Ex Parte Gyde et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 11, 201311689863 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MIKE G. GYDE and MICHAEL J. STEWART1 ____________ Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11-16, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Honeywell International, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification is directed to ways for changing where and how various functions are displayed in non-overlapping display regions on a display. Specifically, the Specification shows ways to reposition and/or resize a display area in which a chosen function is displayed. See Specification at 3-17. Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are on appeal, and are set forth in an amendment to the appeal brief. Claims 1, 8, and 15, the independent claims, are illustrative and read as follows: 1. A method for changing the appearance of a display screen, the display screen including a plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a first input that identifies a first function of a plurality of functions that can be displayed on the display screen; receiving a second input that identifies a first display region of the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, wherein a perimeter of each of the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions consists of four corners of substantially ninety degrees; displaying at least a portion of the first function in the first display region and a second portion of the first function in a second display region of the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions in response to receiving the first input and receiving the second input by expanding the first function such that the first display region defines a boundary of the first function between a first corner of the first function that coincides with a corner of the first non-overlapping display region and a second corner of the first function that coincides with a corner of the second non-overlapping display region that is diagonally opposed from the corner of the first non- overlapping display region, whereby the first function is displayed as a single rendering across all intervening non-overlapping display regions situated in a row or column between the first non-overlapping display region and the second non- overlapping display region; and Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 3 expanding or contracting the single rendering of the first function into one or more display regions of the plurality of possible display regions by receiving another first input that identifies the first function and receiving another second input that identifies a third display region of the plurality of possible display regions. 8. A system for displaying functions, the system comprising: a display screen having a plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, wherein a perimeter of each of the plurality of possible non- overlapping display regions consists of four corners of substantially ninety degrees; a user interface; and a processor that is coupled to the display screen and to the user interface, the processor operable to: control the display screen such that a first function is generated in at least a first display region of the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, receive a first signal generated by the user interface, the first signal indicative of a second function, receive a second signal generated by the user interface, the second signal indicative of the first display region, control the display screen such that the second function is generated in a first group of adjacent display regions that are selected from the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, the first group of adjacent display regions including the first display region, a perimeter of the first group of adjacent display regions having the same number of corners as the first display region; and control the display screen such that the first function is displayed in a second group of adjacent display regions that are selected from the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, the second group of adjacent display regions including a second display region that abuts the first group of adjacent display regions. 15. A processor-readable storage medium that, when read by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform steps that comprise: processing a first input that is indicative of a first display region of a display screen that includes a plurality of possible non-overlapping display Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 4 regions that are arranged on the display screen, wherein a perimeter of each of the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions consists of four corners of substantially ninety degrees; processing a second input that is indicative of a first function of a plurality of functions that can be displayed on the display screen; and based at least upon the processing of the first input and the second input: selecting a first group of display regions from the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, the first group of display regions including the first display region, a perimeter of the first group of display regions and all other groups of display regions having the same number of corners as the first display region; controlling the display screen such that the first function is displayed in the first group of display regions; controlling the display screen such that a second function is displayed in a second group of display regions, the second group of display regions including the first display region and a third display region, a perimeter of the second group of display regions and all other groups of display regions having the same number of corners as the first display region. The Examiner has rejected the claims as follows: I. Claims 8-9 and 11-13, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith,2 Answer 5; II. Claims 1, 6, 14-16, and 18-20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Cohn,3 Answer 7; III. Claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the third group” in each of these claims, Answer 4. 