Ex Parte CHORNENKY

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2018

13787119 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/787,119 03/06/2013 TODD E. CHORNENKY
82357 7590 07/18/2018
James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC
P.O. Box244
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
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.
TEC 13011 6064
EXAMINER
LUl,DONNA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2018 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):
jray@jrayassoc.com
apogeegroup@comcast.net
snatal@jrayassoc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TODD E. CHORNENKY
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787, 119
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-19, 31--40, and 42--44, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claims 20-30
and 41 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to an on-screen virtual
diagonal keyboard (Spec. 3: 17-18, Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A diagonal virtual keyboard, comprising:
rows of keys defining a keyboard axis, a keyboard
diagonal and side borders of said diagonal virtual keyboard;
said keyboard axis disposed mediate said side borders of
said diagonal virtual keyboard and runs through a point formed,
external to one side border of said diagonal virtual keyboard, by
an intersection of a first secondary axis extending through a key
"Q" and a second secondary axis extending through a key "P" in
a conventional QWERTY keyboard, wherein one of said first and
second secondary axes is disposed inwardly from and parallel to
a respective side border;
said rows of keys disposed in series with each other along
said keyboard axis and within said side borders of said diagonal
virtual keyboard so that all alphabetical keys are displayed on
said display screen; and
said keyboard axis being disposed at an acute or obtuse
angle relative to a user of said diagonal virtual keyboard and
being generally aligned along a length of an arm of the user using
said diagonal virtual keyboard.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rush
Skillman
Fong
Avkarogullari
Liu
Huang
US 6,230,222 B 1
US 2007 /0200828 Al
US 2010/0251161 Al
US 2011/0164184 Al
US 2011/0238676 Al
US 2011/0264442 Al
2
May 8, 2001
Aug.30,2007
Sept. 30, 2010
July 7, 2011
Sept. 29, 2011
Oct. 27, 2011
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
Ferren
Wang
Krishnamurthy
Newell
Santos-Gomez
Yang
US 2012/0075194 Al
US 2012/0092196 Al
US 8,176,324 Bl
US 2012/0200571 Al
US 2013/0135350 Al
US 2014/0082546 Al
REJECTIONS
Mar. 29, 2012
Apr. 19, 2012
May 8, 2012
Aug. 9, 2012
May 30, 2013
Mar. 20, 2014
Claims 33-37 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement (Final
Act. 3--4).
Claims 32-34, 37, and 42--44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e)
as being anticipated by Ferren (id. at 4--9).
Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16, 19, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Yang and Ferren (id. at 9-19).
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Yang, Ferren, and Santos-Gomez (id. at 19).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Yang, Ferren, and Huang (id. at 19-20).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Yang, Ferren, and Wang (id. at 20-21).
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Yang, Ferren, and Fong (id. at 21-22).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Yang, Ferren, and Krishnamurthy (id. at 22-23).
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferren and Avkarogullari (id. at 23-24).
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferren and Rush (id. at 24).
3
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferren and Liu (id. at 24--25).
Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferren and Newell (id. at 25-26).
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferren and Skillman (id. at 26-27).
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ISSUE 1
Enablement
Appellant argues the invention as recited in claims 33-37 and 39 is
enabled (App. Br. 41--42). The issue presented by the argument is:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in concluding claims 33-37 and 39
fail to comply with the enablement requirement?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner concludes claim 33, which recites "identify[ing] a
numeric key value of said each icon being touched by a user or clicked on by
way of a data entry device based on a unique region of numeric values,"
does not satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 19). In particular, the Examiner determines
"a particular key corresponding to a unique region of numeric values ... is
not clearly explained or described in the [S]pecification" in a way that
enables the skilled artisan to practice the invention (Ans. 19). Specifically,
4
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
the Examiner determines the Specification provides "no steps or further
explanation ... as to how the decoding of ARGB color values correspond to
touch input of a particular key or how lower-order bits are used to construct
the numeric key value, or how a numeric key value is identified" or "how a
contact position on the keyboard with a finger is associated with ARGB hex
values" (id.).
Appellant responds that "at least the disclosure in i10124 - i1014 7 will
enable one skilled in the art" without any further elaboration (App. Br. 42).
Appellant, however, does not proffer sufficient evidence or argument
persuading us the Examiner erred. Specifically, Appellant's citations are to
the Specification, and Appellant provides no elaboration or explanation as to
how the disclosure contains sufficient description to enable an ordinarily
skilled artisan to make and use the invention. 1 Moreover, Appellant's bare
citations do not respond to the Examiner's determination that the
Specification fails to provide the "steps" for identifying a key based on a
selected region, e.g., to account for a finger contact position covering many
pixels, and thus, to account for "if the finger overflows and covers another
key" during a touch selection (Ans. 19).
The Examiner further concludes the Specification does not satisfy the
enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for claims 34--
37 and 39 (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 19). Appellant does not provide a separate
response for those claims (see App. Br. 42), similarly failing to proffer
sufficient evidence or argument addressing the Examiner's determinations.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting
1 We also note Appellant's citations are to paragraph numbers; however, the
originally filed Specification does not have paragraph numbers.
5
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
claims 33-37 and 39 for failing to satisfy the enablement requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 2
ISSUE 2
Reiection under 35 US.C. § 102 (e): Claims 32-34. 37. and 42-44
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 32-34, 37, and
42--44, is not anticipated by Ferren (App. Br. 12-29). The issues presented
by the arguments are:
Issue 2a: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ferren discloses "said
diagonal keyboard scalable, during use of said device, proportionally in both
height and width to maintain same aspect ratio," as recited in claims 32 and
42 and similarly recited in claim 44?
Issue 2b: Has the Examiner erred in finding Ferren discloses "a
height of said diagonal virtual keyboard being different than a width
thereof," as recited in claim 43?
ANALYSIS
"keyboard scalable . .. to maintain same aspect ratio": Claims 32,
33-40, 42, and 44
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Ferren discloses
"said diagonal keyboard scalable, during use of said device, proportionally
in both height and width to maintain same aspect ratio," as recited in claims
32 and 42 and similarly recited in claim 44 (App. Br. 24--25; Reply Br. 5--6
2 Should there be further prosecution, we note claims 38, 40, and 41 depend
from claim 34 and accordingly inherit claim's 34 deficiency.
6
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
( emphasis omitted)). 3 Specifically, Appellant argues "Ferren is silent as to
any scalability of the keyboard ... particularly 'proportionally in both height
and width to maintain same aspect ratio"' (Reply Br. 6; see Ans. 24).
We are persuaded. The Examiner finds Ferren discloses that "the user
may request to initiate calibration/scaling the diagonal virtual keyboard"
(Final Act. 5, (citing Ferren ,r 27), 8-9), where "the width and height of the
virtual keyboard is twice that of another arc" and scaled accordingly (Ans.
9-10). However, we do not find where Ferren discloses that the scaled
keyboard "maintain[s] [a] same aspect ratio." Instead, Perren's discloses a
"calibration arc" that "calibrate[s] the location of a keyboard row so the keys
on that row will be at a convenient position for the user's thumb" (Ferren
,r 27). While the calibration arc may size or scale the keyboard according to
the calibration arc, placing keys along the calibration arc (Ferren ,r,r 28-31 ),
the Examiner has not shown where, or explained how, Ferren necessarily
maintains the same aspect ratio when its keyboard is scaled.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner errs
in finding Ferren discloses "said diagonal keyboard scalable, during use of
said device, proportionally in both height and width to maintain same aspect
ratio," as recited in claims 32 and 42 and similarly recited in claim 44.
Further, because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments (see
App. Br. 12-23). Dependent claims 31 and 33--40 stand with their
3 Although Appellant argues the present limitation in regards to claim 42
(App. Br. 25-25; Reply Br. 5--6), claims 32 and 44, also rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ferren, recite the same or similar
language. Therefore, we address the limitation as it applies to claims 32, 42,
and 44.
7
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
respective independent claims. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 32-34, 37, 42, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and the rejections of
claims 31, 35, 36, and 38--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Our reversal should not be taken as an indication of allowability or
non-obviousness. Whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it
obvious to maintain the keyboard aspect ratio during Perren's keyboard
scaling is not a question before us because the Examiner has not made those
conclusions; we will not speculate in that regard here in the first instance on
appeal.
"a height ... different than a width": Claim 43
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Ferren discloses "a
height of said diagonal virtual keyboard being different than a width
thereof," as recited in claim 43 (App. Br. 26-28; Reply Br. 6). Specifically,
Appellant argues "the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
recognize[d] that Perren's keyboard, provided in a 90° segment shape, has
different height and width" (App. Br. 28). Appellant further argues "even if,
for the sake of argument, the 'height' of the [calibration] arc can be different
than a 'width' thereof, the keyboard is generated as [a] 90° segment
keyboard" (id.).
We disagree with Appellant's assertion that Ferren' s keyboard may
only be a keyboard with equal height and width. The Examiner points out
that Ferren discloses a user drawing a "calibration arc" for "calibrating the
size of the keyboard to the individual user" (Ferren ,r 27) such that the arc's
"height is different than the width" (Final Act. 9 ( emphasis omitted)).
Appellant asserts that, even if the "'height' of the [calibration] arc can be
different than a 'width' thereof, the keyboard is generated as [a] 90° segment
8
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
keyboard," i.e., a keyboard with the same height and width (App. Br. 28).
However, as the Examiner points out (Ans. 11 ), Ferren discloses "[ o ]nee the
arc locations have been determined ... the device may assign the position of
each key along each arc, with each arc representing a row of keys" (Ferren
,r 30 (emphasis added); see Ferren ,r 18 ("the arcs may not be perfectly
circular")). As such, Perren's keyboard has a differing height and a differing
width because the keys of the keyboard are placed along Perren's arc, and
that arc has differing height and width. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding Ferren describes "a height of said diagonal
virtual keyboard being different than a width thereof," within the scope of
the claim.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Ferren
discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 43.
ISSUE 3
Reiections under 35 US.C. § 103 (a): Claims 1-19 and 31
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16,
19, and 31 is patentable over Yang and Ferren (App. Br. 31--41) and
dependent claims 11, 13, 15, 17, and 18 are patentable over Yang and Ferren
in combination with Santos-Gomez, Huang, Wang, Fong, and
Krishnamurthy, respectively (App. Br. 41). The issues presented by the
arguments are:
Issue 3a: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Yang and
Ferren teaches or suggests
said keyboard axis disposed mediate said side borders of said
diagonal virtual keyboard and runs through a point formed,
external to one side border of said diagonal virtual keyboard, by
9
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
an intersection of a first secondary axis extending through a key
"Q" and a second secondary axis extending through a key "P,"
as recited in claim 1?
Issue 3b: Has the Examiner shown Ferren teaches or suggests "each
end of said keyboard diagonal is alignable with a respective comer of said
screen," as recited in claim 9?
Issue 3c: Has the Examiner shown Ferren teaches or suggests "side
borders of said keyboard do not extend beyond borders of said screen," as
recited in claim 9?
ANALYSIS
"keyboard axis disposed mediate ... runs through a point formed, external
to one side border" - Claim 1
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Yang and Ferren teaches
[a] keyboard axis disposed mediate said side borders of said
diagonal virtual keyboard and runs through a point formed,
external to one side border of said diagonal virtual keyboard, by
an intersection of a first secondary axis extending through a key
"Q" and a second secondary axis extending through a key "P,"
as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 34--37). Appellant argues that neither Ferren
nor Yang teach an external point and, instead, are "directed to a sector-shape
keyboard with the (pivot) point being aligned ... with a comer of the
display screen," rather than a point external to the borders of the keyboard
on the display screen (App. Br. 34--35; see App. Br. 36-37). Appellant
further argues Yang "fails to define/teach such claimed 'keyboard axis' and
'keyboard diagonal"' and "fails to define/teach ... secondary ax[es] in ...
FIG. 11" (App. Br. 36).
10
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, the claimed keyboard
axis, first secondary axis, second secondary axis, and external point are
reference lines and points defined by their position and orientation in
relation to a diagonal virtual keyboard that has been created. In particular,
claim 1 only requires the secondary axes to extend respectively through the
virtual keyboard's "Q" and "P" keys and to intersect external to the virtual
keyboard's borders to form a point and only requires the keyboard axis to be
"mediate" to the virtual keyboard's boarders and to run to the external point
reference. Furthermore, the Specification does not define explicitly "a
keyboard axis," "a first secondary axis," "a second secondary axis," or "a
point formed, external," and instead provides examples describing that those
axes and points are references designated by their relation to an existing
virtual keyboard (Spec. 12:7-22, Fig. 1; see Spec. 13:10-14, 14:15-19).
Accordingly, based on the claim and in light of the Specification, any
arbitrary reference, positioned and oriented in relation to an existing virtual
keyboard in the claimed manner, may be "a keyboard axis," "a first
secondary axis," "a second secondary axis," or "a point formed, external."
Appellant's argument that "the pivot point of the user's thumb" in
Ferren and Yang is at the comer of a screen (App. Br. 34--37) does not
address the Examiner's finding that the combination of Ferren and Yang
teaches "a point formed, external to one side border of said diagonal virtual
keyboard" (Final Act. 10-12; see Ans. 4--6). As discussed above, the claims
encompass any arbitrarily designated reference point positioned and oriented
in relation to a virtual keyboard in the claimed manner. The Examiner
designates an external reference point and relies on Ferren to teach a virtual
11
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
keyboard with reference axes and points (Final Act. 11-12). The Examiner
annotates the virtual keyboard in Figure 1 of Ferren, reproduced below:
(Ans. 5). Annotated Figure 1 of Ferren illustrates a virtual keyboard with
annotated secondary axes, an annotated external point, and an annotated
keyboard axis within the boundaries of its virtual keyboard. Furthermore,
the Examiner finds, and we agree, Yang's virtual QWERTY keyboard,
having arbitrary reference lines extending through its "P" and "Q" keys,
teaches "a first secondary axis extending through a key 'Q' and a second
secondary axis extending through a key 'P"' (Final Act. 10 (emphasis
omitted) (citing Yang Fig. 1); see Ans. 14). The Examiner combines an
illustration from Figure 11 of Yang with annotated Figure 1 of Ferren, to
create the illustration reproduced below:
12
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
(Ans. 14). The Examiner's illustration combines Yang's virtual keyboard of
Figure 11 with the diagonal, axes, and external point references of the
annotated Figure 1 of Ferren (id. at 13-14). Appellant's arguments, which
focus on the pivot point of a user's thumb in Ferren and Yang (App. Br. 34--
37), do not address the Examiner's annotated "point formed externally" to
the virtual keyboard's boundaries. The Examiner's external point is a
reference point defined by intersecting secondary axes, positioned and
oriented to extend through the "Q" and "P" keys, as required by the claims.
Even further, Appellant's argument that Yang does not teach a keyboard
axis or diagonal (App. Br. 35) does not address the Examiner's combination
of Ferren and Yang. As shown in the Examiner's illustrated combination,
the keyboard axis reference designated by the Examiner is between the
borders of the virtual keyboard, through its keys, and runs to the external
point, as required by the claims. Moreover, as shown in the Examiner's
illustrated combination, a keyboard diagonal reference line is diagonally
oriented and positioned along the virtual keyboard.
13
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
Additionally, the claim does not require any specific proportions or
measurements; therefore, Appellant's contention that Perren's figure does
not teach precise proportions is not persuasive of Examiner error (Reply Br.
7).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Perren and Yang teaches the invention as recited in
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8, and 10-19, not separately
argued (App. Br. 41). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-8 and
10-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
"keyboard diagonal is alignable ": Claim 9
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Ferren teaches
"each end of said keyboard diagonal is alignable with a respective comer of
said screen," as recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 3 8; Reply Br. 7). Specifically,
Appellant notes Perren's "keyboard configuration shown in FIG. 1 is
designed for right-handed operation by making the rows of keys concentric
about the lower right-hand corner" (App. Br. 38 (quoting Ferren ,r 25)).
Further, Appellant argues the Specification teaches "alignment of the
keyboard diagonal with opposite comers of the display" (Reply Br. 7 ( citing
Spec. Figs. 1, 2, 6) ).
Appellant's argument directed to Perren's key rows (App. Br. 38) does
not address the Examiner's finding that the combination of Perren and Yang
teaches a keyboard diagonal spanning opposite comers of the screen that "is
alignable with a respective comer of said screen" (see Ans. 14).
Furthermore, Appellant's indication that Figures 1, 2, and 6 of the
Specification teach an "alignment of the keyboard diagonal with opposite
14
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
comers of the display" (Reply Br. 7) is not commensurate with the scope of
the claim. More specifically, the claim does not recite that the keyboard
diagonal is in alignment with opposite comers of the display; rather, claim 9
recites the diagonal is "alignable." Moreover, the Specification does not use
the term "alignable." Accordingly, the keyboard diagonal reference the
Examiner finds in the combination of Ferren and Yang, teaches a keyboard
diagonal "alignable with a respective comer of said screen," within the
meaning of claim 9.
"side borders": Claim 9
Appellant next contends the Examiner erred in finding Ferren teaches
"side borders of said keyboard do not extend beyond borders of said screen,"
as recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 38-39). Specifically, Appellant notes Ferren
discloses "the full available keyboard may be thought of as an approximate
wheel with four quadrants, with each quadrant having a separate set of
characters, and with only one quadrant visible on the touch screen at a
time" (id. (quoting Ferren ,r 24)).
We are not persuaded because Appellant's argument discusses an
embodiment of Ferren on which the Examiner does not rely (id.). Moreover,
Appellant does not address the Examiner's conclusion that the combination
of Ferren and Yang renders the disputed limitation obvious (see Final
Act. 15). In particular, the Examiner determines the combination of Yang
and Ferren teaches "the keyboard size can be adjusted to maintain a size
ratio between the screen and the keyboard such that the side borders of the
keyboard do not extend beyond borders of the screen" (Ans. 16; Final
Act. 15). Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to
15
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
persuade us the Examiner's combination fails to teach the disputed
limitations. 4
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Ferren and Yang teaches the invention as recited in
dependent claim 9. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION5
The Examiner's rejection of claims 33-37 and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement
is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 32-34, 37, 42, and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ferren is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Ferren is affirmed.
TheExaminer'srejectionofclaims 1-10, 12, 14, 16, and 19under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang and Ferren is affirmed.
4 We also note, although not relied upon in affirming the Examiner's
rejection, Yang teaches a keyboard within the borders of a screen (see Yang
Fig. 11,, 60).
5 Should there be further prosecution of claims 1 and 43, both of which
similarly recite a "diagonal virtual keyboard," the Examiner may wish to
consider whether the "diagonal virtual keyboard," claimed without any
structure providing or supporting the virtual keyboard, should be rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as not being directed to one of the four statutory
categories of patentable subject matter - process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter.
16
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
The Examiner's rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yang and Ferren is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yang, Ferren, and Santos-Gomez is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yang, Ferren, and Huang is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yang, Ferren, and Wang is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yang, Ferren, and Fong is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yang, Ferren, and Krishnamurthy is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ferren and Avkarogullari is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ferren and Rush is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ferren and Liu is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ferren and Newell is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ferren and Skillman is reversed.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17
Appeal 2017-011686
Application 13/787,119
18