38 for damping vertical sink, not roll. Id.
(citing Dunn, ¶¶ 6–7). Kincaid discloses damping roll, but does not use a
throttling orifice to damp roll movement. Id. Further, Appellant argues,
even if Dunn is modified to use Kincaid’s fluid connection of laterally
opposite cylinders 48a, 48b to damp roll movement, then the combination
still does not disclose damping vertical movement via fluid connection of
laterally opposite cylinders as recited in claim 17. Id. at 3.
Appellant is essentially arguing that, while the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Dunn and Kincaid would include both throttling orifices and
fluid connection of laterally opposite cylinders, and while the result would
be a system that damps both vertical movement and roll movement, the
limitations of claim 17 are not met because the system would not damp roll
movement with the throttling orifice and vertical movement with the fluid
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

9
connection of laterally opposite cylinders. Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive for the following reason.
Dunn discloses helicopter landing gear having dampers 8 with valves
38 allowing fluid to move between primary and secondary chambers 17, 40
within a single damper to absorb forces during landing. See Dunn ¶¶ 20, 27.
Dunn does not explicitly disclose whether such forces are the result of
vertical movement or roll movement, but a skilled artisan having read the
disclosure of Dunn would understand that the forces are at least the result of
vertical movement. See, e.g., Dunn ¶ 35. However, Dunn certainly does not
explicitly limit the effectiveness of its dampers 8 to vertical movement, as
Dunn would appear to consider its dampers effective for all forces associated
with landing a helicopter. See, e.g., Dunn ¶¶ 3, 5.
Kincaid discloses an anti-roll suspension system for a motor vehicle,
noting that its system can be “utilized in a variety of vehicular suspension
systems” and “is not intended to be limited to the particular [automotive]
application described.” Kincaid 2:62 – 3:3. Looking at Kincaid’s anti-roll
suspension system of Figure 2, each piston 54a, 54b has an upper chamber
58a, 58b and a lower chamber 60a, 60b. See id. 4:1–6. Kincaid explains
that “upper fluid chamber 58a of cylinder 48a is connected through a first
fluid conduit 62 to lower fluid chamber 60b of cylinder 48b,” and “upper
fluid chamber 58b of cylinder 48b is connected through a second fluid
conduit 64 to lower fluid chamber 60a of cylinder 48a.” Id. “[T]ransfer of
fluid between the laterally opposite cylinders 48a and 48b tends to level the
sprung portion of the vehicle” which damps roll movement. Id. at 4:25–27.
Kincaid also contemplates damping vertical movement with its pistons. See
id. 2:14–18 (“Configuration of the suspension system in this manner
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

10
controls roll during cornering maneuvers while preventing vertically
directed forces encountered by an individual wheel during normal driving
conditions from being transmitted to the laterally opposite wheel.”); 3:46–
52.
Combining Dunn and Kincaid as proposed by the Examiner would
yield dampers 8 with: (1) valves 38 allowing fluid to move between primary
and secondary chambers 17, 40; (2) a pipe connecting a primary chamber of
a first damper 8 with a secondary chamber of a laterally opposite second
damper 8; and (3) a pipe connecting a secondary chamber of the first damper
with a primary chamber of the second damper. The resulting dampers would
damp both vertical and roll movement.
As explained in Appellant’s own Specification, lacking a controller
directing fluid flow, it appears to be the relative sizes of the throttling orifice
and pipe sections, and the nature of the forces on the shock absorber pistons,
that determine fluid flow patterns during the various modes of damping.
Spec. ¶¶ 37–43. Thus, if the combination of Dunn and Kincaid includes the
structure recited in claim 17, it will perform the same functions in the same
manner. In other words, once Dunn and Kincaid are combined to include
the claimed structure, Appellant’s own Specification points to the fact that
the shock absorber structure (including orifice and pipe size) and forces
applied to the pistons will drive fluid flow in such a way –– through both the
throttle orifices and the pipes –– as to damp both roll and vertical movement.
Appellant has not pointed to any structure of the combination of Dunn and
Kincaid that differs from the structure of the claimed device and would,
thus, prevent the resulting damping system from damping in the same
manner as that of Appellant’s claimed system. We decline to require the
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