2 Matthew T. Smith, et al., 6,466,235 B1, issued on Oct. 15, 2002. 3 Robert M. Cohn, 5,712,995, issued on Jan. 27, 1998. Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 5 I. Anticipation of Claims 8-9 and 11-13 by Smith The Examiner finds that Smith teaches all the limitations of claims 8- 9 and 11-13. Answer 5-7. Appellants agree with this assessment except as to the following limitations that are found in independent claim 8 from which claims 9 and 11-13 depend: a display screen having a plurality of possible non- overlapping display regions, wherein a perimeter of each of the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions consists of four corners of substantially ninety degrees; . . . a processor that is coupled to the display screen and to the user interface, the processor operable to: . . . control the display screen such that the second function is generated in a first group of adjacent display regions that are selected from the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, the first group of adjacent display regions including the first display region, a perimeter of the first group of adjacent display regions having the same number of corners as the first display region; . . . . Appeal Brief 10-12 (emphasis added). With regard to these limitations, the Examiner finds that Smith teaches that the perimeter for each of the possible non-overlapping display regions consists of four corners of substantially ninety degrees. Answer 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that: The display consists of four quadrants of “possible” regions for displaying functions. The map display is simply a default background for when the possible regions are not occupied by a function. The pilot must change the display if add’l functions are desired to be displayed. The art teaches changing the display in the right quadrants as an example of how to display Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 6 add’l functions. Each “possible” quadrant consists of four ninety degree corners . . . . Answer 5 (citing Fig. 5; col. 3, ll. 51-63; col. 5, ll. 51-58) (emphasis in original). Appellants argue that claim 8 requires “all of the possible display regions to have exactly four corners of substantially 90 degrees; as opposed, for example to a reference describing a possible display region that may have six corners of substantially 90 degrees.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis in original). From this premise, Appellants argue that a reference that describes any “possible” grouping of display regions with a perimeter that does not have four corners of substantially 90 degrees “does not anticipate independent claim 8 because the reference fails to describe every element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claim.” Id. (emphasis in original). Appellants conclude that Figure 2 in Smith shows a moving map in three of the four display regions with a perimeter of six corners, not four. Id. The issue presented regarding the anticipation rejection is: Does the preponderance of evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion of anticipation? A. Findings of Fact 1. Smith teaches a display divided into four, fixed-sized, non-overlapping, equal quadrants. Smith, col. 3, ll. 3-6; col. 5, ll. 51-53; Fig. 5; Answer 5, 1 2. Smith teaches that the perimeter of each of the four, fixed-sized, non-overlapping, equal quadrants or the perimeter of any two Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 7 such adjacent quadrants consists of four corners of substantially ninety degrees. Smith, col. 3, ll. 3-6; Fig. 5; Answer 5, 10. 3. Smith teaches that the electronic moving map is the default background display function shown generally when no function is selected for a display quadrant. Smith, col. 3, ll. 59-61; Figs. 2-10; Answer 5, 10. B. Analysis To find a claim anticipated by a prior art reference, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference arranged as in the claim at issue. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990); W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983). This test to determine anticipation, however, is not an ipsissimis verbis test requiring identity of terminology in the claim at issue and the teachings of the prior art. In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832; Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants argue that claim 8 requires that the perimeter of each “possible” non-overlapping display region “consists of four corners of substantially 90 degrees.” Appeal Br. 11. Because the term of art “consists of” is used in the claim at issue, Appellants assert that an anticipating reference may not teach a “possible” non-overlapping display region that has more or less than four corners of substantially ninety degrees. Id. Appellants contend that because Smith shows the electronic moving map in three of the four display quadrants as shown in Figure 2 that defines a display area with six corners instead of four, Smith does not anticipate “independent claim 8 because the reference fails to describe every element Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 8 of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claim.” Id. (emphasis in original). Appellants do not appear to disagree with the Examiner that Smith teaches a display that is divided into four, fixed-sized, non-overlapping, equal quadrants that each consists of four corners of substantially ninety degrees as shown in Figure 5; Appellants argue that the teachings of Smith may not include any configuration where a display area would have more than four corners of substantially ninety degrees. See id. The fact that Smith also teaches that any quadrant of the display that is not selected to show a particular function may show the electronic moving map does not render Smith any less anticipatory. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., an analogous case, shows why Appellants’ arguments and ultimate conclusion as to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection are flawed. In Upsher-Smith Laboratories, the claimed invention involved a vitamin composition that is “‘essentially free of antioxidants.’” Upsher- Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C., 412 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The anticipatory prior art taught compositions both with and without antioxidants. Id. at 1322. The patent owner argued that because the reference “optionally includes antioxidants the district court erred in finding that it anticipates a limitation that expressly excludes antioxidants.” Id. The Federal Circuit applied the “century-old axiom of patent law [which] holds that a product ‘which would literally infringe if later in time anticipates if earlier.’” Id. (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); Peters v. Active Mfg. Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 9 Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889) (“That which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.”)). The Federal Circuit concluded that because a composition made according to the reference without antioxidants would infringe the claims at issue, those compositions anticipated the claims “despite no express teaching to exclude the antioxidants” in the reference. Upsher-Smith, 412 F.3d at 1323. A display screen made in accordance with Figure 5 and its description in Smith would meet the limitations at issue of claim 8, including the limitations that “a perimeter of each of the plurality of possible non- overlapping display regions consists of four corners of substantially ninety degrees” and “a perimeter of the first group of adjacent display regions having the same number of corners as the first display region.”4 The fact that Smith teaches a default electronic map that may be displayed in a quadrant that is not displaying another function does not render Smith any less anticipatory. Because the preponderance of evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion of anticipation, we affirm the rejection of claim 8. As Appellants do not argue the claims separately, claims 9 and 11-13 fall with claim 8. 37 C.F.R. 4.37(c)(1)(vii). 4 Because Appellants did not assert that the remaining limitations in claim 8 were not met by the teachings of Smith as found by the Examiner, these limitations of claim 8 will not be separately addressed. Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 10 II. Obviousness of Claims 1, 6, 14-16, and 18-20 over Smith and Cohn5 A. Obviousness of Claims 1 and 6 The Examiner recognizes that while Smith teaches a third display region as shown as upper and lower left hand quadrants in Figure 5, “Smith does not teach expanding or contracting the first function to a third display region.” Answer 9. The limitation of claim 1 that the Examiner concedes is not taught by Smith is as follows: 1. A method for changing the appearance of a display screen, the display screen including a plurality of possible non- overlapping display regions, the method comprising the steps of: . . . expanding or contracting the single rendering of the first function into one or more display regions of the plurality of possible display regions by receiving another first input that identifies the first function and receiving another second input that identifies a third display region of the plurality of possible display regions. Claims Appendix to Appeal Brief 1-2 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Cohn does teach such a method. Cohn teaches a method of displaying applications in multiple regions which may be expanded or contracted into one or more display regions of the plurality of possible display regions by receiving another first input that identifies the first function and receiving another second input that identifies a third display region of the plurality of possible display regions. (Cohn, Fig. 5 The Examiner rejected claim 14 as being obvious over Smith in view of Cohn. Answer 10. Appellants do not address the obviousness rejection; therefore, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 14. Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 11 7A-F, col. 11, line 57 – col. 12, line 3; col. 35, line[s] 4-7; user may select an application and then create regions where the application will occupy; Fig.20A-B; col. 24, lines 47-54; numerous display regions [are] possible to expand or contract [a] selected function. Function is selected via selection of function boundary and expanded/contracted via movement of boundary to the identified desired region. A region is any area within the display area where the boundary can be moved to). Answer 9. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious “to include Cohn’s display of a function occupying a third region with Smith’s method in order to adjust size and location of functions with minimum input from the user.” Answer 9 (citing Cohn, col. 8, l. 59 – col. 9, l. 3). Appellants argue, however, that Cohn teaches away from claim 1 because “Cohn describes that an ‘application’ cannot be rendered into more than one ‘pane.’” Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis in original).6 Appellants assert that Cohn correlates application regions to the display regions defined by the panes in which the application regions are “contained.” Id. at 14. From this understanding of Cohn, Appellants conclude that it is “quite clear that the ‘panes’ in Cohn are the ‘display regions’” and “each application (i.e. a function) can occupy only a single ‘pane’/’display area’ and cannot be expanded into another ‘pane’ nor contracted from another ‘pane.’” Id. Therefore, Appellants argue, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, Cohn does not teach that any area within the display area where a pane’s boundary may be moved is a “display area.” See Reply Br. 3. 6 Appellants also argue that Cohn fails to cure the deficiencies in Smith. Appeal Br. 14-15. For the reasons discussed above with respect to the rejection based on Smith, Appellants have not demonstrated such a deficiency in Smith. Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 12 Finally, Appellants argue that no motivation exists to combine the teachings of Smith and Cohn because such a combination would require one reference to be rendered unfit for its intended purpose. Id. (citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959)). Specifically, Appellants assert that “[c]ombining these references would require Smith to be redesigned to limit a displayed function to a single quadrant, or would require Cohn to be redesigned to display a function/application across two panes.” Id. The issue presented is: Does the preponderance of evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness, and if so, have Appellants provided sufficient rebuttal evidence to overcome the combination of Smith and Cohn? A. Findings of Fact 4. Cohn teaches a user interface in which multiple, non- overlapping panes are separated by partitions, which are individually moveable so as to effect resizing or movement of abutting panes. Cohn, col. 8, ll. 45-48; Figs. 7A-7F and Cohn, col. 11, l. 51-col. 12, l. 3 (teaching ways to construct a four-quadrant display with partitions). 5. Cohn teaches that a user may select an application and create a pane with which the pre-selected application will be associated. Cohn, col. 35, ll. 4-7. 6. Cohn teaches that numerous non-overlapping display regions are possible for expanding or contracting a selected function. See Cohn, Figs. 20A-B; col. 24, ll. 47-54 (explaining how display region 851 is expanded and display region 852 is contracted by moving a segment Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 13 partition 804); Fig. 20D; Cohn, col. 30, ll. 43-67 (area of expansion from Fig. 20A to 20B defined as display region 853). B. Analysis Pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A reference teaches all that would have reasonably been suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Also, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). When evaluating whether claimed subject matter is obvious, the inquiry is not limited to the particular motivation or avowed purpose of the patentee, but encompasses the objective reach of the claim. Id. at 419. “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. Appellants’ argument that Cohn does not teach expanding or contracting a first function into a third display region depends on Appellants equating the term “pane” as used in Cohn with “display region” as used by Appellants in the claim at issue. This interpretation, however, does not afford claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 14 A display region as described by Appellants is simply an area on a display where all of or part of a function may be shown. See Spec. 4-5 ¶ [0020] (describing a default layout 200 that has a four-by-four grid of sixteen distinct display regions of the display screen where each one of the display regions is used to display one of sixteen functions); id. at 5 ¶ [0023] (describing a default layout 300 wherein function 101 is displayed over eight display regions and introducing the concept that a “function is displayed in a single area that is equal to the sum of the areas of the adjacent display regions”). Appellants would have us limit the definition of “display region” to an area on a display that necessarily shows all of a particular function. Such a construction would be an inappropriate narrowing of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Giving the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation, Cohn teaches expanding or contracting the single rendering of the first function into one or more display regions of the plurality of possible display regions by receiving another first input that identifies the first function and receiving another second input that identifies a third display region of the plurality of possible display regions. Claim 1. As the Examiner explained, Cohn’s Figures 20A-B and the accompanying discussion of those figures teach the expansion of a function that is shown in display region 851 into part of the display region 852 as shown by the movement of segment partition 805 as shown by tracking partition 841 that becomes unitary whole partition 812 as shown in Figure Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 15 20B. Cohn, col. 24, l. 47 – col. 25, l. 29. The Examiner is correct in identifying the area between segment partition 805 and tracking partition 841 as “a third display region” into which the function shown in display area 851 is expanded in the steps shown in Cohn’s Figures 20A and 20B. The Examiner is also correct to conclude that it would have been obvious to include Cohn’s display of a function occupying a third region in Smith’s method in order to adjust the size and location of functions with minimum input from the user. The fact that Cohn teaches that a “pane,” however it is expanded or contracted, contains a single function is irrelevant. The meaning of “pane” as used in Cohn is not coextensive with the meaning of “display region” as used in the claim. Equally unavailing is Appellants’ argument that there is no motivation to combine Smith and Cohn because modifying Smith in view of Cohn would require a fundamental redesign in the operating principle of Smith. Appellants assert that “[i]n Cohn, a function exists in, and is limited by, the