Ex Parte Hall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

10924178 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

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.
10/924,178 08/23/2004 Lawrence B. Hall 502057 6258
53609 7590 06/02/2017
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
FOX, JOHN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAWRENCE B. HALL and JACK A. MORENO
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lawrence B. Hall and Jack A. Moreno (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the non-final rejection of claims 2, 11, 12, 14—20,
and 23—36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a valve assembly that includes a
mounting bracket. Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative:
2. A valve assembly comprising:
a mounting bracket including an anchor panel, a first leg panel
extending generally perpendicular from the anchor panel, and a
second leg panel extending generally perpendicular from the
anchor panel, the first and second leg panels including
respectively a first and second aperture, the first and second
apertures aligned about an axis line;
a solenoid coil including a central bore, the solenoid coil
received between the first and second leg panels such that the
central bore is aligned with the axis line;
a pilot valve including an elongated valve body having a first
end and an opposing second end, the pilot valve body being
received in the central bore and extending along the axis line
such that the first end extends from the first aperture and the
second end abuts against and is secured to the second leg panel;
and
a threaded fastener, wherein the second end includes a threaded
hole axially disposed therein, and the threaded fastener is
inserted through the second aperture and received in the
threaded hole to secure the second end to the second leg.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 2 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marks (US 4,712,582, issued Dec. 15, 1987) in
view of Pauliukonis (US 4,543,983, issued Oct. 1, 1985);
2
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
(ii) claims 11, 12, 14—20, and 24—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Brown (US 3,295,079, issued Dec. 27,
1966);
(iii) claims 2, 23, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brown in view of Pauliukonis;
(iv) claims 11, 12, 14—20, and 24—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Eck (US 2,627,544,
issued Feb. 3, 1953);
(v) claims 2, 23, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brown in view of Eck and Pauliukonis;
(vi) claims 11, 12, 14—20, and 24—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Marks in view of Brown;
(vii) claims 2, 23, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marks in view of Brown and Pauliukonis; and
(viii) claims 2, 11, 12, 14—20, and 23—36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Griswold (US
3,670,768, issued June 20, 1972).
The “Office Action Summary” page of the Non-Final Action1
appealed from additionally includes claims 1, 13,21, and 22 in the
listing of claims rejected. A rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Marks appears at pages 2—3 of that
paper, and a rejection of those claims under the principle of res
judicata appears at page 3 thereof. Subsequent to an Administrative
Remand2 from the Board to the Examining Corps, a Supplemental
1 Dated September 16, 2010.
2 Dated February 12, 2013.
3
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
Examiner’s Answer3 was issued, which included a miscellaneous
communication advising that the rejections of claims 1, 13, 21, and 22
were “eliminated,” in that no further review of those claims was
available. A rejection of those claims as being anticipated by Marks
was affirmed in a prior Decision on Appeal4 issued in connection with
a prior appeal in this application. The Reply Brief states that claims 1,
13,21, and 22 are canceled “in accordance with the Decision on
Petition Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 issued on July 10, 2013.” Reply Br.
2. Although we see no explicit cancellation of these claims in the
record before us, page 2 of the aforenoted Decision on Petition states
that “[ojnly the new rejections of claims 2, 11—12, 14—20 and 22—36
should remain under appeal.”
ANALYSIS
Claims 2 and23—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Marks/Pauliukonis
The Examiner finds that Marks discloses each of the limitations in
claims 2 and 23, except the provision of a threaded hole in the second end of
the valve body to receive a threaded fastener therein. Ans. 5.5 The
Examiner notes that Marks employs a threaded part extending from the
valve body and a nut, which components, as evidenced in Marks, are
provided for securing a second end of a valve body to a mounting bracket.
Ans. 5; Marks, Fig. 4. The Examiner cites to Pauliukonis as disclosing two
3 Dated July 18, 2013.
4 Dated April 26, 2010.
5 Reference or citation herein to the Answer, or the Examiner’s Answer, is to
the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated July 18, 2013.
4
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
configurations for securing an end of a valve body to a mounting bracket,
one (Pauliukonis, Figure 1) in which the valve has a threaded part 13
extending from the valve, and a corresponding nut, and the other
(Pauliukonis, Figure 2) in which a threaded hole is provided in the end of the
valve body to receive a bolt 29 therein. Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Marks such that a threaded hole is
provided in the end of the valve body and a corresponding bolt is provided,
in that Pauliukonis evidences the equivalence of the two constructions, and
the modification amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for
another, with the predictable result of securely assembling the Marks valve
to a bracket being obtained. Id.