11
Examiner to provide that the same structure would necessarily perform the
same function, when Appellant’s own Specification discloses that such a
structure dictates the function.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to combine Dunn and Kincaid is erroneous because the
Examiner’s proposed combination would change the principle of operation
of Dunn. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that Dunn’s disc springs 22
“‘compress together absorbing a portion of the energy transferred to them by
the load,’” and Dunn has “valves 38 between the cavities to improve the
performance of the damper.” Id. (citing Dunn ¶ 23, 27). According to
Appellant, “[c]hanging Dunn to move fluid between [laterally adjacent
cylinders] to provide damping would require a substantial reconstruction and
redesign of the elements and would change the operating principles of
Dunn” and, similarly, “changing Kincaid to move fluid within a single
cylinder would result in a substantial reconstruction and redesign that would
change the operation of Kincaid.” Id. at 9. Appellant also continues that
Dunn and Kincaid damp movement in a manner opposite to the claimed
damping. Id.
The Examiner responds that Dunn and Kincaid are in the same field of
endeavor, being directed to suspension and damping systems for vehicles
using hydraulic fluid, hydraulic cylinders, and pistons in the operation of
their devices. Ans. 5. Further, the Examiner argues, “Appellant has not
provided substantial proof that the two systems are not compatible.” Id. at 6.
The Examiner, thus, appears to consider the principle of operation of both
Dunn and Kincaid to be vehicle damping using hydraulic fluid, hydraulic
cylinders, and pistons.
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

12
Appellant replies that, despite Dunn and Kincaid being in the same
field of damping systems, it “would not be obvious to change the principles
of operation of the structures in Dunn and Kincaid,” and the rejection
requires that Dunn’s throttle valve perform Kincaid’s function, and vice
versa, changing the principle of operation of both references. Reply Br. 3–4.
Appellant continues that Dunn improves vertical damping “by transferring
hydraulic fluid between first and second cavities in one cylinder with a
throttling orifice,” and “[i]t would not be obvious to use the structure in
Dunn to damp roll movement . . . without changing the principle of
operation of Dunn.” Id. at 4. Likewise, Appellant argues, Kincaid transfers
fluid between laterally opposite cylinders to reduce roll, and “[t]t would not
be obvious to use the structure of Kincaid to damp vertical movement . . .
without changing the principle of Kincaid.” Id. Appellant has not explicitly
identified the principle of operation of Dunn. To the extent Appellant
contends that it is damping vertical movement with a throttling orifice, we
decline to limit Dunn’s principle of operation so narrowly. Indeed, we agree
with the Examiner that the principle of operation of Dunn is more
appropriately defined as vehicle damping using hydraulic fluid, hydraulic
cylinders, and pistons. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument,
because, given this broader principle of operation of Dunn, Dunn’s principle
of operation would not be changed by the Examiner’s proposed
modification.
Appellant further argues that a skilled artisan “would not be motivated
to combine the helicopter system in Dunn with the motor vehicle system in
Kincaid because the result would be unpredictable and there would not be an
expectation of success.” Appeal Br. 9–10. According to Appellant,
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

13
Kincaid discloses “difficulties combining different suspension systems in
motor vehicles,” stating that “‘most antiroll suspension systems are not
easily integrated into vehicles having conventional suspension system
components.” Id. at 10 (citing Kincaid 1:34–36).
The Examiner responds that, while Kincaid notes difficulties
combining suspensions, Kincaid also states that its device is an improvement
that allows integration to take place. Ans. 6. Regarding expectation of
success, the Examiner contends that Dunn and Kincaid are “at their heart
aimed at suspension systems for vehicles,” and neither reference limits itself
to certain vehicles. Id. at 7. Further, the Examiner argues the references
disclosing similar suspension systems having hydraulic cylinders for
damping vehicle movement, which indicates that a skilled artisan would
have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the two systems. Id.
Appellant replies that “[w]hile Kincaid may provide a ‘simplified
anti-roll suspension system’ for motor vehicles,” a skilled artisan “would
understand the difficulties of combining a system for a motor vehicle having
four wheels 44, with the suspension for a helicopter with skids 48 in Dunn.”
Reply Br. 4. Appellant contends that “[t]he forces and motion of vertical
landing in a helicopter . . . are drastically different than the driving motions
and forces experienced by in a motor vehicle.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Kincaid’s device is directed to an
anti-roll suspension system that is easily integrated into conventional
suspension components. See Kincaid 1:54–56. Further, Appellant provides
no evidence supporting the proffered attorney argument that “[t]he forces
and motion of vertical landing in a helicopter . . . are drastically different
than the driving motions and forces experienced by in [sic] a motor vehicle”
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

14
(Reply Br. 4), and we decline to rely on mere attorney argument on this
point.
For the reasons set forth above, we discern no error in the Examiner’s
findings or reasoning. We sustain the rejection of claim 17. Claims 1, 3–6,
12–15, and 18–20 fall with claim 17.

Claim 16
Independent claim 16 recites, inter alia, damping roll movement by
preventing fluid flow through the first and second pipes. Regarding
independent method claim 16, Appellant argues that “[i]n addition to the
reasons discussed above with regard to claim 17, claim 16 is separately
patentable over Dunn and Kincaid” because neither Dunn nor Kincaid
discloses preventing flow through the first and second pipes for damping roll
movement. Appeal Br. 11.
Regarding flow prevention, the Examiner responds that Kincaid’s
claim 5 recites “‘a valve for preventing the flow of fluid between said first
and second cylinders,’” and Kincaid further recites that “‘location of valve
element 82 in its first position prevents fluid communication between
conduits 62a and 62b as well as between 64a and 64b.’” Ans. 7 (citing
Kincaid, Fig. 4).
We are not persuaded by the arguments set forth above regarding the
patentability of claim 17. In addition, the Examiner is correct that Kincaid
discloses a valve 82 that can prevent flow through the pipes. Because
system fluid flow is determined by the structure of the shock absorbers and
the forces resulting from aircraft movement, Appellant has not persuaded us
that Kincaid’s valve, as combined, would not prevent movement as claimed.
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

15
We sustain the rejection of claim 16.
Rejection II; Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites, inter alia, first and second
pipes opening into primary or secondary chambers via pipe sections,
throttling orifices opening into primary or secondary chambers via throttling
sections, and the pipe sections having an area greater than an area of
throttling sections. Claim 2 stands rejected over Dunn, Kincaid, and Sterrett.
Final Act. 11.
The Examiner finds that Dunn teaches first and second pipes opening
into primary or secondary chambers via pipe sections at “Dunn refs. 17, 40”
and throttling orifices opening into primary or secondary chambers via
throttling sections at “Dunn ref. 48 opening into chambers of cylinder.”
Final Act. 11–12. The Examiner finds that, although Dunn does not
expressly disclose its pipe sections having a greater area than its throttling
sections, Sterrett discloses pipe sections with a greater area than throttling
sections in its Figure 1 “at ref. 16, pipe section cross sectional area greater
than throttling chamber.” Id. at 12.
Appellant argues that the Examiner relies on Sterrett to disclose pipes
16 with a pipe section area, but “Sterrett does not disclose a throttling
orifice, nor does the Office point to a throttling orifice.” Appeal Br. 12–13.
Appellant further argues that it is unclear how Sterrett’s pipe 16 can be
greater than Dunn’s poppet 38. Id. at 13.
The Examiner responds that the rejection does not propose that
Sterrett’s pipe section 16 is greater than Dunn’s valve 38. Instead, the
Examiner finds that “Sterrett teaches a pipe section, at reference 16 with
hashed lines where pipe is attached, which is has [sic] an area greater than an
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

16
adjacent section, to the right of reference 16 and not numbered, which
functions as a throttling section.” Ans. 8. The Examiner contends that the
area of Sterrett’s throttling section is therefore disclosed to be smaller than
its pipe section. Id.
Lacking a more detailed explanation of what structure the Examiner
considers to be Sterrett’s throttling section, and how the Examiner comes to
determine what structures in Sterrett make up a throttling section and a pipe
section, we do not sustain Rejection II.

Rejections II–VI; Claim 7–11
Appellant makes no argument that any of claims 7–11 would be
patentable if claim 1 is not patentable. We therefore summarily sustain
Rejections II–VI for the reason explained above regarding claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part.
Appeal 2020-004059
Application 15/078,399

17
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 12–20 103(a) Dunn, Kincaid 1, 3–6, 12–20
2 103(a) Dunn, Kincaid,
Sterrett
2
7,8 103(a) Dunn, Kincaid, Cook 7, 8
9 103(a) Dunn, Kincaid, Dalai 9
10 103(a) Dunn, Kincaid, Coffy 10
11 103(a) Dunn, Kincaid,
Maltby
11
Overall
Outcome:
1, 3–20 2

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 IN PART