Ex Parte He et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2012

10714471 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2012)

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.
10/714,471 11/15/2003 Tianqing He 9096-14 2502
20792 7590 12/05/2012
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
LU, JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TIANQING HE, ALI REGIMAND, LAWRENCE H. JAMES
And PETER D. MUSE
____________

Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT,
and REMY J. VANOPHEM , Administrative Patent Judges.

ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Tianqing He et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 21, 23 and 27-34.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

2
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method for rapid drying a
porous sample of material.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for rapid drying a porous sample
of material, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) placing a porous sample of material into
a sealable chamber;
(b) creating a strong vacuum inside said
chamber by evacuating air from the inside of said
chamber after it is sealed until air pressure inside
said chamber is less than 10 TORR;
(c) passing evacuated air from said sealable
chamber through a cold trap to trap moisture in
said evacuated air;
(d) heating interior of said sealable chamber
to a temperature within a predetermined range.

THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Sano US 4,107,049 Aug. 15, 1978
Wennerstrum US 4,882,851 Nov. 28, 1989
Dhaemers US 5,546,678 Aug. 15, 1996
Hunter
Davis
US 6,085,443
US 6,410,889 B2
Jul. 11, 2000
Jun. 25, 2002

THE REJECTIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph:
Claims 1, 3-10, 21, 23, 27-34.1

1 This is a new rejection set forth in the Answer. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

3
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
Claim 23 - Wennerstrum.2
Claims 27, 28, 30, 31- Wennerstrum and Dhaemers.
Claims 29, 33, 34 - Wennerstrum, Dhaemers and Hunter.
Claim 32- Wennerstrum, Dhaemers and Davis.
Claim 1- Wennerstrum and Sano.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8 - Wennerstrum, Sano and Dhaemers.
Claims 6, 9 - Wennerstrum, Sano, Dhaemers and Hunter.
Claims 10, 21 - Wennerstrum, Sano, Dhaemers and Davis.
Claims 1, 23 - Sano and Wennerstrum.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 27, 28, 30, 31- Sano, Wennerstrum and Dhaemers.
Claims 6, 9, 29, 33, 34 - Sano, Wennerstrum, Dhaemers and Hunter.
Claims 10, 21, 32 - Sano, Wennerstrum, Dhaemers and Davis.

OPINION

Claims 1, 3-10, 21, 23, 27-34
Written Description Requirement

Claim 1 discloses a method for rapid drying of a porous sample of
material in a sealed chamber and claim 23 sets forth an apparatus for doing
so. The Examiner has taken the position that the claims fail to comply with
the written description requirement of the first paragraph of Section 112
because claims 1 and 23 each recite that a vacuum of “less than 10 TORR”
is created in the chamber, whereas the originally filed specification “only
discloses that the pressure inside the chamber drops below approximately 10

2 A rejection of claim 23 as being anticipated by Wennerstrum was
withdrawn in the Answer. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

4
TORR” (emphasis added also see page 7, line 16 of the specification).”
Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, “[t]he term ‘approximately 10 TORR’
could be interpreted as greater than 10 TORR, for example 11 TORR, or
lower than 10 TORR, for example 9 TORR, or equal to 10 TORR,” and
therefore Appellants have “either broadened or narrowed the scope of the
invention,” which constitutes new matter. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to meet the initial
burden of establishing why one of ordinary skill in the art would not
recognize a description of the invention in the specification (Reply Br. 3),
and that “below approximately 10 TORR” provides explicit support for the
recitation in claims 1 and 23 of “less than 10 TORR” (Reply Br. 5).
Therefore, Appellants conclude, in making the rejection “the ‘below’
qualifier has been ignored as the primary qualifier of the objected to pressure
range.” Reply Br. 5. Appellants also argue that “the specification clearly
puts in the public domain the concept that the chamber is completely dry if
the air pressure drops below 10 TORR, as would be understood by those of
ordinary skill in the art.” Reply Br. 6.
The complete expression of the portion of the disclosure to which the
Examiner has referred is, as Appellants have pointed out, “drops below
approximately 10 TORR” (emphasis added). We agree with the Appellants
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the claim
limitation “less than 10 TORR” falls within the scope of that descriptive
phrase, a conclusion that is supported by the Examiner’s example of “9
TORR” as being one of the values which form the basis of this rejection.
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

5
Therefore, we find the phrase “less than 10 TORR” not to be new
matter, and reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of
independent claims 1 and 23 and dependent claims 3-10, 21 and 27-34.
Claim 23
Unpatentable Over Wennerstrum

Claim 23 is directed to an apparatus for rapid drying of a porous
sample of construction material. In the final rejection, the Examiner found
that claim 23 “is structurally met by the patent to Wennerstrum et al.,” which
discloses a sealable chamber, a cold trap, means for creating a vacuum,
heating means, pressure sensors, and control means. Final Rej. 2-3. Also
present in claim 23 is the statement that “whereby said means for creating a
vacuum will evacuate air from said sealable chamber until air pressure in
sealable chamber is less than 10 TORR.” Apparently with regard to this, the
Examiner also expressed the view “[a]assuming ‘less than 10 Torr pressure’
be accorded with any patentable weight and since, the structure of
Wennerstrum et al. is the same as the broad claim, then, it would have been
obvious to operate the sealable chamber less than 10 torr in order to obtain
optimal result.” Final Rej. 3. In the Answer, the Examiner concluded that
while Wennerstrum “express[es] a preference for the pressure level . . .
between 10 and 35 torr,” nevertheless “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to operate the sealable chamber 10 of Wennerstrum
et al. at the pressure less than 10 torr in order to obtain optimal drying
result,” since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only
routine skill in the art,” (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)).
Ans. 5.

Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

6
Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s conclusion that
Wennerstrum discloses the sealable chamber, cold trap, means for creating a
strong vacuum, and means for heating the sealable chamber that are recited
in claim 23. Appellants argue Wennerstrum teaches that complete drying is
rarely desirable, that in most drying operations the vacuum created is
between 10 and 35 TORR, and that the vacuum in the chamber is controlled
to a range that does not result in complete drying. They also argue that the
Examiner did not provide evidence that the Wennerstrum vacuum pump is
capable of evacuating air from the chamber to a value of less than 10 TORR,
and that the meaning of “optimal result” is not explained and therefore the
Examiner’s statement on this point constitutes a mere conclusion
unsupported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the conclusion of obviousness (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 997, 998
(Fed. Cir. 2006). Thus, the Appellants opine, it is only by means of
hindsight that the Examiner has found the invention of claim 23 to be
obvious in view of Wennerstrum. See Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 7-8.
Claim 23 is an apparatus claim. One of the elements of the apparatus
is defined in means-plus-function terms as “means for creating a strong
vacuum in fluid communication with said cold trap and said sealable
chamber,” with the caveat “whereby said means for creating a vacuum will
evacuate air from said sealable chamber until said air pressure in sealable
chamber is less than 10 TORR.” When a “whereby” clause states a
condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to
change the substance of the invention. See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405
F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, the manner or method in which
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

7
a machine is utilized is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the
machine itself. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967).
Appellants have described the “means for creating a strong vacuum”
recited in the claim simply as a “vacuum pump” (see, for example, Spec. 9,
l. 6) which, in order to accomplish the method of the invention, must be
capable of creating a vacuum in the chamber of “[f]or example . . . below
approximately 10 TORR” (Spec. 7). No special features have been set forth
in order for the vacuum pump to achieve a vacuum of less than 10 TORR
and, in fact, in arguments presented with regard to the teachings of Sano
(cited in other rejections), Appellants “concede[s] there are industrial
processes such as Sano where a vacuum of less than 10 TORR is achieved
for a variety of purposes” (Br. 17), which we consider to be an admission
that pumps capable of drawing such a vacuum were known in the art at the
time of Appellants’ invention. In this regard, Wennerstrum discloses
vacuum pump that is capable of creating a vacuum in the chamber of
“between ten and thirty-five torr” (Col. 13, l. 19-23), which range is only
slightly above what would constitute the “less than 10 TORR” recited in the
“whereas” clause of claim 23. Moreover, our review of Wennerstrum finds
no indication that the pump is not capable of operating to create a vacuum of
less than 10 TORR.
Thus, it is our conclusion that the “whereby” clause in claim 23 does
not state a condition that is material to the patentability of the apparatus
recited in the claim, but merely expresses the manner in which it is desired
that it function. This being the case, the structure recited in claim 23 is
taught by Wennerstrum.

Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

8
Claims 27, 28, 30 and 31
Unpatentable Over Wennerstrum In View Of Dhaemers
Claim 23 requires “means for heating said sealable chamber and said
porous sample inside.” Wennerstrum accomplishes this by a microwave
generator 12 that emits microwaves into drying chamber 10 and thus heats
the air in the chamber and the product being dried therein. Col. 6, ll. 12-13;
Fig. 2. Claim 27 adds to claim 23 the requirement that the means for heating
the chamber be an infrared lamp, a limitation that the Examiner concedes is
not taught by Wennerstrum. Ans. 6. However, the Examiner has taken the
position that Dhaemers teaches a drying apparatus and method utilizing an
infrared light for heating a drying chamber, and that it therefore would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “to substitute” an infrared
light heater for the microwave heater disclosed in Wennerstrum. Ans. 6, ll.
7-10. In response to the Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner further
explains that the Dhaemers heater is “a suitable equivalent heater.” Ans. 15.
Appellants argue that the infrared light disclosed in Dhaemers heats
the air that is directed into the drying chamber, and not the drying chamber
itself, and that such a system would compromise the vacuum in the chamber.
Br. 16. They also opine that the Wennerstrum device is specifically
designed for microwave drying, and that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not be motivated to so modify “the carefully designed Wennerstrum
device (and ignore all the associated built-in features).” Reply Br. 8-9.
Dhaemers teaches that the air going into the drying chamber can be an
heated by electric resistance coil or other types of heaters, including infrared
light and electronic heaters and, specifically, “[a] microwave-type heater
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

9
can be used to heat the air and articles” in chamber3 41 (Col. 6, ll. 3-6). This
supports the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would
consider infrared heaters and microwave heaters to be suitable equivalent
heaters. No evidence has been provided to show that an infrared heater
would have more effect upon the air flow into the Wennerstrum chamber
than the disclosed microwave heater.
We have carefully considered the Appellants’ arguments, but find
them not to be persuasive. The Examiner’s decision that claim 27 is
unpatentable in view of the combined teachings of Wennerstrum and
Dhaemers is correct.
Claims 28, 30 and 31 depend from claim 27, and Appellants have
chosen not to separately argue their patentability apart from claim 23.
Reply Br. 9.
Claims 29, 33 and 34
Unpatentable Over Wennerstrum In View Of
Dhaemers and Hunter
These claims depend from claim 27, and Appellants have chosen not
to separately argue their patentability apart from claim 23. Reply Br. 9.

Claim 32
Unpatentable Over Wennerstrum In View Of
Dhaemers and Davis
This claim depends from claim 27, and Appellants have chosen not to
separately argue its patentability apart from claim 23. Reply Br. 9.

Claim 1
Unpatentable Over Wennerstrum In View Of Sano

3 Chamber 41 has mistakenly been labeled as “heater 41” in Col. 6, l. 6.
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

10

Claim 1 recites a method for drying a porous sample of material in a
heating chamber, which comprises, inter alia, the step of “creating a strong
vacuum inside said heating chamber and evacuating air from the inside of
said chamber after it is sealed until the pressure inside said chamber is less
than 10 TORR.” Wennerstrum discloses a drying method in which the
chamber is evacuated “[i]n most drying operations. . . . until the pressure . . .
is between ten and thirty-five torr.” Col. 13, ll. 27-29. It is the Examiner’s
position, however, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the Wennerstrum method by creating a vacuum of less than
10 TORR in view of the teaching of Sano “in order to obtain an optimal
complete drying result.” Ans. 8.
The Appellants contend that Wennerstrum’s vacuum pump is not
capable of evacuating a chamber to a level below 10 TORR. Br. 17. The
issue of the capability of Wennerstrums’s vacuum pump to draw a vacuum
of less than 10 TORR also was raised by Appellants with regard to the
rejection of apparatus claim 23, and we determined that this argument was
not persuasive. Id. at page 7.
Appellants also have argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have found it obvious to modify the method of Wennerstrum to create a
vacuum of less than 10 TORR within the heating chamber in view of the
teachings of Wennerstrum and Sano. In this regard they point out that
“Wennerstrum teaches that complete drying is undesirable, and that the
vacuum should be maintained at a level between 10 TORR and 35 TORR”
(Reply Br. 10-11), and that Sano uses a vacuum chamber but it is not for
purpose of drying but for producing a plasma (Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 10-11).
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

11
Wennerstrum is directed to a method and apparatus for drying
powdered or particulate materials. Col. 1, ll. 10-11. Wennerstrum explains
that the vacuum reduces the temperature of the product’s solvent and the
microwave energy raises the solvent’s boiling temperature and then provides
the latent heat for vaporization, and the combination of microwaves and
vacuum has been found to produce quick, low-temperature drying. Col. 1,
ll. 19-26. Wennerstrum explains that “[d]ifferent products also have
different drying requirements” and “may require different degrees of solvent
retained within the product; complete drying is rarely desirable” Col. 3, ll.
17-22. Wennerstrum further states that “[i]n most drying operations, the
vacuum is pulled until the pressure in the drying chamber is between ten and
twenty-five torr” (Col. 13, ll. 21-23; emphasis added). Thus, the disclosed
system is capable of accommodating different products having different
drying requirements, and that most, but not all, require that the vacuum
drawn be within the range of 10-35 TORR. In this regard, it is noteworthy
that Wennerstrum’s suggestion of a vacuum range of 10-35 TORR for
“most” drying operations is only slightly above the “less than 10 TORR”
recited in claim 1, and there is nothing in the reference that would indicate
that the vacuum pump is incapable of creating a vacuum in the chamber of
less than 10 TORR. For these reasons, it is our view that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to determine an optimal drying
result for the product being treated and, if necessary, to create a vacuum in
the heating chamber of less than 10 TORR, while still not causing complete
drying of the product, considering that when, as here, the general conditions
of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover those
optimum or workable ranges. See In re Aller, supra, at 456.
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

12
We regard Sano as being confirmatory of the reasoning set forth
above. Contrary to the Appellants’ assertions, the Examiner is correct in
stating that Sano treats porous material, for this reference is directed to a
method for the preparation of semipermeable membranes which comprise
“exposing porous membranes . . . to a plasma (Col. 2, ll. 35-42) in a vacuum
vessel in which the vacuum is drawn to the range of 0.01 to 10 TORR (col.
4, ll. 12-13), and teaches that the disclosed method is used to treat “porous
shaped articles,” which can be in the form of membranes or a sheet or
hollow fiber (see, for example, Col. 3, ll. 14-26). The Examiner has asserted
that exposing a porous article to a vacuum and to the high temperature of
plasma would have a drying effect upon the article (Ans. 17-18), a
contention which, in our view, has not been refuted by evidence or
persuasive argument by the Appellants. We also point out again Appellants
concession there are industrial processes such as Sano where a vacuum of
less than 10 TORR is achieved for a variety of purposes (Br. 17). Thus,
from our perspective, Sano reinforces the conclusion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide in the Wennerstrum
method a vacuum of less than 10 TORR when seeking optimal results in
drying a particular material to a particular degree.
Claims 3-5, 7 And 8
Unpatentable Over Wennerstrum
In View Of Sano and Dhaemers

Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and the issue presented here is whether
it would have been obvious to substitute the infrared heating lamp of
Dhaemers for the microwave heater disclosed in Wennerstrum. The same
issue arose with regard to the rejection of apparatus claim 27, where we
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

13
decided such substitution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art. We reach the same decision here with respect to claim 3, based
upon the same reasoning.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 8 are dependent from claim 3, and Appellants have
chosen not to separately argue their patentability apart from claim 3. Reply
Br. 11.
Claims 6 and 9
Unpatentable Over Wennerstrum
In View Of Sano, Dhaemers and Hunter

Claims 6 and 9 are dependent from claim 3, and Appellants have
chosen not to separately argue their patentability apart from claim 3. Reply
Br. 12.
Claims 10 And 21
Unpatentable Over Wennerstrum
In View Of Sano, Dhaemers and Davis

Claims 10 and 21 are dependent from claim 3, and Appellants have
chosen not to separately argue their patentability apart from claim 3. Reply
Br. 12.

Claims 1 And 23
Unpatentable Over Sano In View Of Wennerstrum

In this rejection the Examiner takes the position that Sano teaches all
of the steps (method claim 1) and elements (apparatus claim 23) of the
invention, except for the presence of a cold trap to trap moisture escaping
from the vacuum chamber. The Examiner looks to Wennerstrum for this
feature, concluding it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to provide the Sano apparatus with a cold trap in order to accomplish
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

14
the same objective. Ans. 10. The Appellants argue that Sano does not
disclose a method or apparatus for drying porous materials inside a vacuum,
that Sano fails to disclose a heating means, and that there is no reason to
provide a cold trap in the Sano apparatus because the material being treated
has been completely dried before being placed in the chamber and therefore
there is no moisture present in the evacuated air.
We find ourselves in agreement with the Appellants that the Examiner
has erred with regard to this rejection. Even considering, arguendo, that the
presence of a vacuum and plasma in the Sano chamber provide some heat in
the chamber, Sano teaches that the porous material is “dried” prior to being
placed in the clamber (Col. 6, ll. 12-13), and there is no indication that any
significant amount of vapor can be expected to be present in the chamber. It
therefore is our view that it would not have been obvious to provide the
Sano system with a cold trap to remove liquid or vapor from the evacuated
air.
This rejection is reversed.

Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 27, 28, 30 And 31
Unpatentable Over Sano In View Of Wennerstrum
and Dhaemers

These claims depend from independent claims 1 and 23. Since the
teachings of Dhaemers fail to overcome the shortcomings in the rejection of
claims 1 and 23 based upon Sano and Wennerstrum, this rejection also is
reversed.

Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

15
Claims 6, 9, 29, 33 And 34
Unpatentable Over Sano In View Of Wennerstrum
Dhaemers and Hunter

These claims depend from independent claims 1 and 23. Since the
teachings of Hunter fail to overcome the shortcomings in the rejection of
claims 1 and 27 based upon Sano, Wennerstrum and Dhaemers, this
rejection also is reversed.

Claims 10, 21 and 32
Unpatentable Over Sano In View Of Wennerstrum
Dhaemers and Davis

These claims depend from independent claims 1 and 23. Since the
teachings of Davis fail to overcome the shortcomings in the rejection of
claims 1 and 27 based upon Sano, Wennerstrum and Dhaemers, this
rejection also is reversed.

Secondary Factors Supporting Non-Obviousness

In addition to the arguments directed to the correctness of the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Appellants have offered evidence
which “establishes strong objective, unrebutted, evidence of
nonobviousness.” Br. 22. This being the case, it is our duty to reconsider
the issue of obviousness anew, carefully weighing the evidence for
obviousness with respect to the evidence against obviousness. See e.g., In re
Eli Lily & Co., 902 F.2d, 943, 945 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
To be of probative value, there must be a nexus between the evidence
of secondary considerations and the claimed invention, that is, there must be
factually sufficient connection between the invention as claimed and the
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

16
objective evidence of nonobviousness such that the evidence should be
considered in the determination of nonobviousness. See Demarco Corp. v.
Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988).
Here, the secondary evidence takes the form of three affidavits which,
according to the Appellants, establish long felt need (Womble), an important
advance in asphalt testing (Bacchi), and commercial success (Regimand)
regarding the “Coredry embodiment of the Applicant’s invention.” Br. 21.
Each of the affidavits provides information and opinion regarding “Coredry”
(also referred to therein as “Core Dry,” “the Core Dry vacuum dryer,” “the
Core Dry,” and “the Device and Method for Rapid Drying of Porous
Materials filed in the United States Patent Office with Serial #10/714,471”).
However, none of the affidavits attest that “Coredry” embodies the method
steps or the elements of the apparatus recited in the claims on appeal.
Therefore, the affidavits fail to set forth a nexus, that is, a factually sufficient
connection, between the objective evidence of nonobviousness presented
therein and the subject matter recited in the Appellants’ claims which
establishes that the long felt need, the important advance in asphalt testing,
and the commercial success of “Coredry” are, in fact, the result of the
method and structure recited in the claims, and not some unrelated factors.
In the absence of such nexus, we find the information provided in the
declarations to be of little probative value as to obviousness of the claimed
invention.
In light of the totality of the evidence before us, we agree with the
Examiner that the evidence of obviousness outweighs the evidence of
nonobviousness.
Appeal 2010-008095
Application 10/714,471

17
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 21, 23 and 27-34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed:
Claim 23 - Wennerstrum.
Claims 27, 28, 30, 31- Wennerstrum and Dhaemers.
Claims 29, 33, 34 - Wennerstrum, Dhaemers and Hunter.
Claim 32- Wennerstrum, Dhaemers and Davis.
Claim 1- Wennerstrum and Sano.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8 - Wennerstrum, Sano and Dhaemers.
Claims 6, 9 - Wennerstrum, Sano, Dhaemers, and Hunter.
Claims 10, 21 - Wennerstrum, Sano, Dhaemers and Davis.
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed:
Claims 1, 23 - Sano and Wennerstrum.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 27, 28, 30, 31- Sano, Wennerstrum and Dhaemers.
Claims 6, 9, 29, 33, 34 - Sano, Wennerstrum, Dhaemers and Hunter.
Claims 10, 21, 32 - Sano, Wennerstrum, Dhaemers and Davis.
A rejection of each of the claims having been affirmed, the decision of
the Examiner is affirmed.
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

Klh