Ex Parte Celia et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 17, 2019

13516587 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/516,587
22913 7590
Workman Nydegger
60 East South Temple
Suite 1000
07/26/2012
01/22/2019
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Saverio Celia
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
21164.1 9836
EXAMINER
GADOMSKI, STEFAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2019 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):
Docketing@wnlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SA VERIO CELIA, GIOV ANI BALLOCCA, and
PAOLO D'AMAT0 1
Appeal 2018-005338 2
Application 13/516,587
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and IRVINE. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
I. DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1, 5-9, 11-24, and 26-30. Non-Final Act. 2. Claims 2--4,
10, and 25 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, S.I.SV.EL Societa' Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo
Dell'Elettronica S.P.A. is the real party-in-interest. App. Br. 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
August 1, 2017) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed April 8, 2016); the Non-
Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed April 8, 2016); the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed February 27, 2018); and the originally
filed Specification ("Spec.," filed June 15, 2016).
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The recited methods and devices relate to:
generating a stereoscopic video stream ( 101) compnsmg
composite images (C) which comprise information about a right
image (R) and a left image (L ). According to the method, pixels
are selected from the right image (R) and from the left image (L ),
and then the selected pixels are entered into a composite
image (C) of the stereoscopic video stream. The method also
provides for entering all the pixels of the right image (R) and all
the pixels of the left image (L) into the composite image ( C) by
leaving one of said two images unchanged and breaking up the
other one into regions (RI, R2, R3) comprising a plurality of
pixels. Said regions are subsequently entered into the composite
image (C). The invention also relates to a method for
reconstructing the right and left images starting from a composite
image, as well as to devices allowing said methods to be
implemented.
Spec., Abstract.
Figure 3 of the application is reproduced below.
640 640 rr - - :::~* - -)1
..
t
r\/ Fig. 3
{
R'
R2
····7r
1
l
l
l
l
~ ~ ... 5s,
~ 5 V
l
1
\i,..:-
Figure 3 depicts dividing right image (R) vertically into two equal portions,
and then dividing one of the portions horizontally into two equal portions
(R2 and R3). Id. at 6: 15-7: 1.
2
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
Figure 5 of the application is reproduced below.
L R1
Figure 5 depicts an embodiment, in which a composite image is formed by
including left image (L) and first vertical portion (R 1) and first and second
horizontal portions (RI and R2) of right image (R) in composite frame (C).
Id. at 8:3-7; see App. Br. 24 (Claims App'x (claim 1)). Right image (R) and
left image (L) can be reconstructed from such a composite image. Spec.
3:15-18, 3:30-4:4, 8:21-29; see App. Br. 26 (Claims App'x (claim 15)).
As noted above, claims 1, 5-9, 11-24, and 26-30 are pending, and
claims 1 and 15 are independent. App. Br. 24, 26 (Claims App'x). Claims
5-9, 11-14, 23, 26, and 28-30 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1;
and claims 16-22, 24, and 27 depend directly or indirectly from claim 15.
Id. at 24--25, 26-28.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A method for generating a stereoscopic video stream
comprising composite images (C), said composite images
3
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
(C) comprising information about a right image (R) and a
left image (L ), wherein
selecting pixels of said right image (R) and pixels
of said left image (L ), and
entering said selected pixels into a composite image
(C) of said stereoscopic video stream,
wherein all the pixels of said right image (R) and all
the pixels of said left image (L) are entered into said
composite image (C) by leaving one of said two images
unchanged and breaking up the other one into regions (RI,
R2, R3) having a rectangular shape and comprising a
plurality of pixels and entering said regions into said
composite image (C), in different areas of said composite
image (C) not occupied by said unchanged image, a ratio
between horizontal and vertical resolution of said left and
right images being unchanged, said composite image ( C)
being a frame of said stereoscopic video stream having a
number of pixels equal to or greater than a sum of the
pixels of said left and right images,
and
dividing vertically said other image (R) into two
equally sized portions; and then dividing horizontally one
of said two equally sized portions into two further equally
sized portions (R2, R3), the other (RI) of said two equally
sized portions being not further divided.
Id. at 24 ( disputed limitations emphasized).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
pending claims:
Butler-Smith et al.
("Butler-Smith")
US 2005/0041736 Al
Katata et al. ("Katata") EP 1 501 318 Al
4
Published Feb. 24, 2005
Published Jan. 26, 2005;
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
IV. THE REJECTIONS
Claims 23, 24, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 1, as
lacking adequate written description. Non-Final Act. 2--4, 23.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13-17, 21, 24, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over the teachings of Butler-Smith. Id.
at 5-16, 23-29.
Claims 6-9, 12, 18-20, 22, 23, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Butler-Smith
and Katata. Id. at 16-22.
Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner's findings in the
Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact appearing below
for emphasis. We address these rejections below.
A. Lack of Written Description
The Federal Circuit explained that "[t]he test for the sufficiency of the
written description 'is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date."' Vasudevan
Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Moreover, "[ t ]he written description requirement is separate and distinct
5
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
from the enablement requirement." MPEP § 2161 (II) 3 ( citing Ariad Pharm.,
Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane)).
1. Claims 23 and 24
Claim 23 recites:
A device for generating composite images (C), comprising
a disassembler module for receiving a right image and a left
image and an assembler module for generating a composite
image (C) comprising information about said right image and
said left image, wherein said disassembler module and said
assembler module are adapted to implement the method
according to claim 1 and wherein said dissembler module
comprises a video processor and wherein said assemble module
comprises the video processor.
App. Br. 27 (Claims App'x (claim 23; emphasis added)). Claim 24 similarly
depends from claim 15. Id. (Claims App'x (claim 24)). The Specification
clearly describes the use of devices to accomplish the methods recited in
claims 1 and 15. See, e.g., Spec. 5:10-11 ("Fig. 1 shows a block diagram of
a device for multiplexing the right image and the left image into a composite
image"), 13 :24--32 ( describing the use of "a video processor" in such a
device), Fig. 1. The Examiner determines, however, that "[t]he amended
claim language [ of claims 23 and 24] is interpreted to cover all ways of
performing the 'generating a composite image (C) comprising information
about said right image and said left image' and 'generate said right image
(R) and left (L) image' functions with 'a processor'." Non-Final Act. 3.
Moreover, the Examiner asserts the Specification lacks "an algorithm to
perform the specialized programmed functions"; thus, the Specification
3 All MPEP citations herein are to MPEP Rev. 08.2017, January 2018.
6
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
"does not sufficiently identify how the inventor has devised the function to
be performed or result achieved." Id. We disagree.
Claims 23 and 24 depend directly from claims 1 and 15, respectively.
The Examiner determined expressly that both claims 1 and 15 satisfy the
written description requirement. Id. at 22-23. Appellants contend that, "[i]n
light of the dependency, it is also clear that the inventor had possession of
the claimed invention. Further, the algorithm for performing the method of
claim 1 ( and thus the required structure if necessary) is described throughout
the application (see e.g., Figures 1-2 and 12 of the specification and the
accompanying description)." App. Br. 21-22; see Reply Br. 8-9. We agree.
The Examiner asserts that "the method according to claim 1 does not
receive a right and a left image nor does it generate a composite image."
Ans. 8. We disagree. Claim 1 recites, "[a] method for generating a
stereoscopic video stream comprising composite images (C), said composite
images (C) comprising information about a right image (R) and a left image
(L)." Spec. 17:2--4; see App. Br. 24 (Claims App'x). The claim language
expressly recites generating a "composite image" from and left and right
images and implicitly recites receiving the left and right images. Thus, we
conclude the Specification shows that Appellants were in possession of the
device recited in claims 23 and 24.
2. Claim 28
Claim 28 recites "[a] method according to claim 1, wherein at least a
part of a boundary of said regions aligns with an edge of a macroblock."
App. Br. 28 (Claims App'x). Initially, we note that this claim was not in the
original application. See Spec., 19: 12-13. Although the Specification
discusses "macroblocks," the Specification does not discuss the macroblock
7
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
edges or limit their size. Id. at 10: 17-20 ("For example, the H.264 standard
provides for disassembling the image into macroblocks of 16x16 pixels,
each of which represents this standard's elementary processing unit. Based
on this assumption, the strip Ra3 has a width of 32 pixels." ( emphases
added)). The Examiner determines that "[ w ]hile page 10 of the specification
discusses macroblocks as an example of an elementary processing unit, there
is no discussion of aligning an edge of a macroblock. Therefore, the
limitation introduces new matter." Non-Final Act. 4; see Ans. 9. We agree.
Appellants contend that
because [ of] the manner in which right and left images are
inserted into the composite frame is disclose and because
macroblocks are discussed in the specification and known to one
of skill in the art[,] the recitation that "at least a part of said
boundary area aligns with an edge of a macro block" is inherently
described when one accounts for the sizes of the regions and the
size of a macro block.
App. Br. 22 ( emphasis added); see Turbo Care Div. of Demag Delaval
Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118-20 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (holding that to comply with the written description requirement the
location of the spring must be actually or inherently disclosed; that the
location may be obvious from the disclosure is not enough). In particular,
Appellants contend that
for example, the composite image C includes horizontal rows of
pixels and vertical rows of pixels. Because a macro block may be
a block of 16xl6 pixels ( or even if the macro block is a different
size), the horizontal and vertical sides of the macro block must
fall on certain horizontal rows and vertical rows of the composite
image or frame. Claim 28 recites that, in the context of
generating a stereoscopic video stream, at least a part of a
boundary (which corresponds to at least part of a horizontal row
8
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
and/or at least part of a vertical row) of said regions aligns with
an edge of a macro block.
Thus, when the size of the macro block is l 6xl 6, the
boundaries of the macro block must fall on a pixel row and it is
evident which pixel rows and columns align with the boundaries
of the macro block based on the pixel size. Reciting that at "least
a part of a boundary of said regions aligns with an edge of a
macro block" is clear from the written description. Figure 5, for
example, can be used to determine which borders align with an
edge of a l 6xl 6 macroblock.
App. Br. 22 ( emphases added); see Reply Br. 9 ("Because a macro block may
be a block of I6x16 pixels (or even if the macroblock is a different size),4 the
horizontal and vertical sides of the macro block must fall on certain
horizontal rows and vertical rows of the composite image or frame."
( emphases added)). Appellants further assert that "[ e ]ven if not explicitly
stated in the specification, this can be gleaned from the macroblock size and
the resolution of the images and image portions." Reply Br. 9 ( emphasis
added); compare Spec., Fig. 5 and Fig. 7. Appellants' contentions, however,
fail to demonstrate that the macroblocks described in the Specification must
have a required size or the edge alignment recited in claim 28. Thus, on this
record, the Specification does not show expressly or inherently that
Appellants were in possession of the methods recited in claim 28.
The Examiner erred in determining that claims 23 and 24 lack
adequate written description, but did not err in determining that claim 28
4 Appellants do not provide evidence supporting this parenthetical assertion.
However, Inventor D' Amato explains that "[i]n the present claimed
invention as depicted in above Figure 5, the vertical borders of images RI,
R2 and R3 fall on columns 640, 1280, and 1920 which are all divisible by 16
and thus do not split the macroblocks." D 'Amato Deel. ,r 17 ( emphasis
added); see id. ,r 16; Spec., 3: 19-21.
9
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
lacks adequate written description. We do not sustain the Examiner's lack
of written description rejections of claims 23 and 24, but we sustain the
Examiner's lack of written description rejection of claim 28.
B. Obviousness Over Butler-Smith
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, i.e., Butler-Smith, are
such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
said subject matter pertains. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
406 (2007). Obviousness is a question of law, which is resolved on the basis
of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of
the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; 5 and (4) when in evidence,
objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17-18 (1966).
The Examiner finds that claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13-17, 21, 24, and 26-29
are rendered obvious over the teachings of Butler-Smith. Non-Final Act. 5-
16, 23-29. In particular, referring to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Butler-
Smith expressly teaches or suggests all of the recited limitations, except that
Butler-Smith teaches "dividing horizontally said other image (R) into two
equally sized portions (Right-Eye Top-half) [Figure 3 J; and then dividing
5 Inventor D 'Amato describes, "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art as of
September 2012 or March 2013 would have had an academic degree in
Electronic or Telecommunications Engineering, and years of experience in
the field of television." D' Amato Deel. ,r 10. The Examiner does not
contest this description. To the extent necessary, we accept Inventor
D 'Amato' s description.
10
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
vertically one of said two equally sized portions into two further equally
sized portions (R2, R3), the other (RI) of said two equally sized portions
being not further divided (RtE BIL; RtE BIR) [Figure 3]." Non-Final Act.
6-7. "However, [the Examiner acknowledges] Butler-Smith fails to
explicitly disclose dividing vertically said other image (R) into two equally
sized portions; and then dividing horizontally one of said two equally sized
portions into two further equally sized portions (R2, R3), the other (RI) of
said two equally sized portions being not further divided," as recited in
claims 1 and 15. Id. at 7.
Butler-Smith's Figure 3 is reproduced below.
Figure 3 depicts a composite image in which the left-eye image is inserted in
the frame and the right-eye image is divided, first horizontally and then the
bottom half of the right-eye image is divided vertically, and the three
portions of the right-eye image are inserted into the frame. Id.; see Butler-
Smith ,r 34. However, Butler-Smith explains "FIG. 3 is considered the
encoded 'tiled' frame. It is a typical layout for the tiling, but is not limited to
this arrangement of tiled segments." Butler-Smith ,r 18 ( emphasis added).
Thus, the Examiner concludes that:
11
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
Using the known techniques of dividing a right-eye view
horizontally/vertically, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
divide the right-eye view vertically first/horizontally second
instead of dividing the right-eye view horizontally
first/vertically second yielding the predictable results of
obtaining three separate regions of varying/equal sizes (RI, R2
and R3) and arranging them in a way to avoid loss of pixel data.
Non-Final Act. 7. The Examiner applies substantially the same analysis to
independent claim 15. Id. at 9--11.
Appellants disagree for at least four reasons. App. Br. 7-21; Reply
Br. 2-8. First, Appellants contend that Butler-Smith's Figure 3 does not
teach or suggest the vertical first, horizontal second division of the right
image, as recited in claims 1 and 15. App. Br. 7-12. Instead, Appellants
contend that Butler-Smith's Figure 3 is limited to horizontal first, vertical
second division of the right image and other "arrangements" of portions of
the right image so divided. Id. at 8-12; see D' Amato Deel. ,r,r 8-11. While
we considered Inventor Amato's declaration testimony, we find neither
Appellants' contentions nor Inventor Amato's testimony persuasive.
Initially, Butler-Smith teaches that alternative horizontal and vertical
divisions are contemplated by its methods. In particular, Butler-Smith
discloses that "'Pan-and-Scan Mode' is a mode in which the source material
of the encoded tiled frame contains video imagery that has been 'stitched'
together either horizontally or vertically, to create a panoramic view."
Butler-Smith ,r 47 (emphasis added); see id., claim 10. Appellants provide
definitions of "arrangement" in support of their narrow interpretation of the
Butler-Smith's Figure 3. App. Br. 9-10; but see Ans. 3-5. In view of the
cited disclosures, however, we conclude that Appellants propose an overly
narrow interpretation of Butler-Smith's Figure 3. Butler-Smith ,r,r 18, 47;
12
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
see id. ,r 57. Moreover, we credit Inventor D' Amato's testimony with less
weight in our analysis, especially in the context of an opinion rendered on
the obviousness of the declarant's recited methods. D' Amato Deel. ,r,r 2, 6;
see Non-Final Act. 23-24; see also Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284
(Fed. Cir. 2010) ("We defer to the Board's findings concerning the
credibility of expert witnesses.").
Second, Appellants contend that the Examiner relied on impermissible
hindsight in rejecting these claims. App. Br. 12-14. In particular,
Appellants contend that the Examiner has interpreted Butler-Smith's
Figure 3 in view of the teachings of pending claims 1 and 15. Id. at 13. For
the reasons set forth above, we determine that the disclosure of Butler-Smith
supports the broad interpretation of its Figure 3.
Further, Appellants contend that
Butler-Smith is concerned in part with temporal redundancy
( which is an inter-frame issue) and not with artifacts related to
encoding macroblocks (which is an intraframe issue). Also, even
though the compression algorithms mentioned in Butler-Smith
(MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and WM-9) make use of macroblocks and
suffer from the effects associated with encoding macroblocks,
the pixel loss referred to in Butler-Smith relates to entering the
images into the frame. Compression is always associated with
data loss of some type and Butler-Smith provides no guidance
for reducing artifacts related to intraframe encoding. There is
simply no discussion of tilings or arrangements that address the
problem associated with artifacts created by the arrangement of
the regions within the composite image itself and the artifacts
generated when encoding the macroblocks of the composite
image.
App. Br. 13. Although the Specification states that it is an object of the
invention "to provide [a] multiplexing method ( and a related device) for
multiplexing the right and left images which allows a high compression rate
13
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
to be subsequently applied while minimizing the generation of distortions or
artifacts" (Spec., 3: 19-21 ), as the Examiner notes, "[ n ]either of the claims
recite any mention of compression in any way, shape, or form." Ans. 6.
Appellants may not rely properly on the Specification's and Butler-Smith's
teachings on compression to show impermissible hindsight in the
Examiner's application of Butler-Smith to the pending claims. See Non-
Final Act. 26; Ans. 5-6.
Third, Appellants contend that the methods recited in claims 1 and 15
achieve "unique unexpected results." App. Br. 14--19. We consider
secondary considerations, including "unexpected results," as part of our
obviousness analysis. Nevertheless, "[f]or objective evidence of secondary
considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must
establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed
invention." Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir.
2010).
Relying on Inventor D 'Amato' s testimony, Appellants contend that:
The artifacts introduced using the tiling of Figure 3 of Butler-
Smith are significantly greater than the artifacts introduced by the
claimed invention because more of the borders or boundaries are
inside macroblocks. In the claimed invention, as shown in
Figure 5 of the specification,for example, the vertical borders of
regions RI, R2, and R3 fall on columns 640, 1280 and 1920,
which are all divisible by 16 and thus fall on the edges of
macroblocks. See Declaration ,r 17. The horizontal borders of
regions RI, R2 and R3 fall on horizontal rows 720 and 1080. See
Id. Row 720 is divisible by 16 but not row 1080. Thus, of all
borders of images RI, R2 and R3, only the borders ofR2 and R3
on row 1080 result in partial macro blocks which can cause
artifacts related to macroblock encoding. See Id. This artifact
will be evident when the image is decoded.
14
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
In contrast, the arrangements disclosed by Butler-Smith do
not achieve this degree of result obtained in the claimed
invention. Figures 6A-F in illustrate [sic] 6 of the Declaration
are examples of arrangements of image regions that are
consistent with the teachings of Butler-Smith. However, some of
the borders of the regions RTH (Top Half), RBL (Bottom Left), and RBR
(Bottom Right) fall on the rows 360 and 1080. These rows, however,
do not coincide with edges of macroblocks. This is different
from embodiments of the invention, where borders fall on rows
720 and 1080. The row 720 coincides with edges ofmacroblocks.
Thus, embodiments of the invention have fewer artifacts during
the encoding and decoding processes compared to Butler-Smith.
App. Br. 15-16. These contentions, however, rely on limitations appearing
in dependent claim 28, rather than independent claims 1 and 15 (see App.
Br. 28 (claims App'x: claim 28)), and on distinctions gleaned from drawings
of other arrangements prepared by Inventor D 'Amato for the declaration
(see D' Amato Deel. ,r 23 (depicting Figures 6A-F)). See supra
Section IV.A.2. ( claim 28 lacks written description). Thus, Appellants fail
to demonstrate the necessary nexus between the limitations of claims 1 and
15 and the allegedly "unique unexpected results."
Fourth, Appellants contend that Butler-Smith's Figure 3 represents a
species or subgenus that is insufficient to render the genus recited in claims
1 and 15 obvious. App. Br. 19-21; Reply Br. 7-8. As with the foregoing
contentions, this contention is based on Applicants' overly narrow
interpretation of Butler-Smith's Figure 3. Ans. 2--4; see Reply Br. 8.
Because we do not find that Butler-Smith's Figure 3 is limited to
"arrangements" of portions of the right-eye image, created by first
horizontal, then vertical divisions of that image, we conclude that the
Examiner properly relies on the teachings of Butler-Smith's Figure 3 to
teach or suggest the limitations of independent claims 1 and 15.
15
Appeal2018-005338
Application 13/516,587
For the forgoing reasons, we conclude that independent claims 1 and
15, as well as the claims 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 24, and 26-29
dependent therefrom, are rendered obvious by the teachings of Butler-Smith,
and we sustain the Examiner's rejections of those claims. See App. Br. 23.
C. Obviousness Over Butler-Smith and Katata
Claims 6-9, 12, 18-20, 22, 23, and 30 stand rejected as rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Butler-Smith and Katata. Non-Final
Act. 16-22. Each of these claims' rejections relies on the finding of
obviousness of their base claims, independent claim 1 or 15, over the
teachings of Butler-Smith. See App. Br. 24--28 (Claims App'x). Appellants
rely on their contentions with respect to the obviousness rejection of the base
claims to overcome these rejections. App. Br. 21; see Ans. 8. For the
reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and
15 as rendered obviousness over the teachings of Butler-Smith. See supra
Section IV.B. Thus, on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in finding the claims 6-9, 12, 18-20, 22, 23, and 30 rendered obvious
over the combined teachings of Butler-Smith and Katata, and we sustain
these rejections as well.
V. DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 5-9, 11-24, and 26-30.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
16