Appellants initially argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would result in the elimination of the structurally strong hermetic joint
provided by Marks, in that “replacing the tube cap 70 that is welded and
crimped in place to form a structurally strong hermetic joint with a bolt 29
that is merely threaded into the guide tube 28” would likely allow refrigerant
to escape into the atmosphere. Appeal Br. 12. As such, according to
Appellants, such a modification would render Marks unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose, thus undermining the obviousness of the proposed
modification. Id.
The Examiner points out, in reply, that the proposed modification to
Marks is to provide a threaded bore in tube cap 70, not to replace the tube
cap as Appellants appear to have understood, and that providing such a bore
would not destroy the hermetic seal between tube cap 70 and tube 66. Ans.
11. As such, Appellants’ argument is not indicative of error in the rejection,
5
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
in that it is directed to a modification different than that proposed by the
Examiner.
Appellants retort that the articulated reasoning provided by the
Examiner in making the rejection “fail[s] to provide a convincing line of
reasoning . . . that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have
been produced” by the combination of the teachings of the references.
Reply Br. 12. Appellants, in advancing this argument, cite to Section 2144
of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) and cases cited
therein, which advise that the “strongest rationale” for combining references
is a recognition that some advantage or expected beneficial result would be
produced by a proposed combination of teachings. That guidance presented
in the MPEP itself attests to the unpersuasiveness of Appellants’ argument,
in that it refers to a “strongest rationale,” rather than something to the effect
of “every rationale,” being required to demonstrate an advantage or benefit
achieved. There is no hard and fast requirement that the reasoning provided
in an obviousness rejection must evidence that an advantage or benefit
would be obtained by combining teachings, any more than there is a rigid
requirement to show a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” for combining
the teachings of the references. Cf KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398,418 (2007).
Appellants additionally argue, in recognition of the Examiner’s actual
proposed modification to Marks, that Pauliukonis does not disclose mating
threaded fastener 29 into an end cap, in that, in the Figure 2 embodiment of
Pauliukonis, short tubular section 28 having the threaded bore therein is not
an end cap, but instead is a tubular shaped magnetic pole element of a
solenoid coil. Reply Br. 12—13. Appellants maintain that Pauliukonis
6
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
teaches, at best, “threading a fastener directly into a tubular shaped magnetic
pole element of a solenoid coil,” and not into an end cap of a valve body. Id.
at 13. From this, Appellants profess that “the Examiner’s reasoning to
modify Marks in view of Pauliukonis to include a hermetically sealed end
cap with a threaded bore therein is not an articulated reasoning supported by
some rationale [sic] under pinning” and is instead an impermissible use of
hindsight reconstruction. Id.
Appellants’ attempt to distinguish between an end cap for a valve and
a magnetic pole element of a solenoid does not evince error in the rejection.
Claims 2 and 23 do not specify that the claimed threaded hole be provided in
an “end cap,” but rather in a “second end” of an “elongated valve body.”
The threaded hole in the Figure 2 embodiment in Pauliukonis is in an “end”
of the valve body, within the scope of the limitations set forth in claims 2
and 23. The reason to modify is further not grounded in hindsight
reconstruction in view of Appellants’ disclosure; rather, the Examiner points
to explicit teachings in Pauliukonis of employing either a threaded rod
extending from the valve end or a threaded bore extending into a valve end,
with corresponding threaded components, to secure a valve body to a
mounting bracket. Ans. 5. The Examiner additionally points to a disclosure
in Pauliukonis expressly stating that the construction illustrated in Figure 2
thereof, will function exactly as the valve illustrated in Figure 1 (which also
corresponds to the construction in Marks), in terms of securing the valve
body to the bracket. Ans. 12.6
6 Appellants argue that the Examiner’s citation to this additional disclosure
in Pauliukonis constitutes a new ground of rejection. Reply Br. 14.
Appellants also, following correct Office procedure, petitioned under 37
7
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
In that none of Appellants’ arguments apprise us of Examiner error,
the rejection of claims 2 and 23 as being unpatentable over Marks and
Pauliukonis is sustained.
Claims 11, 12, 14—20, and24—35—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Brown
The only limitation at issue in connection with these claims and the
alleged unpatentability thereof in view of Brown is a recitation that the
“second end” of the elongated valve body “abuts against and is secured to
the second leg panel” of the mounting bracket. The Examiner takes the
position that it would have been obvious to make aperture 60 in Brown the
same diameter as stop 27, and that, in such construction, an upper end of
tube 24, regarded as corresponding to the claimed elongated valve body,
would abut (second) leg panel 52. Ans. 6.
The Examiner maintains that the conclusion of obviousness is based at
least in part on a prior holding of the Board, in a Decision on Rehearing
dated April 28, 2010 (Rhr’g Dec.), in the prior appeal in this application, to
the effect that “the drawings of Brown are erroneous” and that “the language
of Brown is open to two interpretations.” Ans. 6. According to the
Examiner, the allegedly obvious construction set forth above “would most
closely follow the plain meaning of the language of Brown and would more
securely fix the tube assembly 23 to the mounting bracket 50.” Id.
C.F.R. §1.181 to have the ground of rejection designated as a new ground of
rejection, due to the citation of the additional passage in Pauliukonis.
Petition dated September 17, 2013. The petition was denied in a Decision
on Petition dated September 30, 2013. The issue is not within the Board’s
jurisdiction to decide.
8
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
The Examiner misconstrues the Board’s prior holding, and takes out
of context the statement that Brown is open to two interpretations. Initially,
we note that the Board did not hold that Brown’s drawings are erroneous.
Regardless, the Board held that a preponderance of the evidence established
that “the actual diameter of aperture 60 is equal to the outer diameter of
outer tube 24,” and “[bjecause the outer diameter of outer tube 24 of plunger
assembly 23 is equal to the diameter of aperture 60 of leg 52, Brown does
not disclose that the second end of the pilot valve body (outer tube 24) abuts
the second leg panel (leg 53).” Rhr’g Dec. 5. In other words, upon
consideration of all evidence and analysis thereof, the Board determined that
Brown was open to only this interpretation. As such, we disagree with the
Examiner’s position that making aperture 60 the same diameter as stop 27,
thus resulting in tube 24 abutting leg panel 52, most closely follows the plain
meaning of the language of Brown.
The Examiner’s additional reason for concluding that it would have
been obvious to make aperture 60 the same diameter as stop 27, i.e., to more
securely fix tube assembly 23 to mounting bracket 50, includes no
explanation as to why this would be the case, is conclusory in nature, and
appears to be grounded in speculation. We do not necessarily agree with
Appellants’ contention that having stop 27 abut the lower surface of leg 52
“would result in the tube assembly 23 being less securely fixed, not more
securely fixed” (Appeal Br. 15), in that it appears that clip 84 would exert an
upward force on flange 36, which would maintain and ensure the abutting
relationship between leg 52 and stop 27. Brown, Fig. 1. This is in contrast
to clip 84 exerting an upward force on the entire tube assembly 23, such that
an abutting relationship is maintained between an outer surface of leg 53 and
9
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
an upper surface of clamping ring 46, when, in a correct interpretation of
Brown, aperture 60 has the same diameter as the outer diameter of tube 24.
Id.
Ultimately, however, the burden rests on the Examiner to establish,
through evidence or sound technical reasoning, the correctness of the
position advanced. Absent any explanation as to how the Examiner’s
proposed modification would result in a more secure fixation of tube
assembly 23 to mounting bracket 50, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 11, 12, 14—20, and 24—35 as being unpatentable over Brown.
Claims 2, 23, and 36—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Brown/Pauliukonis
Appellants point out that the arguments advanced against Brown
alone apply as well to the combination of Brown and Pauliukonis. Appeal
Br. 20 (citing to Section IV of the Appeal Brief). The rejection is grounded
in the same findings and conclusions with respect to Brown advanced by the
Examiner in the above-discussed rejection of claims 11, 12, 14—20, and 24—
35 as being unpatentable over Brown. Ans. 7. Pauliukonis is not relied on
in any manner that addresses the deficiencies in Brown noted above.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 23, and 36 as
being unpatentable over Brown and Pauliukonis.
Claims 11, 12, 14—20, and24—35—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Brown/Eck
Claims 11 and 12
The Examiner cites to Eck as disclosing a valve body member having
a reduced portion 23 extending through an aperture in upper leg 24 of
mounting bracket 25, and having valve body member 11 abutting leg 24 to
10
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
aid in securing the valve body to the bracket. Ans. 7 (citing Eck, Fig. 1).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Brown
such that valve body member 27 abuts against the upper leg of the bracket in
Brown, as a simple substitution of one known element for another, with
predictable results being obtained. Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that element 11 in Eck is not a valve body, in that
Eck refers to elements 12 and 13 as the valve body, and that component does
not have a second end that abuts against the second leg panel, as claimed.
Appeal Br. 21. Appellants maintain that valve body 13 instead terminates in
the bore of “solid portion” 11 in Eck. Id.
The Examiner replies that, based on Appellants’ disclosed structure,
in which only end cap 152 is described and shown as abutting leg panel 176,
it is appropriate to regard solid portion 11 of the Eck structure as forming a
part of the valve body. Ans. 14—15. The Examiner’s position is on strong
footing. The claims do not define structure that precludes a finding that
solid portion 11 combines with elements 12 and 13 in Eck to form an
elongated valve body, such finding being entirely consistent with the valve
body disclosed by Appellants.
Claims 14—20 and 24^35
The rejection of dependent claims 14—20 and 24—35 is based on an
additional assertion by the Examiner that the provision of a top panel would
have been an obvious variation in Brown, on the basis that, during
prosecution, Appellants purportedly took the position that “Figures 9—10
[which include a top panel] is not a separate species from Figures 1—4
[which do not require a top panel].” Ans. 8. The Examiner maintains that
this is an admission that the embodiment including the top panel is not
11
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
patentably distinct from an embodiment not having a top panel. Id.
Appellants maintain that no such admission was made or can be
implied, and that the Examiner has failed to present findings as to the
specific language presented in claims 14—20 and 24—35. Appeal Br. 22—23.
The Examiner references a “Response to Office Action” (hereinafter
“Response”) dated May 22, 2006, as containing the statement that the
embodiment in Figures 9—10 is not a different species from that of Figures
1—4. Ans. 15. That Response contains a statement similar to that ascribed
by the Examiner, but further explains that Figures 1—4, illustrating a
mounting bracket having three sides, is generic to the species of Figures 9—
10, a mounting bracket having four sides. Resp. 8. Appellants also pointed
out that a number of the claims then pending were generic to both three- and
four-sided mounting brackets. Id. We do not view any statement made by
Appellants as amounting to an admission that a four-sided bracket, i.e., one
with a top cover as recited in claims 14—20 and 24—35, is unpatentable over,
or not patently distinct from, a three-sided bracket having no top cover.
The Examiner has thus failed to present the requisite prima facie case
of obviousness as to claims 14—20 and 24—35. Accordingly, the rejection
over Brown and Eck is sustained as to claims 11 and 12, and is not sustained
as to claims 14—20 and 24—35.
Claims 2, 23, and 36—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Brown/Eck/Pauliukonis
Appellants rely on the same arguments advanced relative to the
combination of Brown and Eck as applied to claims 11 and 12 above, in
traversing this rejection. Appeal Br. 23. Appellants maintain that
12
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
Pauliukonis fails to remedy the alleged deficiency in the combination of
Brown and Eck. Id.
For the reasons identified above with respect to the rejection of claims
11 and 12, we are not apprised of Examiner error in concluding that the
subject matter of claims 2, 23, and 36 is unpatentable over Brown, Eck, and
Pauliukonis. The rejection is sustained.
Claims 11, 12, 14—20, and24—35—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Marks/Brown
The Examiner finds that Marks discloses the subject matter of claims
11 and 12, with the exception of forming the mounting bracket from one
piece of sheet metal which has both mounting apertures disposed therein.
Ans. 9. The Examiner points to Brown as disclosing a mounting bracket for
a similar valve, with the mounting bracket formed from a single piece of
sheet metal having both mounting apertures formed therein. Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have “made the
mounting bracket of Marks as shown by Brown,” as a simple substitution of
one known element for another, with predictable results being obtained. Id.
In response to Appellants’ challenge to the alleged obviousness of the
modification, pointing out certain problems associated with making the
Marks bracket of a single piece of sheet metal with two apertures therein, the
Examiner states that “the proposed rejection [is] to use the bracket of Brown
instead of the bracket of Marks, and to assemble the Marks valve as Brown
does.” Ans. 16.
We are unable to determine exactly what the Examiner’s position is at
this stage, in that it is initially proposed to modify Marks in some manner to
include two apertures on a single piece of sheet metal, and then subsequently
13
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
to instead somehow use the Brown bracket that already has two apertures in
the single piece of sheet metal to assemble the Marks valve therein.
Possibly, the Examiner is proposing to rotate, 90 degrees counterclockwise,
the mounting bracket in Figure 4 of Marks, and have apertures essentially in
the same locations shown, such that the apertures would both be in the single
piece of sheet metal. Regardless, the Examiner has not sufficiently clearly
explained what modification to what bracket is involved in the rejection.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 11, 12, 14—20, and 24—35 as
being unpatentable over Marks and Brown is not sustained.
