Ex Parte Chrabascz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 201713349112 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/349,112 01/12/2012 Eric Chrabascz 67010-557 2909 PUS 1;PA-0018856 26096 7590 05/24/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER CHUNG TRANS, XUONG MY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ptodocket @ cgolaw. com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC CHRABASCZ and CRAIG M. BEERS Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed Jan. 12, 2012, the Examiner’s Final Office Action dated Jan. 2, 2015, Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed May 29, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) dated Oct. 6, 2015, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed Dec. 4, 2015. 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, which is ultimately owned by United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 We AFFIRM-IN-PART. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a ram air fan terminal stud with an anti- rotational feature, the stud having a threaded portion extending from a head. Spec. 1 and 4. A ram air fan terminal block has a housing and a base with a plurality of slot walls providing a slot for receiving the head of the stud with the threaded portion extending through an aperture in the base. Spec. 1 5.3 The head has a sidewall that interfaces directly with one of the slotwalls, wherein a ratio of the length to the height of the sidewall is from 2.18 to 2.35. Id. Claims 1 and 7, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Limitations at issue are italicized. 1. A terminal stud of a ram air fan connection assembly, comprising: a terminal stud having a threaded portion extending from a head that is held within a slot of a base, the head having a sidewall interfacing directly with a wall of the base, the sidewall having a length and a height, wherein a ratio of the length to the height is from 2.18 to 2.35. 7. A ram air fan terminal block, comprising: a housing; a base having a plurality of slot walls that provide a slot; and a plurality of terminal studs each having a threaded portion extending from a head, the head received within the slot and the threaded portion extending through an aperture in the base, 3 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 2 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 wherein the head has a sidewall that interfaces directly with one of the plurality ofslot walls, and a ratio of a length of the sidewall to a height of the sidewall is from 2.18 to 2.35. References and Rejections The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request our review of, the following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): 1. Claims 1, 2, and 19 as unpatentable over Peterson4 in view of ASME;5 2. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 19 as unpatentable over Delcourt6 in view of ASME; 3. Claims 1, 4, and 19 as unpatentable over Mangapora7 in view of ASME; 4. Claims 7, 11, 14—18, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over AAPA8 in view of Yohn9 and ASME; and 5. Claims 8—10, 12, and 13 as unpatentable over AAPA in view of Yohn and ASME, and further in view of Mangapora. ANALYSIS Appellants do not contest the prior art status of the applied references. For purposes of this appeal, to the extent that the claims on appeal are 4 Peterson et al., US 6,864,015 B2, issued Mar. 8, 2005 (“Peterson”). 5 ASME B 18.2.1, “Square, Hex, Heavy Hex, and Askew Head Bolts and Hex, Heavy Hex, Hex Flange, Lobed Head, and Lag Screws (Inch Series)”, An American National Standard, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2012, pp. 4—6 (“ASME”). 6 Delcourt et al., US 2002/0115317 Al, published Aug. 22, 2002 (“Delcourt”). 7 Mangapora, US 6,607,339 Bl, issued Aug. 19, 2003 (“Mangapora”). 8 Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, Spec. 13 (“AAPA”). 9 Yohn et al., US 7,527,523 B2, issued May 5, 2009 (“Yohn”). 3 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 separately argued, we will address them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv). Rather than reiterate all arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Final Office Action, the Appeal Brief, the Answer, and the Reply Brief (filed May 2, 2013). Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. Rejection 1: §103 over Peterson and ASME Claim 1 The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are set forth in the Final Office Action, page 2—3. Appellants argue that Peterson teaches a stud 102 whose head 110 is separate and distinct from a boss member 120. Appeal Br. 3. As such, Appellants urge that Peterson does not teach or suggest the claimed head because the boss member is not a head. Id. Appellants further argue that the rejection fails to clearly articulate the reasons why claim 1 would have been obvious. Id. Appellants urge that because ASME teaches dimensions of square head bolts, not hexagonal boss members, any ASME ratio would not be applicable to Petersons’ hex boss member. Id. at 4. Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s reliance on In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955), is misplaced because Aller relates to temperatures and concentrations, not ratios of dimension, and does not apply when the parameter is shown to be critical. Id. Here, Appellants contend, “[t]he terminal stud having a ratio within the claimed range “effectively limits rotation while minimizing its weight contribution to the overall design.’” Id., citing Spec. 134. Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s explanation of the claimed ratio range fails to provide objective evidence 4 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 disclosing or suggesting the claimed relationship because ASME does not recognize any ratio of head sidewall length to height. Id. at 4—5. Appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. We begin by construing claim 1. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Only when a claim is properly understood can a determination be made . . . whether the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the claimed invention.”). This claim is directed to a terminal stud. However, claim 1 further recites that the terminal stud has a head that “is held within a slot of a base.” In addition, claim 1 recites that the head has “a sidewall interfacing directly with a wall of the base.” In each instance, the claim positively recites a structural relationship actively exists between the head of the stud and the base. Thus, though the preamble sets forth that the claim is directed to the terminal stud, the base is nonetheless part of the required structure of this claim, i.e., claim 1 is directed to an assembly between the terminal stud and the base. Turning to the applied prior art, with this claim construction in mind, we note that ASME teaches both hex and square head bolts. There is no dispute that each ASME bolt clearly includes a threaded portion extending from a head. Further, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 3), for the nominal size or basic product diameter square head bolt of 1.5, the width of the head is 2.25 and the height is 1. ASME, Square Head Bolts, Table labeled “Dimensions of Square Head Bolts,” last row. The ratio of length to height for this square head bolt is 2.25 which is within the range recited in claim 1. Thus, the ASME square head bolt of 1.5 inch nominal size meets the 5 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 structural limitations of the terminal stud of claim 1. Appellants do not dispute these findings. Further, we note Peterson teaches that boss member 120 may be formed integrally with the stud which would make it integral with head 110. As the Examiner finds, Appellants’ claim 1 does not specify any particular structure for the head of the stud other than that the threaded portion extends therefrom. Peterson, Figure 3, clearly shows the threaded portion 108 extending from the boss member 120. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Peterson’s boss member 120 is not a head. Further, regardless of the merits of Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s reliance on Aller,there is no dispute that ASME teaches a ratio within the claimed range for a square head bolt. Thus, one would have found it obvious to have selected such a ratio in Peterson as a known standard dimension for bolts. We are also not persuaded that the ordinary artisan would not have looked to ASME for bolt dimensions because ASME teaches square head bolts, whereas Peterson teaches a hex head bolt. While Peterson prefers a hex head bolt, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily expected that a square head bolt would have provided the same anti-rotation feature as Peterson’s hex head bolt. As such, the ASME square head bolt and Peterson’s hex head bolt are functional equivalents, such that substitution of 10 We note that there is nothing in A Her that limits its application merely to temperature or concentration. In addition, merely stating that a particular ratio achieves a good balance between weight and function does not alone establish that the ratio is critical. 6 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 one for the other is well within the ordinary skill in the art. Appellants do not provide any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning otherwise. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Peterson and ASME. Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the head is hexahedronal. Appellants argue that Peterson’s boss member 120 is hexagonal in cross section and has eight primary faces, but is not a hexahedron with six primary faces. Appeal Br. 5—6. The Examiner finds that because Peterson’s boss member has a hexagon shape, Peterson shows a hex head bolt. Ans. 3. While we agree with Appellants (and apparently the Examiner) that Peterson teaches a hex head bolt having a hexagon cross section which is not a hexahedron,11 we note that ASME teaches a square head bolt which is clearly a hexahedron. As discussed above, the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness of a combination of Peterson’s terminal stud with ASME’s square head bolt dimensions, thus providing a hexahedronal (square) head on the stud. Claim 19 Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the head has an endwall that is generally perpendicular to the sidewall and having a width less than the length of the sidewall. The Examiner finds that the ASME bolt has a head whose endwall is generally perpendicular to the sidewall and has 11 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hexahedron, last visited May 4, 2017, which defines “hexahedron” as “a polyhedron of six faces (such as a cube).” 7 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 a width less than the sidewall length. Ans. 3, referring to the ASME table. Appellants argue that ASME applies to square head bolts, whereas this claim requires that the head is not square. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible error. Although the Examiner finds that ASME teaches an endwall whose width is less than the length of a sidewall and references the ASME table, we are unable to locate any support for this finding in the ASME table or elsewhere. Further, we agree with Appellants’ interpretation of claim 19 that the head of the terminal stud cannot be square. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Examiner has met the minimum threshold of establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 19. Rejection 2: Obviousness over Delcourt and ASME Claim 1 The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are set forth in the Final Office Action, page 4. Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret Delcourt’s shoulder 64 to be a head. Appeal Br. 7. However, as discussed above, the head of the terminal stud is merely structurally defined as having the threaded portion extending therefrom. Delcourt’s threaded portion 65 is clearly extending from shoulder 64. Delcourt, Fig. 3. As Appellants do not explain why this finding is in error, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. 8 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 Appellants also argue, similarly to their arguments with regard to Peterson, that the ordinary artisan would not look to ASME, which relates to square head bolts, to modify Delcourt’s hex head bolt. Appeal Br. 7. For the same reasons given above, we likewise do not find this argument persuasive. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,3, and 6 over Delcourt and ASME. Claim 5 Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further requires a second terminal stud that is received within the slot of the base. We construe this claim to require two terminal studs that are received in the same slot of the base. The Examiner finds that Delcourt discloses a second terminal stud received within the slot of the base. Ans. 4, citing Delcourt, Fig. 1, element 21. Appellants argue that Delcourt fails to teach a second terminal stud received with the aperture 75 of the eyelet 61 which closely matches the size of the shoulder. Appeal Br. 7—8. As such, Appellants urge that the Examiner’s finding is misplaced. We agree. The Examiner merely indicates that element 21 meets this claim. However, we are unable to find any disclosure in Delcourt where two studs are received in a single slot of a base. Each of Delcourt’s stud electrical connections 21 has a separate connector 55 with a single eyelet aperture 75 for receiving a single shoulder (head) of a single stud. Delcourt, Fig. 1; || 15—18. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding lacks support in the record. We are, therefore, constrained to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 5. 9 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 Claim 19 Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the head has an endwall that is generally perpendicular to the sidewall and having a width less than the length of the sidewall. As above, Appellants argue that ASME applies to square head bolts, whereas this claim requires that the head is not square. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible error. Although the Examiner finds that ASME teaches an endwall whose width is less than the length of a sidewall and references the ASME table, we are unable to locate any support for this finding in the ASME table or elsewhere. Further, we agree with Appellants’ interpretation of claim 19 that the head of the terminal stud cannot be square. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 19. Rejection 3: §103 over Mangapora and ASME Claim 1 The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are set forth in the Final Office Action, page 5. Appellants argue that Mangapora clearly describes element 5 as the head, and not a structure that is axially between head 5 and threaded shaft 8. Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellants, the ordinary artisan would not interpret Mangapora’s shank 7 as a head given Mangapora’s description of element 5 as the head. Id. Appellants also argue that ASME would only apply to square head bolts, whereas Mangapora’s shank 7 has a circular profile. Id. Appellants also assert that ASME does not teach the ratio of claim 1 as a result effective variable. Id. These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner notes that Mangapora teaches a number of cross-sectional shapes for the 10 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 shank 7, including both hex head and square head. Ans. 4, citing Mangapora, Figs. 10, 11, 13, and 14. In addition, the Examiner notes that claim 1 merely requires a threaded portion extending from a head. Therefore, regardless what element Mangapora identifies as a head, the structure from which Mangapora’s threaded portion 8 extends from is shank 7. As such, the Examiner’s finding that shank 7 is a head within the meaning of claim 1 is reasonable. In addition, we note that shank 7 as shown in Figures 10, 11, 13, and 14 provide a torsion-resistant or anti rotation feature when engaged in the hole or slot 20 of plate or base 3. Mangapora 3:54—67. Finally, we note that though ASME does not teach that the ratio is a result effective variable, ASME nonetheless teaches a ratio for a square head bolt that is within the claimed range. As such, no optimization or routine experimentation is necessary to arrive at the claimed range. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Mangapora and ASME. Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further requires that the head have an endwall perpendicular to the sidewall, wherein the ratio of the sidewall length to the endwall width is from 1.67 to 1.80. The Examiner finds Mangapora has these features, but then concludes that it would have been obvious “to have a ratio of the length of the endwall to the width of the sidewall as 1.67 to 1.80.” Final Act. 5, citing In re A Her. Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to point to any teaching or suggestion of this ratio in Mangapora, noting that Mangapora, Figure 11, teaches a square cross- section. Appeal Br. 8—9. Appellants contend that Mangapora fails to teach a 11 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 ratio of the length of the sidewall to the width of the endwall is from 1.67 to 1.80. Id. at 9. The Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments merely reasserts that Mangapora does suggest a ratio as recited in claim 4 without specifically addressing the merits of these arguments or to direct attention to any specific portion of Mangapora in support of the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner has the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“To facilitate review, [the obviousness] analysis should be made explicit.”); see also, In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”), quoted with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the Examiner has not sufficiently supported the finding that Mangapora teaches or suggests the recited ratio of claim 4, nor has the Examiner addressed Appellants’ substantive argument that Mangapora’s square cross-section does not teach or suggest such a ratio. Indeed, because Mangapora clearly teaches a square head whose ratio would be 1.00 and the Examiner fails to direct attention to any disclosure where the length of one side of the head is greater than the width of another side, we are constrained to reverse this rejection of claim 4. Claim 19 As previously discussed above, we have found that a teaching of a square head alone as the Examiner’s finds in Mangapora and ASME is 12 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 insufficient to render obvious a non-square head whose length and width are different. Thus, for the same reasons given above, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 19 over Mangapora in view of ASME. Rejection 4: §103 over AAPA in view ofYohn and ASME, alone or further in view of Mangapora Claim 7 The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are set forth in the Final Office Action, pages 6—7 and 9-10. Appellants argue that Yohn fails to teach any slot receiving head from a plurality of terminal studs. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants urge that “[t]he areas 301 and 303 in Yohn receive, at most, the area 301 or the area 305, not both the area 301 and the area 305.” Id. (emphasis added). However, we note claim 7 does not require that the heads of each of the terminal studs is received within the same slot. Instead, claim 7 merely requires that the block has a plurality of terminal studs, each having a threaded portion extending from a head. Claim 7 further recites “the head received with the slot,” without identifying which head of the plurality of terminal studs “the head” is referencing. Because the recitation uses the singular, “the head,” rather than the plural, “the heads,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7 encompasses a single head received within the slot. To require otherwise would render claim 9, which requires that the slot receive the heads of two terminal studs, redundant and not further limiting. Given the above interpretation of claim 7, Appellants’ argument, which presumes that claim 7 requires plural head are received in the slot, 13 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 fails to persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of this claim. Appellants do not argue claims 13—15, and 18 separately. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 13—15, and 18. Claim 11 Claim 11 depends from claim 7 and further requires that the sidewall has an area from 2.18 to 2.35 square inches. Appellants argue that ASME fails to teach a sidewall having an area within the recited range. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants do not, however, argue with any particularity why ASME’s teaching of a 2.25 inch width across the head flat (equivalent to the sidewall length) and a 1 inch head height (equivalent to the sidewall height) of the 1.5 inch nominal size square head fails to teach a sidewall area within the recited range (2.25 inches by 1 inch equals 2.25 square inches). We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. Claim 20 Claim 20 depends from claim 7 and further requires, similarly to claim 19, that the head has an endwall that is generally perpendicular to the sidewall, and the sidewall has a width that is less than the length of the sidewall. As before, though the Examiner relies on ASME for teaching an endwall having a width different from the sidewall, ASME’s teaching of a square head bolt is insufficient as both the endwalls and sidewalls of such a head are equal. Accordingly, for the same reasons as given above with regard to claim 19, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim. 14 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 Claim 8 Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and further requires, similarly to claim 2 that the head is hexadronal. Appellants argue that Mangapora’s head is not hexadronal. Appeal Br. 10. However, for the same reasons as given above with regard to claim 2, we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting this claim based on, among others, ASME which teaches a square or hexahedronal head. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim. Claim 9 Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and further requires that the slot receives the heads of two terminal studs. Appellants argue that the Examiner cannot rely on areas 301, 303 in the rejection of the independent claim, and then rely on an area between elements 111 as teaching the slots in the rejection of claim 9. Appeal Br. 10. In addition, Appellants contend that the portions of Yohn relied on as teaching the claimed heads do not interface directly with dividers 111. Id. As such, Appellants argue that dividers 111 cannot be relied on as teaching the claimed slot. Id. The Examiner does not respond to Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 9, instead relying on prior responses with regard to the prior rejections. See Ans. 5. In addition, we note that the slot which is defined by Yohn’s dividers 111 does not have slot walls, one of which interfaces directly with the head of a terminal stud and wherein the slot receives the heads of two terminal studs. Yohn merely teaches a base 101 incorporating conductive member 205 which itself defines a plurality of slots, each of which receives and directly interfaces with the head of a single terminal 15 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 stud. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 and dependent claim 10. Claim 16 Claim 16 depends from claim 14 via claim 15 (which requires using a second terminal stud), and further requires contacting the sidewall of both terminal studs with a common wall of a base. Appellants argue that Yohn fails to teach this feature, wherein area 301 of one terminal stud contacts a first wall and area 301 of a second terminal stud contacts another wall. Appeal Br. 11. Although the Examiner finds that Yohn discloses this feature (Final Act. 10), the Examiner does not direct attention to any specific teaching in Figure 3 that meets the recitation of claim 16, nor do we find any. As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim. Claim 21 Claim 21 depends from claim 14 and further requires, similarly to claims 19 and 20, that the head has an endwall that is generally perpendicular to the sidewall and has a width that is less than the length of the sidewall. For the same reasons as given above for claims 19 and 20, we likewise will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim. Claims 12 and 17 Claim 12 depends from claim 7 and claim 17 depends from claim 14. Each of these dependent claims, like claim 4, further requires that the head of the terminal stud has an endwall that is generally perpendicular to the sidewall and has a width such that the ratio of the length of the sidewall to the width of the endwall is from 1.67 to 1.80. Appellants argue that each of these dependent claims is patentable for the same reasons presented against the rejection of claim 4, which we found persuasive. Appeal Br. 11. 16 Appeal 2016-002281 Application 13/349,112 Accordingly, for the same reasons as given above with respect to claim 4, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of each of claims 12 and 17. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Answer, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable over Peterson in view of ASME, of claims 1,3, and 6 as unpatentable over Delcourt in view of ASME, of claim 1 as unpatentable over Mangapora in view of ASME, of claims 7, 8, 11, 13—15, and 18 as unpatentable over AAPA in view of Yohn and ASME, alone or further in view of Mangapora, are each sustained. However, for the reasons given in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, each of the § 103 rejections of claim 19 as unpatentable over Peterson and ASME, claims 5 and 19 over Delcourt and ASME, claims 4 and 19 over Mangapora and ASME, and claims 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 21 over AAPA, Yohn, and ASME, with or without Mangapora, are not sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—3, 6—8, 11, 13—15, and 18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, and 19—21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation