Ex Parte Ekpenyong et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 15, 2019

13952588 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/952,588 07/27/2013
23494 7590 02/20/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony Ekpenyong
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.
TI-72718 3912
EXAMINER
NGO, NGUYEN HOANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2019 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY EKPENYONG,
RALF BENDLIN, and RUNHUA CHEN 1
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-12, 21-29, and 31-34. Claims 13-20 and 30 are
1 Appellant is the applicant and real party in interest, Texas Instruments
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1. Herein, all references to "Appeal Br." are to the
Substitute Appeal Brief filed February 14, 2017. The Substitute Appeal
Brief does not contain a Claims Appendix. Thus, all discussion regarding
claim language is based on the Claims Appendix filed with the original
Appeal Brief, filed August 24, 2016.
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
canceled or withdrawn. Amend. After Notice of Appeal 4--5 (June 23, 2016)
(entered Apr. 6, 2017). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Summary of disclosure
The Specification discloses a method of operating a wireless
communication system that includes receiving a virtual cell identification
parameter from a remote transmitter, determining a base sequence index and
cyclic shift hopping parameter in response, and generating a pseudo-random
sequence and reference signal. Abstract.
Exemplary claims (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method of operating a wireless communication apparatus
compnsmg:
receiving a signal from a base station;
selecting a cell-specific parameter in response to a first state of
the signal, or a user-specific parameter in response to a second state
of the signal; and
generating an uplink reference signal in response to the
selected parameter.
2. A method as in claim 1, wherein the user-specific parameter
is a virtual cell identification parameter.
7. A method as in claim 1, comprising:
configuring a user equipment with dedicated user-specific
uplink control resource allocation parameters for determining an
uplink control region for transmitting channel state information
reports; and
determining the uplink control region for transmitting
scheduling requests and Hybrid Auto Repeat Request (HARQ)
acknowledgement reports.
2
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
12. A method as in claim 11, wherein said SRS resource
allocation parameters include one or more of SRS bandwidth
configuration, SRS subframe configuration, an indication of whether
simultaneous transmission of Hybrid Auto Repeat Request
acknowledgement and SRS is permitted within a subframe, and a
number of resources allocated for transmitting random access
preambles.
21. A method as in Claim 1, wherein sounding reference signal
(SRS) ID, nm is the first state of the signal.
22. A method as in Claim 1, wherein physical uplink control
channel (PUCCH) ID, nm is the second state of the signal.
25. A method as in Claim 11, wherein said signal from a base
station is a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signal.
34. A method of operating a wireless communication apparatus
compnsmg:
receiving a cell-specific parameter from a signal sent by a base
station;
receiving a higher layer signal enabled to include a user-
specific parameter;
generating a reference signal for transmission on a physical
uplink shared channel (PUSCH) using the cell-specific parameter
when a user-specific parameter is not available;
generating a reference signal for transmission on the PUSCH
using a user-specific parameter when a user-specific parameter is
available.
Re} ections and references
The Examiner rejects claims 1-12, 21-29, and 31-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 4--5.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2 6, 2 8, and 3 1-3 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 6-8.
3
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 22, 4--12, 21-27, and 31-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand et al. (US 2009/
0046645 Al; published Feb. 9, 2009) ("Bertrand") and Zhang et al. (US
2011/0110398 Al; published May 12, 2011) ("Zhang"). Final Act. 9-13.
OBJECTION
The Examiner objects to the drawings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a)
(2015) for failing "to show every feature of the invention specified in the
claims." Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 14--15. Appellant contends "the
objection to the drawings is overcome." Appeal Br. 14 (citing Spec. Figs. 4--
7); see also Reply Br. 6-7. Objections are generally petitionable rather than
appealable. See In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). The Board
may address an objection that is determinative of an appealed rejection. See
MPEP § 1201. Such a relationship between the Examiner's objection and
the appealed rejections is not evident here. Therefore, we do not address the
merits of the Examiner's objection.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Claims 1-12 and 21-29
The Examiner finds claim 1 fails to comply with the written
description requirement because the subject matter of a cell-specific
parameter, a user-specific parameter, and generating an uplink reference
signal in response to the selected parameter "is nowhere to be found in the
Specification." Final Act. 5; Ans. 12-13.
2 The Examiner erroneously refers to claim 3 in the body of the rejection.
Final Act. 10; Appeal Br. 20; Ans. 16.
4
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the Specification
provides embodiments that show the inventors had possession of the claimed
invention, including the disputed recitations. See Appeal Br. 9 ( citing, e.g.,
Spec. ,r,r 27-28, Fig. 6); see also Reply Br. 2-3.
The disputed recitations exist, near identically, in claim 1 as originally
filed. The only difference is that claim 1 now recites "generating" rather
than "transmitting" the uplink reference signal. "Original claims are part of
the original specification and in many cases will satisfy the written
description requirement." Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851
F.3d 1275, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing, e.g., Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly
& Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane)), cert. dismissed, 139
S. Ct. 44 (2018). Originally filed claims may still fail to meet the written
description requirement if they fail to reasonably convey that the inventors
had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date of the
application. See Ariad, 851 F.3d at 1351. Nonetheless, the originally filed
claims being part of the Specification (id. at 1349 ( citing In re Gardner, 480
F.2d 879, 879 (CCPA 1973))) undermines the Examiner's finding that the
subject matter of the disputed recitations is nowhere to be found in the
Specification (Final Act. 5). Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the
evidence of record shows that the inventors had possession of the invention
of claim 1 at the time of filing.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) rejection of claim 1, and similarly rejected claims 2-12 and 21-29.
Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 13.
5
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
Claims 31-34
The Examiner further finds that the claim 34 recitations of receiving a
higher layer signal enabled to include a user-specific parameter ( with
similar recitations in claims 31-33) and generating a reference signal for
transmission on the physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) using a user-
specific parameter when a user-specific parameter is available do not have
sufficient written description support. Final Act. 5; Ans. 13-14.
With respect to the recitation related to a higher layer signal enabled
to include a user-specific parameter, Appellant contends the Examiner erred
because the Specification discloses a user-specific parameter carried by a
radio resource control (RRC). See Appeal Br. 7 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 20, 26, 28,
and Figs. 5---6), 10 (further citing Spec. ,r,r 21, 27, 30-31, and Fig. 7); see
also Reply Br. 4 (further citing Spec ,r 38). Although Appellant provides
several citations to the Specification that relate to a user-specific parameter,
none of the citations are directed to the user-specific parameter being
included in a higher layer signal. Rather, Appellant asserts, without
evidence, that "[ t ]he RRC is well known to those skilled in the art as a
higher layer signal." Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 4. Attorney
argument, however, is no substitute for evidence. Johnston v. IVAC Corp.,
885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As such, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not
reasonably convey to an artisan of ordinary skill that the inventors had
possession of the invention of claim 34 at the time of filing. See Final Act.
5. Similarly, we also agree with the Examiner that the Specification does
not reasonably convey to an artisan of ordinary skill that the inventors had
6
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
possession of the inventions of claims 31-33, which have similar recitations,
at the time of filing. Id.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection
of claims 31-34.
We further note that Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence
that the Specification reasonably conveys that the inventors had possession
of the claim 34 recitation directed to generating a reference signal for
transmission on the physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) using a user-
specific parameter when a user-specific parameter is available. Appellant
identifies disclosures that generally relate to the user equipment configured
to transmit data on a physical uplink shared channel. See Appeal Br. 10
( citing Spec. ,r,r 7, 24 ); Reply Br. 3. These cited portions of the
Specification do not disclose, however, transmission of a reference signal on
the physical uplink shared channel. Rather, the Specification notes that in
long-term evolution (L TE) communications, "the control channel and traffic
channels are known as the Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) and
Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH), respectively." Spec. ,r 7. The
Specification further discloses separate resource blocks allotments for these
control and traffic channels. Id. ,r 24, Fig. 4. Moreover, although claim 5, as
originally filed, features the step of "transmitting the reference signal on a
physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)," none of the original claims
feature a similar transmission on the physical uplink shared channel.
Because the evidence of record does not reasonably convey that Appellants
had possession of generating a reference signal for transmission on the
physical uplink shared channel at the time the application was filed, the
7
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
inclusion of this additional recitation in claim 34 further supports the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claim 34.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claims 1-12, 25-27, 29, 31, and 32
The Examiner finds claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what is
meant by the cell-specific and user-specific parameter recitations "as the
Specification discloses a number of various parameters with no indication of
cell-specific and/or user specific." Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 14.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the Specification
provides multiple embodiments that illustrate examples of cell-specific and
user-specific parameters. Appeal Br. 10-11 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 6, 20-21, 26-
28, 30-31, and Figs. 5-7); see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that, in at
least some embodiments, notational clues such as the subscript "UE" for
user equipment "denote[] that the parameters are user specific." Appeal Br.
11; Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. Appellant cites to
multiple embodiments that each illustrate examples of cell-specific
parameters ( e.g., "the serving cell's common parameters ofNCl)PuccH and
NC2)RB") and user-specific parameters ( e.g., "dedicated PUCCH parameters
from NCl)PuccH,UE and NC2)RB,UE") with proper indications as to which
category a parameter belongs. Spec. ,r 26 ( emphases added). Thus, contrary
to the Examiner's finding, the Specification provides indications of
parameters being cell-specific or user-specific. See Final Act. 6.
The Examiner's findings, at best, show that the claimed cell- and
user-specific parameter recitations are broad. Breadth, however, is not the
same as indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F .2d 689, 693 ( CCP A. 1971 ).
8
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection
of claim 1 and similarly rejected claims 2-12, 25-27, 29, 31, and 32. Final
Act. 6.
Claims 21-24, 28, 33, and 34
The Examiner finds claim 21 is indefinite because "it is unclear what
is meant by [SRS ID, nm] as such term is not defined." Final Act. 7; see
also Ans. 6. The Examiner similarly concludes the acronyms of claims 22-
24, 28, 33, and 34 also render those claims indefinite. See Final Act. 7-8;
Ans. 6-7.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the Specification
defines the acronyms and the acronyms "were explicitly spelled out/defined
in the Amendment dated" June 23, 2016, and entered by the Examiner April.
6, 2017. Appeal Br. 13.
We agree with Appellant that the amended claims obviate the
Examiner's finding that the acronyms in claims 21-24, 28, 33, and 34 are
not defined. See Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 6-7. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of these claims.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 21, 26, and 31-34
The Examiner finds that Bertrand's selection of one base sequence
index for a physical uplink control channel reference signal and another base
sequence index for a sounding reference signal teaches or suggests selecting
a first parameter in response to a first state of a signal or a second
parameter in response to a second state of the signal. Final Act. 9 ( citing
Bertrand ,r,r 45--48, Fig. 4). The Examiner finds Zhang's transmission of a
cell-specific or a user-equipment-specific sounding reference signal teaches
9
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
or suggests cell- and user-specific parameters. Final Act. 10 (citing Zhang
,r,r 9, 66). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify
Bertrand's base sequence index selection to select between a cell- and user-
specific parameter "in order to correctly and efficiently indicate and convey
the proper parameters in generating ... the correct reference signal." Final
Act. 10.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "one skilled in the art
would never confuse a cell specific SRS and UE specific SRS as outlined in
Zhang with the cell specific parameter and UE specific parameter taught in
the present application. Appellant's parameters are not the reference signals
themselves." Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 8. Appellant's argument is
unpersuasive, however, because the Examiner relies on Bertrand's base
sequence index selection to teach the selection of parameters. See Final Act.
9; Ans. 15. The Examiner properly relies on Zhang to suggest that one of
the selectable parameters can be cell-specific and another selectable
parameter can be user-specific. See Final Act. 10; Ans. 15. Appellant's
argument unpersuasively attacks Zhang individually rather than showing
error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions
of Bertrand and Zhang. See Appeal Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 8-9. Moreover,
Appellant's conclusory contention that the Examiner relied on impermissible
hindsight reasoning is not supported by persuasive arguments or evidence.
See Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, and claims 4--6, 8-11, 21, 26, and 31-34, which Appellant does not
argue separately with specificity. See Appeal Br. 20-21, 23-24.
10
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
Claim 2
The Examiner finds that Bertrand's implicit derivation of an index u
by user equipment from other broadcast parameters such as a cell identifier
teaches or suggests wherein the user-specific parameter is a virtual cell
identification parameter. Ans. 16 ( citing Bertrand ,r 46); see also Final Act.
10. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "whether broadcast or
derived, the index u is referencing the actual index u, not a 'virtual' index u.
Examiner confuses the words 'implicit' and 'virtual."' Reply Br. 12.
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because the claim recitation is
directed to a user-specific parameter that is "a virtual cell identification
parameter" ( emphasis added) rather than a virtual index. Appellant contends
"Bertrand does not teach or suggest that its 'implicit' cell identifier is a
'virtual' cell identifier." Id. Appellant does not, however, provide
persuasive arguments or evidence that distinguish the claimed virtual cell
identification parameter from Bertrand's index being derived from a cell
identifier ( thus existing in effect or essence as a cell identifier without being
a cell identifier in actual fact, form, or name). Appellant merely quotes
dictionary definitions of "implicit" and "virtual" without explanation as to
how they demonstrate Bertrand's implicitly derived index teachings fail to
teach or suggest the claimed virtual cell identification parameter given a
reasonably broad interpretation of the disputed recitation. Id. (quoting
Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary (1988)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 2.
11
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
Claim 7
The Examiner finds Bertrand's control information bits, including an
indicator of downlink channel quality (CQI) and at least one bit indicating a
successful or failed circular redundancy check (CRC) as part of a Downlink
Hybrid Automatic Repeat ReQuest (HARQ), teach or suggest configuring a
user equipment with dedicated user-specific uplink control resource
allocation parameters for determining an uplink control region for
transmitting channel state information reports and determining the uplink
control region for transmitting scheduling requests and Hybrid Auto Repeat
Request (HARQ) acknowledgement reports. Final Act. 11 (citing Bertrand
,r 5); see also Ans. 16 (further citing Bertrand ,r 54).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Bertrand "fails to
teach or suggest, 'configuring a user equipment with dedicated user-specific
uplink control resource allocation parameters for determining an uplink
control region for transmitting channel state information reports' and
'determining the uplink control region for transmitting scheduling
requests and Hybrid Auto Repeat Request (HARO) acknowledgment
reports."' Appeal Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 13.
Appellant fails to provide persuasive arguments or evidence
distinguishing: (1) the claimed uplink control region from Bertrand's
control information bits; (2) the claimed channel state information reports
from Bertrand's indicator of downlink channel quality; and (3) the claimed
Hybrid Auto Repeat Request (HARQ) acknowledgment reports from
Bertrand's Downlink Hybrid Automatic Repeat ReQuest indication of a
successful or failed circular redundancy check in the form of an
12
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
acknowledgment (ACK) or negative acknowledgment (NACK) bit. See
Bertrand ,r 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 7.
Claim 12
The Examiner finds that Bertrand's multiplexing of a user
equipment's sounding reference signal (SRS) in time, frequency, and cyclic
shifts with other user equipment sounding reference signals teaches or
suggests wherein said SRS resource allocation parameters include one or
more of SRS bandwidth configuration, SRS subframe configuration, an
indication of whether simultaneous transmission of Hybrid Auto Repeat
Request acknowledgement and SRS is permitted within a subframe, and a
number of resources allocated for transmitting random access preambles.
Ans. 17 ( citing, e.g., Bertrand ,r 40); see also Final Act. 12. Because the
disputed recitation is directed to sounding reference signal resource
allocation parameters that "include one or more" of a number of parameters,
the Examiner's findings need only show that the prior art teaches or suggests
one of the recited parameters.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the portions of
Bertrand cited by the Examiner fail to teach or suggest any of the recited
sounding reference signal resource allocation parameters. See Reply Br. 15-
16; see also Appeal Br. 23-24. Appellant's conclusory assertion does not,
however, distinguish SRS bandwidth configuration from the multiplexing of
a sounding reference signal "in time, frequency and cyclic shifts" within a
cell. Bertrand ,r 40. In particular, such multiplexing entails configuring the
bandwidth to be used for the user equipment's sounding reference signal.
13
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Bertrand teaches or suggests at
least one of the recited parameters.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 12.
Claims 22-24
The Examiner finds that Bertrand's use of a base sequence group
index u provided to user equipment within a given cell to indicate which
base sequences the user equipment to use for forming physical uplink
control channel reference signals teaches or suggests wherein physical
uplink control channel (PUCCH) ID, nm is the second state of the signal.
Final Act. 12-13 (citing Bertrand ,r,r 45--48, Fig. 4); Ans. 17.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because there is no teaching in
the cited portions of Bertrand of "wherein physical uplink control channel
(PUCCH) ID, nm is the second state of the signal." Appeal Br. 25; see also
Reply Br. 16-18. Appellant's arguments do not, however, persuasively
distinguish the claimed physical uplink control channel ID, nm from
Bertrand's base sequence group index u. See Bertrand ,r 46. Rather,
Appellant contends that the Examiner's use of the word "correlates" shows
that the Examiner is not rejecting claim 22 based on what Bertrand teaches
or suggests, but is instead relying on what the "Examiner 'interprets' the
reference to teach." Reply Br. 8.
Appellant's argument unpersuasively elevates form above substance.
The Examiner plainly uses the word "correlates" to convey that the
Examiner finds Bertrand teaches or suggests the disputed recitation. See
Ans. 17. The Examiner use "correlates" in a similar manner in presenting
findings supporting the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, and 25.
14
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
See id. at 15-16, 18. Appellant does not rely on the Examiner's word choice
as evidence of error with respect to the obviousness rejection of these other
claims. See Reply Br. 7-13, 18-21. Because the Examiner merely uses the
word "correlates" to identify what the Examiner finds the prior art teaches or
suggests, Appellant's argument does not show error in the Examiner's
findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 22, and claims 23 and 24, which Appellant does not argue separately.
Appeal Br. 25.
Claims 2 5 and 2 7
The Examiner finds that Zhang's use of a dedicated control channel
by user terminals having a radio resource control connection teaches or
suggests wherein said signal from a base station is a Radio Resource
Control (RRC) signal. Final Act. 13 (citing Zhang ,r 54); see also Ans. 17-
18 (further citing Bertrand ,r,r 46-48). Appellant contends the Examiner
erred because there is nothing in the cited prior art "that conveys that the
signal conveying either of the parameters is an RRC signal. As a result,
Examiner's determination is supposition not supported by fact which is little
more than improper hindsight reconstruction which must be reversed."
Appeal Br. 26; see also Reply Br. 21.
Appellant's arguments unpersuasively fail to show error in the
Examiner's finding that Zhang's transmission of dedicated control
information using a radio resource control connection teaches or suggests
using such a connection to transmit the control information found in
Bertrand (e.g., a base sequence group index u). See Ans. 17 (citing Bertrand
,r,r 46-48; Zhang ,r 54). Appellant merely asserts the cited teachings of
15
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
"Bertrand do not overcome the previously identified deficiency in
Examiner's reliance on paragraph [0054] of Zhang." Reply Br. 20.
Appellant fails, however, to show error in the Examiner's reliance on the
combined teachings and suggestions of Bertrand and Zhang. Nor does
Appellant provide persuasive arguments or evidence showing the Examiner
relied on improper hindsight reasoning.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 25, and similarly argued claim 27. See Appeal Br. 26-27.
16
Appeal2017-007307
Application 13/952,588
DECISION
We do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 and
21-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 31-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12,
21-29, and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--12,
21-27, and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--12, 21-27,
and 31-34 because we sustain at least one rejection of each of these claims.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3, 28, and 29
because we do not sustain any rejections of these claims.
We do not address the Examiner's objection to the drawings.
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