Claims 2, 23, and 36—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Marks/Brown/Pauliukonis
This rejection includes the same fatally ambiguous treatment of Marks
and Brown as discussed in the preceding section. Ans. 10. For the reasons
set forth in that section, the rejection of claims 2, 23, and 36, as being
unpatentable over Marks, Brown, and Pauliukonis, is not sustained.
Claims 2, 11, 12, 14—20, and23—36—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Brown/Griswold
Claims 2, 11, 12, 23, and 36
The Examiner cites to Griswold as disclosing valve body element 86
abutting an upper leg of mounting bracket 82 and having a threaded hole
with bolt 88 securing the valve body to the bracket. Ans. 10—11. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Brown such
that the valve body member abuts against the upper leg of the bracket in
Brown, and to use a threaded bolt to similarly secure the valve to the
bracket, as a simple substitution of one known element for another, with
predictable results being obtained. Id. at 11.
14
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
Appellants argue that core element 86 in Griswold is not a valve body,
in that Griswold refers to element 12 as the valve body, which valve body
includes a screwed on sleeve 92, with solenoid 16 screwed onto the tip 98 of
the sleeve 92. Appeal Br. 30. Appellants maintain that neither valve body
12 nor sleeve 92 has a second end that abuts against the second leg panel, as
claimed. Id. Appellants maintain that sleeve 92 connected to valve body 12
instead terminates at the shoulder 102 of core 86. Id.
The Examiner replies that, based on Appellants’ disclosed structure,
in which only end cap 152 is described and shown as abutting leg panel 176,
it is appropriate to regard core 86 and sleeve 92 as forming a part of the
valve body, with core 86 being at the end of the valve body and abutting a
leg panel of bracket 82. Ans. 18. The Examiner’s position is on strong
footing. The claims do not define structure that precludes a finding that core
86 combines with elements 12 and 93 in Griswold to form an elongated
valve body, such finding being entirely consistent with the valve body
disclosed by Appellants.
Claims 14—20 and 24—35
The rejection of dependent claims 14—20 and 24—35 is based on an
additional assertion by the Examiner that the provision of a top panel would
have been an obvious variation in Brown, on the basis that, during
prosecution, Appellants purportedly took the position that “Figures 9—10
[which include a top panel] is not a separate species from Figures 1—4
[which do not require a top panel]”. Ans. 11. The Examiner maintains that
this is an admission that the embodiment including the top panel is not
patentably distinct from an embodiment not having a top panel. Id.
15
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
Appellants maintain that no such admission was made or can be
implied, and that the Examiner has failed to present findings as to the
specific language presented in claims 14—20 and 24—35. Appeal Br. 31—32.
As was the case in the rejection over Brown and Eck, discussed
above, the Examiner points to the Response as containing the statement that
the embodiment in Figures 9—10 is not a different species from that of
Figures 1—4. Ans. 18. That Response contains a statement similar to that
ascribed by the Examiner, but further explains that Figures 1—4, illustrating a
mounting bracket having three sides, is generic to the species of Figures 9—
10, a mounting bracket having four sides. Resp. 8. Appellants also pointed
out that a number of the claims then pending were generic to both three- and
four-sided mounting brackets. Id. We do not view any statement made by
Appellants as amounting to an admission that a four-sided bracket, i.e., one
with a top cover as recited in claims 14—20 and 24—35, is unpatentable over,
or not patently distinct from, a three-sided bracket having no top cover. The
Examiner has thus failed to present the requisite prima facie case of
obviousness as to claims 14—20 and 24—35.
Accordingly, the rejection over Brown and Griswold is sustained as to
claims 2, 11, 12, 23, and 36, and is not sustained as to claims 14—20 and 24—
35.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 2 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marks and Pauliukonis is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 11, 12, 14—20, and 24—35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown is REVERSED.
16
Appeal 2014-004520
Application 10/924,178
The rejection of claims 2, 23, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown and Pauliukonis is REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brown and Eck is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 14—20, and 24—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown and Eck is REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 2, 23, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown, Eck, and Pauliukonis is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 11, 12, 14—20, and 24—35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marks and Brown is REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 2, 23, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Marks, Brown, and Pauliukonis is REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 2, 11, 12, 23, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Brown and Griswold is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 14—20 and 24—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown and Griswold is REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17