partitions of a single defined pane. In Smith, a displayed function is expandable to exist in two adjacent and defined viewing quadrants.” Reply Br. 3 (citations omitted; emphasis in original). Therefore, Appellants conclude, to combine the teachings of Smith with Cohn would require the “operating principle” of either Cohn or Smith to be redesigned. First, the holding of In re Ratti, upon which Appellants rely, must be refined in light of KSR. We have held when reviewing In re Ratti in light of KSR that “[r]ather than express obviousness as the physical placement of structure from one reference within the confines of the structure from Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 16 another reference, the Supreme Court viewed the prior art as a combination of teachings from different sources, and the use of those teachings by a practitioner in the art.” Ex parte Purcell et al., No. 2008-004765, 2009 WL 1717401 * 4 (BPAI 2009). Appellants’ reading of the teachings of the references is too restrictive. While Smith teaches a four quadrant display, as Appellants recognize, it also describes using more than one quadrant to display a function. Answer 6 (citing Smith, col. 4, l. 67 – col. 5, l. 4). By the same token, Cohn describes numerous non-overlapping display regions are possible for expanding or contracting a selected function. See Cohn, Figs. 20A-B; col. 24, l. 47 – col. 25, l. 11 (explaining how display region 851 is expanded and display region 852 is contracted by moving a segment partition 805); Fig. 20D; Cohn, col. 30, l. 53 – col. 31, l. 17 (area of expansion from Fig. 20A to 20B defined as display region 853). The teachings of these two references are not mutually exclusive, but as the Examiner finds, can be combined to render the claims at issue obvious. The Examiner has set forth a prima facie case for obviousness, which Appellants have failed to rebut. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. As Appellants do not argue the claims separately, claim 6 falls with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. 4.37(c)(1)(vii). B. Obviousness of Claims 15, 16, and 18-20 The Examiner finds that Smith teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 15 except “Smith does not teach the medium wherein the second group of display regions includes the first display region and a third display region.” Answer 11. The Examiner finds that this limitation is Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 17 taught by Cohn. The limitation of claim 15 that the Examiner concedes is not taught by Smith is as follows: 15. A processor-readable storage medium that, when read by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform steps that comprise: . . . controlling the display screen such that a second function is displayed in a second group of display regions, the second group of display regions including the first display region and a third display region . . . . Claims Appendix to Appeal Brief 4-5. The Examiner finds that: Cohn teaches a method of displaying applications in multiple regions which may be expanded into one or more display regions of the plurality of possible display regions. (Cohn, Fig. 20A-B; col. 24, ll. 47-54; numerous display regions possible to expand or contract [a] selected function. Second group of display regions 851 includes third display region 851 and first display region between 805 and 841 of Fig. 20A and first group of display regions 852 also includes first display region between 805 and 841. When second function is selected via selection of function boundary 805 and expanded via movement of boundary to the identified desired region 841 the second function now includes the third display region and first display region. A region is any area within the display area where the boundary can be moved to). Answer 11-12 (emphasis added). The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include Cohn’s teaching with Smith’s medium in order to adjust size and location of functions with minimum input from the user (Cohn, col. 8, line 59 – col. 9, line 3).” Id. Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 18 Appellants assert the same argument discussed above with respect to claim 1 as to why Cohn does not teach the limitation at issue. Appellants again equate the “panes” taught by Cohn with the “display regions” as the term is used in the claims at issue. Appeal Br. 16. While Appellants concede that Cohn teaches that a pane may be made larger or smaller along with its contained application, with appropriate adjustments to adjacent panes to accommodate the different size, Appellants argue that an application in Cohn “cannot be rendered over multiple ‘panes’ (i.e. display regions),” as required by the limitation in claim 15 at issue. Id. at 17. Appellants conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established. Id. We have addressed these arguments as set forth above and found them unpersuasive. The Examiner has set forth a prima facie case for obviousness, which Appellants have failed to rebut. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. As Appellants do not argue the claims separately, claims 16 and 18-20 fall with claim 15. 37 C.F.R. 4.37(c)(1)(vii). III. Indefiniteness Rejection of claims 18-20 The Examiner rejects claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the third group.” Answer 4. Because Appellants do not address this rejection, we summarily affirm it. Appeal 2011-008988 Application 11/689,863 19 SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 8-9 and 11-13, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith. We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 6, 14-16, and 18-20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Cohn. We affirm the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the third group” in each of these claims. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation