Ex Parte Godwin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2012

10439867 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES RUSSELL GODWIN and
MICHAEL C. WANDERSKI
____________________

Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
21-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The disclosed invention relates generally to “the fields of portals and
portlets.” (Spec. 1, para. 0001].) More specifically, Appellants' invention
is directed to “the styling of a portal view in the display of a pervasive
agent.” (Id.)
Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
21. A method for rendering a portal view in a pervasive agent,
the method comprising the steps of:

[L1] identifying a specific type of the pervasive agent in which
the portal view is to be rendered;

loading a style sheet defining a theme for the portal view,
wherein the style sheet defines a plurality of classes, and each
of the plurality of classes include visual rendering attributes for
a plurality of markup language tags;

[L2] selecting one of the plurality of markup language tags
based upon the identified type of the pervasive agent using a
formatting rules property file;

[L3] parsing portlet rendering logic, for a specified portlet, to
identify an embedded style attribute reference;

[L4] replacing said embedded style attribute reference, in said
portlet rendering logic, with the selected one of the plurality of
markup language tags; and,

Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

3
compiling said portlet rendering logic for use in producing a
view for said specified portlet.

(disputed limitations emphasized and labeled L1-L4.)

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Anuff
Lynch
US 6,327,628 B1
US 6,558,431B1
Dec. 4, 2001
May 6, 2003
Lipkin
Griffin
US 2002/0049788 A1
US 2003/0126558 A1
Apr. 25, 2002
July 3, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 25, 27, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anuff and Lipkin. (Ans. 3-4.)
Claims 26 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anuff, Lipkin, and Griffin. (Ans. 4-5.)
Claims 22-24 and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anuff, Lipkin, and Lynch. (Ans. 5-6.)
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

4
PRIOR DECISIONS
1. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB (formerly the Board
of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI)) Decision on Request for
Rehearing (Appeal No. 2008-0130 (Application No. 10/439,867)) was
mailed on Nov. 13, 2008. (Request for Rehearing Denied.)
2. The Decision on Appeal decided by BPAI (Appeal No. 2008-
0130 (Application No. 10/439,867)), was mailed on June 30, 2008.
(Affirmed-In-Part, New Ground of Rejection set forth under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) for claims 2 and 16).

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants arguments and claim grouping (App. Br. 5), we
decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 21, 25, 27, and 31
on the basis of claim 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The remaining
claims are addressed infra.

FINDINGS OF FACT1
The following findings of fact (FF) are supported by a preponderance
of the evidence:
1. Anuff teaches that a portal comprises an HTML web page
(Anuff, col. 3, ll. 44-45).
2. Anuff teaches that the HTML web page (“front page”) presents
a predetermined layout of encapsulated modules containing resources
available to users (Anuff, col. 3, ll. 44-47).

1 See Appeal No. 2008-0130 (Application No. 10/439,867), BPAI Decision,
mailed June 30, 2008, pages 5-6 “FINDINGS OF FACT.”
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

5
3. Anuff describes communication devices as personal computers,
workstations, web access devices, and the like to view informational content
(Anuff, col. 3, ll. 4-8).
4. Anuff teaches that HTML data is embedded in the Module
View class and an XML inclusion module, retrieves an XML style sheet
(col. 7, ll. 5-20).
5. The Specification describes a “pervasive device” as including
handheld computers, cellular phones, and the like (Spec. 2, ¶[0005]).
6. The Specification does not define “theme.” Instead the
Specification refers to “various styling themes” and “one or more visual
themes” (Spec. p. 3,¶[0007] and p. 10,¶[0021]). Thus, the Specification
provides no detailed description of the term “theme.”

ISSUES
Issues 1-4: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the
cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or
suggested the following disputed limitations (labeled L1-L4):
[L1] “identifying a specific type of the pervasive agent in which the
portal view is to be rendered,” [and]

[L2] “selecting one of the plurality of markup language tags based
upon the identified type of the pervasive agent using a formatting rules
property file”; [and]

[L3] “parsing portlet rendering logic, for a specified portlet, to
identify an embedded style attribute reference”; [and]

[L4] “replacing said embedded style attribute reference, in said
portlet rendering logic, with the selected one of the plurality of
markup language tags,”
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

6
within the meaning of independent claims 21 and claim 27 (emphasis
added)?

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions regarding the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2), the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in
response to arguments made in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 6-11). We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments below.
Disputed Limitation L1
[L1] Identifying a specific type of the pervasive agent in which the
portal view is to be rendered

Appellants contend, inter alia, “The fact that a pervasive agent
inherently has a specific type does not necessary require (i.e., inherently
teach) that this specific type has been identified.” (App. Br. 10) (emphasis
added.) As an initial matter of claim construction, the Examiner broadly
construes the claimed “pervasive agent” in light of Appellants’
Specification:
Again, as discussed in the previous appeal, examiner's answer
and decision rendered the term "specific type" in regards to the
"pervasive agent", the appellant defines a pervasive device as
"handheld computers, cellular phones, and the like," (page 2,
lines 18-20 of Appellant's specification) which provides for a
rather broad interpretation of the term specific type and/or
pervasive device, based on the statement" ... and the like."
Anuff discloses that a portal server uses a style sheet to map
attributes to HTML tags that are provided to an HTML
enable[d] web device. Anuff discloses that the communication
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

7
devices, which include personal computers, workstations, web
access devices, and the like are used to access the HTML
content (column 3, lines 4-8 of Anuff). Web access devices are
devices that are used to access the web that are not personal
computers or workstations, these devices correspond to the
appellant's definition of a "pervasive device". Web access
devices include a browser, which is HTML, or XML enabled
(column 3, lines 9-17 of Anuff), thus can be considered to be a
specific type, HTML enabled, of pervasive device. Thus, Anuff
discloses that a portal server uses a style sheet to map attributes
to HTML tags that are provided to an HTML enable[d]
pervasive device (column 7, lines 4-45 of Anuff), which
corresponds to the claimed invention. Once again, the
appellant has provided no arguments that the web enabled
devices that are readily disclosed in Anuff are any different
from the pervasive devices of the claimed invention, rather the
appellant has merely argued that the HTML enabled web device
in Anuff did not exist. For additional information on the
Office's position on the limitation regarding identifying a
"specific type of pervasive agent" see BPAI Decision mailed on
June 30, 2008, specifically page 8, paragraph 2-page 9,
paragraph 2.
(Ans. 6-7) (emphasis added.)
Given the aforementioned claim construction, the Examiner disagrees
with Appellants regarding disputed limitation L1:
Regarding the step of "identifying the specific type ... "
the appellant's specification provides for a rather broad
interpretation of the term specific type and/or pervasive device,
based on the statement" ... and the like," which provides little to
no basis for what the types of devices could be (page 2, lines
18-20 of Appellant's specification). The system of Anuff only
can respond and function when a pervasive agent the HTML
enabled requests a page, thus by definition in order to function
the system would have identified that the device is indeed
HTML enabled to function, thus meeting the requirements of
the claimed language and rendering the rejection proper. In
addition to this, Anuff also teaches embodiments in which
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

8
different groups have different portal definitions (styles, layout,
theme, etc.) attached to them which in turn by definition
requires different markup language tags when the portal view is
produced (column 9, lines 24-55; column 13, lines 21-51; and
column 14, lines 55-63 of Anuff). For example, the teachings
of Anuff would detect [that a] pervasive agent is of the specific
type of HTML enabled Sales group pervasive agent or the
specific type of HTML enabled Engineering group pervasive
agent, and the styles, layout, theme, and tags used would be
different for the two types (column 9, lines 24-40 of Anuff).
Thus, the rejection is proper based on the immensely broad
definitions found in the appellant's specification regarding the
claimed terms "specific type of the pervasive agent," as
explained currently and in the previous Board of Appeals
Decision rendered (see BPAI Decision mailed on June 30,
2008, specifically page 8, paragraph 2-page 9, paragraph 2).
(Ans. 7-8.)
We begin our analysis regarding limitation L1 by noting that the term
“agent” as used in computer science generally refers to a computer program
that acts for a user or other program in a relationship of agency. Frequently,
such software “agents” may be autonomous and are described in terms of
their behavior. Thus, an “agent” may be capable of acting with a certain
degree of autonomy in order to accomplish tasks on behalf of its host.
According to one dictionary definition, in the client/server context, an agent
is broadly described as “a process that mediates between the client and the
server.” 2 However, “[d]uring patent examination, the pending claims must
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, we observe that the claims on appeal do not define the claimed
“pervasive agent.” Nor does Appellants’ Specification set forth an express

2 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997, page 19.
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

9
definition for the claim term “pervasive agent.” Thus, Appellants have left it
to the Examiner and this panel to contemplate the scope of a claimed
“coined” term that has not been expressly defined.3
When we look to Appellants’ Specification for context, we observe
that pervasive agents are described as including handheld computing
devices: “The present invention is a system, method and apparatus for
ensuring portlet style conformity across disparate pervasive agents,
including handheld computing devices.” (Spec. 5, para. 0009]) (emphasis
added.) However, Appellants’ Specification confuses the claim construction
issue by also describing a “pervasive device” as including handheld
computers, cellular phones, and the like. (FF 5.)
Given the lack of clarity and the breadth of the supporting description,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s claim construction is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification:
Web access devices include a browser, which is HTML, or XML
enabled (column 3, lines 9-17 of Anuff), thus can be considered
to be a specific type, HTML enabled, of pervasive device.
Thus, Anuff discloses that a portal server uses a style sheet to
map attributes to HTML tags that are provided to an HTML

3 Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the
specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood
by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform
Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see
also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to
a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary
meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written
description.”).

Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

10
enable[d] pervasive device (column 7, lines 4-45 of Anuff),
which corresponds to the claimed invention.
(Ans. 6-7) (emphasis added.)
In the Reply Brief, Appellants focus on Anuff’s server as performing
the identifying step and argue that “the server 12 of Anuff is agnostic as to
the capabilities of the request sender - only that the request is properly
formatted.” (Reply Br. 4.) However, representative claim 21 does not
specify who or what performs the identifying step, nor does claim 21 place
any limits on what types of “pervasive agents” may be identified. As
discussed supra, claim 21 does not define “pervasive agent,” nor does
Appellants’ Specification.
Notwithstanding Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-
9), we conclude that the plain language of claim 21 does not preclude the
Examiner’s broader reading regarding disputed limitation L1:
For example, the teachings of Anuff would detect [that a]
pervasive agent is of the specific type of HTML enabled Sales
group pervasive agent or the specific type of HTML enabled
Engineering group pervasive agent, and the styles, layout,
theme, and tags used would be different for the two types
(column 9, lines 24-40 of Anuff). Thus, the rejection is proper
based on the immensely broad definitions found in the
appellant's specification regarding the claimed terms "specific
type of the pervasive agent,"
(Ans. 8-9) (emphasis added.)
In reviewing Anuff’s teachings (column 9) pointed out by the
Examiner, we observe that Anuff teaches that “[t]he module Manager
determines the particular characteristics of each module in a group, e.g.,
which news sources the user has selected for display in a ‘News’ module”
(col. 9, ll. 4-7). Anuff also describes, “[a] module constructs a Module View
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

11
that is specific to the user and context, and the view assembles the HTML
presentation. The JSPs (Java Server Pages)] or ASPs (Active Server
Pages)] code enumerates through groups and then enumerates through the
modules within each group.” (Col. 8, ll. 3-7.) Anuff also teaches in column
7 that “[e]ach module view corresponds to a JSP file that contains the
HTML and logic for that view. The portal server allows a Module View,
which is a class object, to execute a JSP page and add its results to the
overall HTML page being constructed” (col. 7, ll. 41-45).
Cf. Appellants’ Specification, “Unique rendering logic such as a Java
server page (JSP) can be included for each type of device and the content
can be rendered accordingly” (Spec. 4, para. [0008]).
On this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error regarding
disputed limitation L1.
Disputed Limitation L2
[L2] Selecting one of the plurality of markup language tags based
upon the identified type of the pervasive agent using a formatting rules
property file

Regarding disputed limitation L2, Appellants contend:
Claim 1 further recites "selecting one of the plurality of
markup language tags based upon the identified type of the
pervasive agent using a formatting rules property file."
Noticeably absent from the Examiner's analysis is any mention
of the claimed "formatting rules property file." Additionally, a
proper construction of the claim language at issue recognizes
that "one of the plurality of markup tags" are selected.
However, also absent from the Examiner's analysis is the notion
of selecting one of a plurality of markup language tags.
Moreover, another claimed concept, absent from the Examiner's
analysis, is that this selection is based upon the identified type
of pervasive agent and using the formatting rules property file.
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

12
(App. Br. 10.)
The Examiner disagrees with Appellants regarding disputed limitation
L2:
Anuff clearly discloses in one embodiment that the markup
language tags (HTML data) necessary to render the pages is
provided by a Module View classes within a JSP file
(formatting rules property file) (column 7, lines 4-45 of Anuff).
As discussed above, Anuff teaches embodiments in which
different groups have different portal definitions (styles, layout,
theme, etc.) which include different modules defined by
Module View classes attached to them which in turn by
definition requires different markup language tags when the
portal view is produced (column 9, lines 24-55; column 13,
lines 21-51; and column 14, lines 55-63 of Anuff). Thus, the
rejection is proper and should be maintained.
(Ans. 8.)

Appellants further respond in the Reply Brief:
Appellants recognize that markup tags are a common part of an
HTML page, and as such, the creation of a HTML page would
have to employ markup tags from somewhere. The Examiner's
analysis, however, only asserts that markup tags can be found
within a JSP file. This analysis falls short of establishing that
Anuff teaches "selecting one of the plurality of markup
language tags" and that this selection is based upon an
identified type of the pervasive agent.
(Reply Br. 9.)
We find Appellants’ arguments unavailing, given our discussion
above regarding the “type” of the pervasive agent which is not defined in the
claims or in the Specification. Moreover, Appellants do not specifically
rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding Anuff’s Module View classes
within a JSP file that the Examiner finds would have taught or suggested the
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

13
disputed formatting rules property file (See Ans. 8, regarding Anuff at
column 7, lines 4-45; see also our discussion of this portion of Anuff above.)
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error
regarding disputed limitation L2.
Disputed Limitation L3
[L3] Parsing portlet rendering logic, for a specified portlet, to
identify an embedded style attribute reference
Regarding disputed limitation L3, Appellants contend:
Claim 1 additionally recites "parsing portlet rendering logic, for
a specified portlet, to identify an embedded style attribute
reference," and regarding these limitations, the Examiner
asserted "[p]ortlet rendering logic is parsed to identify
embedded style attribute references and markup language tags
are then used to replace the portions of the logic file" and cited
to column 7, lines 4-45 and column 15, lines 7-38 of Anuff.
Column 7, lines 41-42 of Anuff states that "[e]ach module view
corresponds to a JSP file that contains the HTML and logic for
that view." As such, Appellants proceed on the basis that the
"logic for that view" allegedly corresponds to the claimed
"portlet rendering logic." However, upon reviewing the
Examiner's cited passage, Appellants have been unable to
identify any teachings that (i) the module view (i.e., taught by
Anuff as containing "logic for that view") is parsed or (ii) the
module view corresponds to a specified portlet.
(App. Br. 10-11.)
The Examiner disagrees with Appellants regarding disputed limitation
L3:
Anuff clearly teaches that portlet rendering logic is parsed to
identify embedded style attribute references and markup
language tags are then used to replace the portions of the logic
file, which may then be compiled and used in producing a
markup language view for a specified portlet (column 7, lines
4-45 and column 15, lines 7-38 of Anuff). The appellant
appears to argue that the module view taught by Anuff as
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

14
containing logic for that view is not parsed, yet fails to show
any evidence of this fact. The appellant actually states, that the
module views of Anuff contain the logic for that view (page 11,
lines 1-6 of the current appeal brief), which are parsed and used
to generate the modules (building blocks or portlets of the
portal page). Anuff explicitly discloses that there are multiple
embodiments for how the modules are developed, one being an
XML inclusion module (portlet rendering logic) which is
parsed and retrieves an XML style sheet (which includes
embedded style attribute references) in order to generate the
HTML for a specific module (column 7, lines 17-20 of Anuff).
(Ans. 9.)
When we look to Appellants’ Specification for context regarding the
claimed “portlet,” we observe that three different meanings are described:
[0004] From the end-user perspective, a portlet is a
content channel or application to which the end-user can
subscribe. By comparison, from the perspective of the content
provider, a portlet is a means through which content can be
distributed in a personalized manner to a subscribing end-user.
Finally, from the point of view of the portal, a portlet merely is
a component which can be rendered within the portal page. In
any case, by providing one or more individually selectable and
configurable portlets in a portal, portal providers can distribute
content and applications through a unified interface in a
personalized manner according to the preferences of the end-
user.
(Spec. 2) (emphasis added.)
Given the breadth of interpretations, we find the weight of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s position. As pointed out by the Examiner
(Ans. 9), this disputed limitation was recited in almost verbatim form in
claim 1 in our prior Decision. (See Appeal 2008-0130 mailed June 30, 2008,
page 2, claim 1: “parsing portlet rendering logic for a specified portlet to
identify embedded style attribute references.”). Thus, Appellants had full
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

15
opportunity to contest essentially the same limitation in the prior Appeal
over the same reference (Anuff). Cf. Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314
(Fed. Cir 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to
the Board, section 1.192(c)(7) [(now section 41.37(c)(1)(iv))] imposes no
burden on the Board to consider the merits of that ground of rejection. . . .
[T]he Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection
as waived.”). Even if waiver may not apply here (because of the anticipation
rejection over Anuff in the prior appeal, Cf. with the §103 rejection here), on
this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error, as the parsed “portlet
rendering logic” is not defined in claim 21. Nor have Appellants pointed to
a supporting definition in the Specification for the claimed “portlet rendering
logic” (claim 21).
Disputed Limitation L4
[L4] Replacing said embedded style attribute reference, in said
portlet rendering logic, with the selected one of the plurality of
markup language tag
Regarding disputed limitation L4, Appellants contend:
Claim 1 further recites "replacing said embedded style
attribute reference, in said portlet rendering logic, with the
selected one of the plurality of markup language tags."
Regarding these limitations the Examiner also cited column 7,
lines 4-45 and column 15, lines 7-38 of Anuff. However, the
Examiner's cited passage does not refer to replacing an
embedded style attribute reference in the portlet rendering
logic. Notwithstanding that the Examiner's analysis is
ambiguous as to what, within Anuff, allegedly teaches the
claimed "portlet rendering logic," assuming that the "logic for
that view" corresponds to the claimed "portlet rendering logic,"
the Examiner's cited passages do not refer replacing portions of
that logic.
(App. Br. 11).
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

16
The Examiner disagrees with Appellants regarding disputed limitation
L4:
Anuff discloses that portlet rendering logic is parsed to identify
embedded style attribute references and markup language tags
are then used to replace the portions of the logic file, which
may then be compiled and used in producing a markup
language view for a specified portlet (column 7, lines 4-45 and
column 15, lines 7-38 of Anuff). Anuff explicitly discloses that
there are multiple embodiments for how the modules are
developed, one being an XML inclusion module (portlet
rendering logic) which is parsed and retrieves an XML style
sheet (which includes embedded style attribute references) in
order to generate the HTML for a specific module (column 7,
lines 17-20 of Anuff). In this case the final product is generated
by taking the actual HTML data corresponding to the XML
style sheet attribute references and replacing the logic with the
HTML in order to generate a viewable HTML document.
(Ans. 10-11.)
As again pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 10), this disputed
limitation was recited in commensurate form in claim 1 in our prior
Decision. (See Appeal 2008-0130 mailed June 30, 2008, page 2, claim 1:
“replacing selected ones of said embedded style attribute references in said
portlet rendering logic with mapped ones of said markup language tags.”)
Thus, Appellants had full opportunity to contest essentially the same
limitation in the prior Appeal over the same reference (Anuff). Even if
waiver may not apply here (Cf. with the anticipation rejection over Anuff in
the prior appeal), on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error,
because the claimed “portlet rendering logic” is not defined in claim 21, as
per our discussion above. Nor have Appellants cited a supporting definition
in the Specification for the claimed “portlet rendering logic.” (claim 21).
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

17
“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981))(emphasis added). Notwithstanding Appellants’
arguments, for the reasons discussed above, on this record we are not
persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding disputed limitations
L1-L4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative claim 21. Claims 25, 27, and 31 (not argued separately) fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). See also App. Br. 5.

Claims 26 and 32
Regarding dependent claims 26 and 32, Appellants contend these
claims are patentable for essentially the same reasons previously advanced
regarding independent claims 21 and 27 (App. Br. 12). In particular,
Appellants contend that the tertiary Griffin reference does not cure the
argued deficiencies of the prior rejection (id.). We do not find these
arguments persuasive for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim
21. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s second-stated obviousness
rejection of claims 26 and 32.
Claims 22-24 and 28-30
Regarding the rejection of the remaining dependent claims 22-24 and
28-30, Appellants also contend that these claims are patentable by virtue of
their dependency from parent claims 21 and 27 (App. Br. 12).
In particular, Appellants contend that the tertiary Lynch reference does not
cure the argued deficiencies of the prior rejection (id.). We do not find these
Appeal 2010-006894
Application 10/439,867

18
arguments persuasive for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim
21. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s third-stated obviousness rejection
of claims 22-24 and 28-30.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections claims 21-32 under § 103.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

llw