Eric Tixhon et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 26, 2019

13643327 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2019)

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.
13/643,327 10/25/2012 Eric Tixhon 404904US99PCT 7134
22850 7590 09/26/2019
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2019 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC TIXHON, ERIC MICHEL, and JOSEPH LECLERCQ
____________

Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, 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 1–19 and 22–29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on September 12, 2019.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 AGC GLASS
EUROPE. Appeal Br. 1.
2 A written transcript of the oral hearing will be entered into the record when
the transcript is made available.

Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

2
The invention is directed to a planar electrode. Spec. 1. According to
the Specification, electrodes used in plasma treatments are subject to very
severe working conditions that can lead to localized breakdown and
destruction of the electrode. Id. In addition, the use of planar electrodes in
this environment leads to problems of delamination resulting from the
differences in expansion coefficients between the dielectric and the metallic
planar electrode material. Id. at 2. The prior art has addressed the
delamination issue by using adhesives to bond the dielectric to the metallic
material but, apparently, to no avail. Id.
The invention addresses the delamination issue by using an interlayer
to bond the dielectric layer to the metallic material that comprises polyvinyl
butyrate (PVB) or ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA). Id. at 4. According to the
Specification, this interlayer allows for absorption of a very substantial
differential expansion of the active part and the dielectric, due to the
difference between the thermal expansion coefficients of the active part and
the dielectric. Id. at 6. The Specification also describes that removing
bubbles or microbubbles from the interlayer prevents localized electric
arcing. Id. at 6, 10. The Specification further suggests that the use of EVA
or PVB as interlayers for this purpose was thought to be impossible because
they cannot withstand very high temperatures. Id. at 6. However, the
invention’s use of a metallic envelope to cool the assembly alleviates this
concern. Id. at 9–10. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter claimed
and is reproduced below:

Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

3
1. A planar electrode, comprising:

a metal envelope comprising an active continuous planar
part, suitable for placing parallel to a surface to be treated and
adapted to be filled with a liquid coolant flowable in contact
with an interior of the metal envelope to form a heat exchanger;

a dielectric sheet on an exterior of the active metal part;
and

an interlayer sheet comprising EVA (ethylene vinyl
acetate) or PVB (polyvinyl butyral) fixing the dielectric sheet
directly to the exterior of the active metal part,

wherein

the interlayer sheet comprises a uniform joint between
the dielectric sheet and the active metal part substantially free
of bubbles and micro bubbles,

the electrode is suitable for dielectric barrier discharge
DBD plasma treatment of a surface, and

the electrode is suitable for raising to a voltage capable of
plasma ignition.

Independent claim 23 is also directed to a planar electrode but differs
from the subject matter of claim 1 in that claim 23 further requires a PVB
interlayer and that the electrode is suitable for dielectric barrier discharge
DBD plasma treatment of a surface where the plasma reaches temperatures
between 200 °C and 600 °C. Independent claim 10 is directed to a device
essentially comprising the planar electrode of claim 1.
Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner’s Non-Final Action dated January 16, 2018:
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

4
I. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8–11, 18, 22, 28, and 29 rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Spence (US 5,895,558, issued April
20, 1999), Nishimae (US 4,890,294, issued December 26, 1989), Arakawa
(US 2006/0163197 A1, published July 27, 2006), and Ono (US
2005/0007783 A1, published January 13, 2005).3

II. Claims 1, 4, 8–11, 19, 22, 28, and 29 rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Spence, Nishimae, Arakawa, and
Schafft (US 4,047,060, issued September 6, 1977).

III. Claim 6 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spence, Nishimae, Arakawa, Schafft, and Ono.

IV. Claims 2, 3, and 7 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Spence, Nishimae, Arakawa, Schafft, and Ono and
Kumar (US 6,280,584 B1,4 issued August 28, 2001).

V. Claims 12 and 13 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spence, Nishimae, Arakawa, Schafft, and Ono and
Jackson (US 4,434,841, issued March 6, 1984).

VI. Claim 14 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spence, Nishimae, Arakawa, Schafft, and Ono and
Basnett (US 2005/0115835, A1, published June 2, 2005).

3 Appellant notes that claim 22 was not included in any of the grounds of
rejection presented for review on appeal. Appeal Br. 37. The Examiner has
also failed to clarify the status of this claim. See generally Ans. For the
purposes of this Opinion, we have included claim 22 in Rejections I and II.
If prosecution of this Application is further continued, the Examiner should
formalize the rejection of claim 22.
4 As recognized by Appellant, the Examiner erroneously cited US
2008/0152917 A1 to Brunovska, published June 26, 2008, instead of US
6,280,584 B1 as the reference to Kumar. Non-Final Act. 21; Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner does not dispute that US 6,280,584 B1 is the correct
reference. See generally Non-Final Act. and Ans. Therefore, for the
purposes of this Opinion, we rely on US 6,280,584 B1 as the correct Kumar
reference.
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

5
VII. Claims 15 and 16 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spence, Nishimae, Arakawa, Schafft, and Ono, Beckmann
(US 3,658,636, issued April 25, 1972), Curlee (US 5,009,690, issued April
23, 1991), and Eubank (US 2,863,782, issued December 9, 1958).

VIII. Claim 17 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spence, Nishimae, Arakawa, Schafft, and Ono, Kumar,
and Bunn (US 6,192,969 B1, issued February 27, 2001).

IX. Claims 26 and 27 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spence, Nishimae, Arakawa, Schafft, Ono, and Okubo
(US 2007/0009674 A1, published January 11, 2007).

X. Claims 23 and 24 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spence, Nishimae, Schafft, and Okubo.

XI. Claim 25 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spence, Nishimae, Schafft, Okubo, and Arakawa.

OPINION5

Rejection I–IX
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 10 together and presents
additional arguments only for dependent claim 6 (Rejection III), 19
(Rejection II), 22 (Rejection I), and claims 26 and 27 (Rejection IX). See
generally Appeal Br. Appellant also states that claims 2, 3, 7, and 12–17
(Rejections IV–VIII) stand or fall with their respective independent claims.
Id. at 40. We therefore select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter
claimed. Claims 2–5, 7–18, 28, and 29 stand or fall with claim 1. We
address claim 6, 19, 22, 26, and 27 separately.

5 We refer to the Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action dated August 17,
2016 for the text of all rejections.
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

6
After review of the respective positions the Appellant and the
Examiner provide, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1–19, 22, and 26–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by
the Examiner. We add the following for emphasis.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a planar electrode apparatus comprising a metal
envelope comprising an active continuous planar part, an interlayer sheet
comprising EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate) or PVB (polyvinyl butyral), and a
dielectric sheet.
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Spence and
Nishimae teach the claimed planar electrode structure except for the use of
an interlayer comprising EVA or PVB to provide a joint between the
dielectric sheet and the active metal part. Non-Final Act. 11–15. The
Examiner finds that Ono, directed to the field of light emitting devices,
teaches it is known to use an EVA copolymer as an alternative to brazing
materials to bond ceramic (dielectric) and metal for the purpose of absorbing
the stresses caused by the differences in expansion coefficient of the ceramic
and the metal. Non-Final Act. 15–16; Ono ¶¶ 3, 9, 21, 27, 39, 53. Ono
discloses using adhesives having melting temperatures higher than 150 °C
and bonding temperatures of preferably in the range of about 180°C–300°C.
Ono ¶ 53. In an alternate rejection (Rejection II), the Examiner finds that
Schafft, directed to the field of piezo-electric acoustic transducers, teaches it
is known to use PVB as an alternative to epoxy resins to bond a desired
ceramic element 21 and a metal plate 30 to a temperature of approximately
140° C for approximately 10 minutes to address differences in thermal
coefficients of expansion between ceramic and metal. Non-Final Act. 8;
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

7
Schafft Figure 2, col. 1, ll. 33–41, 57–64, col. 4, ll. 15–18. The Examiner
also finds that Arakawa, directed to the field of electromagnetic shielding
sheet, teaches laminating a metal film 21 to a transparent polyester resin
base sheet 11 (dielectric) by means of an adhesive 13. Non-Final Act. 10–
11; Arakawa Abstr., ¶ 50. The Examiner finds that Arakawa teaches that the
adhesive can be spread uniformly without containing bubbles to form a good
quality laminated sheet. Non-Final Act. 12; Arakawa ¶ 43. Arakawa also
discloses as known to remove bubbles from adhesives using vacuum suction
to avoid the detrimental impact of the bubbles presence when forming a
laminate. Arakawa ¶ 129.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the bonding layer of the
combined teachings of Spence and Nishimae with either Ono’s EVA layer or
Schafft’s PVB layer without containing bubbles, as taught by Arakawa, for
the purpose of improving the bonding strength between the metallic part and
the ceramic part and forming a good quality laminated sheet, as taught by
the combined teachings of Ono/Schafft and Arakawa. Non Final Act. 16.
Appellant does not contest that the combined teachings of the cited art
would lead one skilled in the art to the claimed structure. Instead, Appellant
principally argues that the claim 1 language “suitable for dielectric barrier
discharge DBD plasma treatment of a surface” and “suitable for raising to a
voltage capable of plasma ignition” describes an electrode device
comprising an EVA or PVB layer that is suitable for use in DBD treatments
at typical plasma temperatures of 200–600 °C. Appeal Br. 8–12; Spec. 9.
According to Appellant, one skilled in the art would be drawn away from
using PVB or EVA as the interlayer in DBD treatment because both
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

8
materials are incompatible with the noted temperature range encountered in
a plasma reactor. Appeal Br. 10–13.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed.
Cir. 1990). Therefore, the patentability of an apparatus claim depends on the
claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg.
Int’l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the
function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA
1959); In re Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315–16 (CCPA 1948). If the prior art
structure possesses all the claimed characteristics including the capability of
performing the claimed function, then there is a prima facie case of
unpatentability. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663–64 (CCPA 1971).
A review of the record shows that Appellant is emphatic that the
reason for the claimed electrode’s suitability in DBD treatments rests on the
use of the electrode device in connection with a cooling system. Appeal Br.
9 (“Applicant’s claimed planar electrode and device requires (1) cooling and
heat exchange at DBD plasma treatment temperatures of between 200°C and
600°C” (emphasis added)). In fact, the Specification describes that the
argued capability resides in the “specific technology [developed] to limit the
temperature increase in the binding layer.” Spec. 9, see also id. at 11
(“cooling is essential because PVB is being used”). The arguments and the
disclosure would suggest a focus on a new use for an old device that is best
presented as “method of use” claims because the benefit associated with the
claimed structure is not inherent in the structure itself but on its use. A
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

9
Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 (Declaration or Decl.) by co-inventor
Eric Michel (Declarant) dated May 17, 20176 states that “the PVB interlayer
survived when we took steps to introduce sufficient cooling of the metal
surfaces of the electrode.” Decl. ¶ 7.
While claim 1 recites a metal envelope adapted to serve as a heat
exchanger to cool the interlayer, the metal envelope by itself is insufficient
to distinguish the claim from the teachings of the cited art. This is
particularly true given that Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s
specific findings regarding the teachings of Spence and Nishimae, nor that
the combined teachings of these references suggest the claimed planar
electrode structure (metal/interlayer/dielectric), including a metal envelope
serving as a cooling path to cool the metal/interlayer/ceramic electrode. See
generally Appeal Br.; Non-Final Act. 8; Nishimae col. 20, ll. 30–46; Figure
33. Appellant has also not contested the Examiner’s finding that Ono’s
EVA and Schafft’s PVB are known interlayers for a
metal/interlayer/dielectric structure that alleviate differences in thermal
coefficients of expansion between dielectric and metal layers due to
exposure to heat, which is the central problem addressed by Appellant’s
invention with respect to planar electrodes. See generally Appeal Br.; Spec.
2. Upon review of the record, we determine that the Examiner provided a
reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to use either Ono’s EVA or
Schafft’s PVB as an interlayer in the electrode assembly of the combined
teachings of Spence and Nishimae, and would reasonably have expected that
this assembly would be suitable to function as an electrode. In re O’Farrell,

6 The Declaration was entered into the record by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action dated June 6, 2017.
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

10
853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success.”).
Giving weight to the claim language “suitable for dielectric barrier
discharge DBD plasma treatment of a surface” as directed to DBD
treatments at typical plasma temperatures of 200–600 °C does not change
our determination.
As the Examiner notes, Spence discloses the operation of an electrode
in a plasma environment where the operating temperature of the electrode
ranges from 25–70 °C. Ans. 16; Spence col. 4, ll. 62–67. Spence also
discloses a desire for the highest possible working temperature which does
not allow thermal damage to the dielectric substrate. Spence col. 4, l.
67–col. 5, l. 2. Moreover, Nishimae describes the cooling of a
metal/dielectric electrode exposed to a plasma environment as: “[t]he surface
of the metallized layer 75 faces directly to the cooling water path 77, and the
dielectric 12 is contacted directly by the cooling water through the
metallized layer 75 and cooled.” Nishimae col. 20, ll. 42–46. Therefore, the
prior art recognizes the importance of operating an electrode cooling system
to cool an electrode across the layers forming the electrode to minimize the
detrimental impact of heat on the electrode’s dielectric layer. Spence col. 4,
l. 60–col. 5, l. 2, col. 6, ll. 15–26; Nishimae col. 20, ll. 38–46.
Ono and Schafft disclose polymeric interlayers having melting
temperatures that can be approximately 140–150°C. Ono ¶ 53; Schafft col.
4, ll. 13–18. At plasma temperatures of 200°C, the lower range of
Appellant’s disclosed typical plasma temperatures, and at an electrode
operating temperature of 25°C, one skilled in the art would have reasonably
expected that an electrode cooling system would have cooled an electrode
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

11
comprising polymeric interlayers having melting temperatures of
approximately 140°C to temperatures below such melting temperatures
because the polymeric interlayer would be directly in contact by the cooling
water through a metallized layer. Thus, there would have been a reasonable
expectation that an electrode comprising an EVA or PVB interlayer would
be suitable for DBD plasma treatments at 200°C. See O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at
904. Appellant has provided no explanation explaining why such an
embodiment would not have been expected to work
Appellant also contends that Arakawa is not concerned with
eliminating bubbles and microbubbles from the adhesive interlayer fixing a
dielectric sheet to the active metal part of a planar electrode for DBD plasma
treatment of a surface. Appeal Br. 24. According to Appellant, Arakawa,
directed to electromagnetic shielding sheets, teaches removing bubbles from
an adhesive to eliminate light scattering and decrease in clearness of images
due to difference in refractive index between air and the adhesive. Appeal
Br. 24; Arakawa ¶¶ 23, 94. Thus, Appellant contends that persons having
ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason, incentive, or motivation
in view of Arakawa's teaching to eliminate or remove bubbles and
microbubbles from the adhesive interlayer sheet comprising PVB or EVA
because Arakawa’s teachings are of no consequence for an adhesive
interlayer that fixes a dielectric to an active part of a planar electrode.
Appeal Br. 25.
We find these arguments unavailing for the reasons the Examiner
presents. Non-Final Act. 10–11; Ans. 23.
We first note that Spence generally recognizes that the presence of
holes in an electrode can locally distort the electric field (arcing). Spence
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

12
col. 6, ll. 39–43. Spence also suggests minimizing the presence of holes in
some instances. Id. Arakawa teaches the general concept that the presence
of bubbles in adhesives in a structure can be detrimental to the function of
the adhesives and the structure. Arakawa ¶ 94. Therefore, the prior art
recognizes that the presence of defects in an adhesive layer can impair its
function. In view of this, Appellant has not explained adequately why one
skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have
been capable of ensuring that a polymeric adhesive interlayer contains no
bubbles when applied to join a dielectric and a metal layer. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on the part of
one of ordinary skill in the art). One skilled in the art would have expected
to minimize the presence of bubbles to ensure adequate adhesion between
the electrode layers to form an adequate structure.
Claims 6 and 19
Claims 6 and 19 recite the use of a PVB interlayer.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments for these claims (Appeal
Br. 35–37) but find them unavailing for the reasons given above with respect
to our discussion of Schafft.
Claim 22
The subject matter of claim 22 is directed to an interlayer sheet
substantially free of bubbles and micro bubbles. However, claim 22 is
drafted in a product-by-process format.
The patentability of this type of claim does not depend on the process
steps, except to the extent that the process steps are shown to result in
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

13
properties not possessed by prior art products. It has long been held that
“‘[i]f the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious
from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the
prior product was made by a different process.”’ Smithkline Beecham Corp.
v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). It is also well settled that
when a claimed product reasonably appears to be substantially the same as a
product disclosed in the prior art, the burden of proof is on the applicants to
prove that the prior art product does not inherently or necessarily possess the
characteristics attributed to the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1255 (CCPA 1977) (“Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are
identical or substantially identical, . . . the PTO can require an applicant to
prove that the prior products do not necessarily or inherently possess the
characteristics of his claimed product.”).
We have considered Appellant’s argument for this claim (Appeal Br.
37) but are unpersuaded by it.
To the extent that claim 22 is directed to an interlayer that is
substantially free of bubbles and microbubbles, we direct Appellant’s
attention to our prior discussion of this issue. We additionally note that
Appellant does not direct us to any objective evidence that shows the recited
process steps result in properties not possessed by prior art interlayer
product.
Claims 26 and 27
Claims 26 and 27 recite the electrode as suitable for dielectric barrier
discharge DBD plasma treatment of a surface where the plasma reaches
temperatures of 200°C or more.
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

14
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments for these claims
(Appeal Br. 37–40) for the reasons we give above with respect to our
discussion concerning a plasma operating temperature of 200°C.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1–19, 22, and 26–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)..

Rejections X and XI
Claim 23
Like independent claim 1, independent claim 23 is directed to a planar
electrode but specifically recites the use of a PVB interlayer.
To the extent that Appellant relies on the arguments presented when
discussing claim 1 (Appeal Br. 27–30), we direct Appellant’s attention to
our previous discussion.7
Claims 24 and 25
Claim 24 recites that the PVB interlayer comprises a uniform joint
between the dielectric sheet and the active metal part while claim 25 recites
that the PVB interlayer is substantially free of bubbles and microbubbles. The
Specification equates uniform joint with absence of bubbles/microbubbles.
Spec. 8.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments regarding Arakawa for
these claims and again are unpersuaded. We direct Appellant’s attention to
our discussion of this issue above.

7 We need not address the Examiner’s reliance on Okubo for disposition of
this rejection. Okubo was primarily cited to teach typical plasma
temperatures, which fall within Appellant’s acknowledged typical plasma
temperatures. Ans. 24.
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

15
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons the Examiner presents and
we provide above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–19 and 22–29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 8–11, 18,
22, 28, 29
§ 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Arakawa, Ono
1, 4, 5, 8–11,
18, 22, 28, 29

1, 4, 8–11, 19, 22,
28, 29
§ 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Arakawa, Schafft
1, 4, 8–11, 19,
22, 28, 29

6 § 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Arakawa, Schafft,
Ono
6
2, 3, 7 § 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Arakawa, Schafft,
Ono, Kumar
2, 3, 7
12, 13 § 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Arakawa, Schafft,
Ono, Jackson
12, 13
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

16
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
14 § 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Arakawa, Schafft,
Ono, Basnett
14
15, 16 § 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Arakawa, Schafft,
Ono, Beckmann,
Curlee, Eubank
15, 16
17 § 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Arakawa, Schafft,
Ono, Kumar,
Bunn
17
26, 27 § 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Arakawa, Schafft,
Okubo
26, 27
23, 24 § 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Schafft, Okubo
23, 24
25 § 103(a)
Spence, Nishimae,
Schafft, Okubo,
Arakawa
25
Overall Outcome 1–19 and
22–29

TIME PERIOD
Appeal 2018-006626
Application 13/643,327

17
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).

AFFIRMED