Ex Parte Hjerpe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

11877173 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111877, 173 10/23/2007
12208 7590
Kinney&Lange,P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
05/12/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carl-Johan Hjerpe
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PA0017118U-E273.12-595KL 7441
EXAMINER
WHATLEY, KATELYNB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 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):
amkoenck@kinney.com
USPatDocket@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL-JOHAN HJERPE and PETER ASPLUND
Appeal2014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 31--40, 45-55, and 70-72. 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Claim 73 has been withdrawn from appeal (Br. 15). Citations herein to the
Brief are to the Substitute Appeal Brief filed December 20, 2013.
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
The Invention
The Appellants claim a method of collecting waste liquid during an
engine washing operation. Claims 31, 36, and 70 are illustrative:
31. A method of washing an engine and collecting waste
liquid as it exits the engine during the engine washing
operation, the method comprising:
injecting a washing liquid into an engine inlet;
providing a collector relative to an engine outlet; and
operating said engine in order to create an air stream
through the engine, thereby entraining the washing liquid into
the air stream as said washing liquid passes through said
engine, wherein the engine will be cleaned by the entrained
washing liquid and waste liquid will exit the outlet of the
engine into an environment outside of the engine and not part of
the collector so that the waste liquid will enter the collector
from the environment outside the engine in order to be captured
by the collector.
36. A method of collecting wash liquid that is injected
into an inlet of an engine as it exits the engine during an engine
\'I/ashing operation, the method comprising:
delivering a washing liquid into an engine inlet;
operating said engine in order to create an air stream
through the engine, thereby entraining the washing liquid into
the air stream as said washing liquid passes through said
engine, wherein the engine will be cleaned by the entrained
washing liquid and used washing liquid will exit an outlet of the
engme;
providing a collector unsecured directly or indirectly to
the engine for receiving the used washing liquid that has exited
the engine outlet; and
positioning a liquid separator relative to an engine outlet
for receiving washing liquid as it exits the engine, and for
separating the washing liquid from an air stream.
2
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
70. A method of collecting wash liquid during an engine
washing operation, wherein the washing liquid is injected into
an engine inlet, and the engine is operated in order to
create an air stream through the engine, thereby entraining the
washing liquid into the air stream as said washing liquid passes
through said engine, wherein used washing liquid entrained in
the airstream exits an outlet of the engine, the method
compnsmg:
providing a collecting device positioned below at least a
portion of the engine to collect liquid exiting the engine
resulting from the washing operation, during a waste liquid
collection operation, wherein the collecting device is free of
any physical connection to any portion of the engine.
Latimer
Testman
Thomas
Tada yon
The References
us 5,560, 782
us 5,899,217
US 6,565,758 Bl
US 2003/0209256 Al
The Rejections
Oct. 1, 1996
May 4, 1999
May 20, 2003
Nov. 13, 2003
The claims stand rejected as follows: Claims 36-40 and 48-55 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement, claims 31--40 and 45-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the Appellants regard as the
invention, claims 31, 36, 48-50, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Testman, claims 32, 35, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman,
claims 31, 32, 35, 36-38, 40, 48-50, 54, 55, and 70-72 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas, claims 33, 37, and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view ofTadayon, claims 33 and 34
3
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas and Tadayon,
claims 39, 45--47, and 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of
Thomas and Latimer, and claims 45--47 and 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Testman in view of Latimer.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs and the rejection of claims 36, 48-50, and 55 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and affirm the rejection of claim 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
the rejections of claims 31--40, 45-55, and 70-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Appellants argue only the independent claims (Br. 7-20).
Although additional references are applied to some dependent claims, no
separate arguments are set forth (Br. 10, 11, 15, 18-21 ). We therefore limit
our discussion of the affirmed rejections to the independent claims. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, first paragraph
For an applicant to comply with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
written description requirement, the applicant's specification must "convey
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
sought, he or she was in possession of the invention." Carnegie Mellon
University v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541F.3d1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563---64 (Fed. Cir.
1991)).
The Examiner argues that the Appellants' original disclosure lacks
written descriptive support for the limitation "providing a collector
unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine" in claim 36 (Ans. 2). The
4
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
Examiner notes that support is found in Figure 3 for providing a collector
free from any physical connection to any portion of the engine (id.).
However, according to the Examiner, Figure 3 does not support "a collector
unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine," as the "[t]he original
disclosure does not clearly present how a collector can be unsecured directly
or indirectly" (Ans. 19).
The Appellants' Specification states that there is "no physical contact
between the collector device and engine" (Spec. 4). Figure 3 of the
Appellants' Specification shows that the collector (3) is neither directly
connected to nor indirectly connected to the engine ( 1 ).
The present application, therefore, shows, with reasonable clarity to
one of ordinary skill in the art as of the filing date of the present application,
possession of "a collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine."
The Examiner argues that the claim language "providing a collector
unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine" is in the alternative form, and
that, therefore, the claim encompasses a collector that is either unsecured
directly or unsecured indirectly (Ans. 20). It is the Examiner's position that
this alternative form of the claim limitation is broader than what is supported
by the instant Specification, which supports no physical contact between the
engine and the collector, and is not commensurate in scope with the
Appellants' argument that the collector is required to be both unsecured
directly and unsecured indirectly (id.).
5
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
The ordinary meaning of "secure" is "to make tight or firm:
F ASTEN"2 and the ordinary meaning of the term "direct" is "[ w ]ith nothing
intervening: IMMEDIATE ". 3 The Appellants'
Specification shows that the collector is neither directly attached to the
engine nor indirectly attached via intervening elements (Fig. 3).
Additionally, the Appellants' Specification states that there is "no physical
contact between the collector device and engine" (Spec. 4). Thus, the
Appellants' Specification indicates that the Appellants' claim term
"collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine" requires the
collector to be unsecured (i.e. not attached) to the engine. Therefore, the
claim limitation excludes any attachment, either directly or indirectly,
between the engine and the collector.
Hence, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 3 6 and
dependent claims 37--40 and 45-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
written description requirement.
Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 31-35 and 45--47
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether the claim language, as it would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the Appellants' Specification, sets out and
2 WEBSTER'S II NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 1055 (Houghton
Mifflin Co. 1984).
3 Supra, note 2 at 381.
6
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner argues that the limitation "waste liquid will exit the
outlet of the engine into an environment outside of the engine and not part of
the collector" is indefinite because "the exact boundary location of the
claimed environment cannot be determined" (Ans. 3). According to the
Examiner, because the environment outside of the engine contains the
collector, it is unclear what the spatial relationship is between the
environment and the collector (id.).
"[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Translogic
Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The ordinary meaning of "environment"
is "the circumstances or conditions surrounding one: surroundings."4 The
Appellants' Specification shows that waste liquid exiting the engine (205,
204, 203, 202) enters a space between the engine (1) and the collector (302)
before being captured by the collector (302) (Fig. 3). Thus, the Appellants'
Specification indicates that the Appellants' claim term "an environment
outside of the engine and not part of the collector" includes a space between
the exterior surface of the engine and the exterior surface of the collector.
Hence, the Appellants' claim term "waste liquid will exit the outlet of
the engine into an environment outside of the engine and not part of the
4 Supra, note 2 at 436.
7
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
collector," when interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
Appellants' Specification, would have set out and circumscribed a particular
area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Accordingly,
we reverse the rejection of independent claim 31 and dependent claims 32-
35 and 45--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims 36--40 and 48-55
The Examiner argues that the limitation "providing a collector
unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine" is indefinite because the
Specification "does not provide any information as to what is required for
the collector to be 'unsecured directly' or 'unsecured indirectly"' (Ans. 3).
Further, the Examiner argues that the difference between being unsecured
directly and unsecured indirectly is unclear (id.), and because the claim
limitation is written in the alternative, the claim merely requires the collector
to be unsecured directly or unsecured indirectly (Ans. 23). The Examiner
contends that this is contrary to the Appellants' arguments that the claim
requires the collector to be unsecured directly and unsecured indirectly,
which the Examiner argues is not commensurate in scope with the claim
language (id.).
The Appellants' Specification indicates that the Appellants' claim
term "collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine" requires the
collector to be unsecured (i.e. not attached) to the engine, as similarly
described above. Therefore, the claim limitation excludes any attachment,
either directly or indirectly, between the engine and the collector, as
similarly described above.
8
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
Hence, the Appellants' claim term "providing a collector unsecured
directly or indirectly to the engine," when interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art in light of the Appellants' Specification, would have set out
and circumscribed a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision
and particularity. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent
claim 36 and dependent claims 37--40 and 48-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 102(b)
Claim 31
"Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Testman discloses a collector (14) for collecting waste liquid expelled
from an aircraft engine during the internal washing of the engine (col. 5,
11. 39--42 and 60). The collector is removably suspended beneath the engine
housing (col. 4, 11. 35-38) such that the outer surface of the collector (14) is
spaced from the outer surface of the engine housing (H as shown by the
dashed line) (Fig. 2), in order to collect internal and external runoff from the
engine housing (col. 5, 11. 60-65). The collector (14) includes a rigid
extension (30) for collecting waste liquid that drips from the engine
intake (I) (Fig. 2 and col. 6, 11. 39--49).
The Appellants argue that the collector, as recited, must collect liquid
entrained in the airstream, the portions cited by the Examiner to teach the
collector (namely collector 14) do not collect waste liquid entrained in the
9
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
airstream, and the liquid entrained in the airstream goes directly from the
engine into the collector and not into an environment outside the engine
(Br. 13). Further, the Appellants contend that the collector (14) of Testman
only collects runoff or overflow from the engine or exhaust opening
(Br. 14).
The Examiner argues that claim 31 does not require the collector, as
recited, to collect waste liquid entrained in the air stream and that the claim
merely requires waste liquid to be captured by the collector (Ans. 25).
The Appellants' claim 31 requires that "the engine will be cleaned by
the entrained washing liquid and waste liquid will exit the outlet of the
engine into an environment outside of the engine and not part of the
collector so that the waste liquid will enter the collector from the
environment outside the engine in order to be captured by the collector."
The Appellants' Specification indicates that liquid exiting the engine is
waste liquid, which includes liquid that is not entrained in the airstream
(Spec. 8). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellants'
claim language "waste liquid," consistent with the Specification, is any
liquid exiting the engine. Consequently, claim 31 does not require the waste
liquid collected by the collector to include the liquid entrained in the
airstream.
The Appellants further argue that the waste liquid of Testman that is
entrained in the airstream goes directly from the engine into the collector
(duct 16) and not into an environment outside of the engine, as the duct ( 16)
is sealed to the exhaust outlet (Br. 13-14).
10
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner does not rely
on the duct (16) of Testman to teach the recited collector, but rather on the
collector (14) of Testman (Ans. 4). Testman specifically discloses that the
collector (14) is suspended from the engine housing, wherein the outer
surface of the collector (14) is spaced from outer surface of the engine
housing, such that liquid dripping from the engine intake is collected by the
extension portion (30) of the collector (14), as stated above. Thus, Testman
discloses that waste liquid will exit the outlet of the engine into an
environment outside of the engine, and not part of the collector, so that the
waste liquid will enter the collector from the environment outside the engine
in order to be captured by the collector.
We therefore are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claims 36, 48-50, and 55
Process claim 36 requires the limitation "providing a collector
unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine for receiving the used washing
liquid."
Testman discloses that the collector (14) is secured to the engine by a
series of straps (col. 7, 11. 1-20 and Fig. 2).
The Examiner argues that extension portion (34) of Testman is not
attached directly to the engine (Ans. 26).
Testman discloses that all portions of the collector are either directly
secured to the engine or indirectly secured to the engine (Fig. 2). The
collector (14) is directly secured to the engine by straps (40, 42, 44, 46, 50,
and 52) and the extension portions (30 and 34) are indirectly secured to the
11
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
engine by the straps through the intervening collector (14) (Fig. 2). The
claim requires the collector to be unsecured to the engine, either directly or
indirectly. For the above reasons we reverse the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claim 36 and dependent claims 48-50
and 55.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 32, 35, and 54 over Testman
The Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 32
and 35, which depend from claim 31 (Br. 18). Therefore, for the same
reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claims 32 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman.
The Examiner has not separately argued the obviousness of claim 54,
which depends from claim 50 (Ans. 7 and 26-27). Therefore, for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 36, we reverse the rejection of
claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman.
Claims 33, 37, and 40 over Testman in view of Tadayon
The Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claim 33,
which depends from claim 31 (Br. 18). Therefore, for the same reasons
discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view ofTadayon.
The Examiner has not separately argued the obviousness of claims 3 7
and 40, which depend from claim 36 (Ans. 7 and 26-27). Therefore, for the
same reasons discussed above, we reverse the rejection of claims 37 and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Tadayon.
12
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
Claims 45-47 and 51-53 over Testman in view ofLatimer
The Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 45-
4 7, which depend from claim 31 (Br. 18). Therefore, for the same reasons
discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
claims 45--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Latimer.
The Examiner has not separately argued the obviousness of
claims 51-53, which depend from claim 36 (Ans. 8 and 26-27). Therefore,
for the same reasons discussed above, we reverse the rejection of claims 51-
53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Latimer.
Claims 31, 32, 35, 36--38, 40, 48-50, 54, 55, and 70--72
over Testman in view of Thomas
The Appellants argue that independent claims 31 and 3 6 are
unpatentable for the same reasons as those given for independent claim 70
(Br 18). We therefore group our discussion of independent claims 31, 36,
and 70.
Thomas discloses a movable support frame (20) for collecting used
wash fluid from an aircraft engine (col. 1, 11. 14--18 and col. 5, 11. 4--10). The
movable support frame (20) is merely towed into position beneath the engine
to collect waste liquid and is therefore not secured to or physically
contacting the engine (col. 5, 11. 29--41 ). Thomas discloses that the movable
support frame (20) is set up more easily and in a less time consuming
manner than conventional systems (col. 2, 11. 63-67), of which Thomas lists
the invention of Testman as an example (col. 2, 11. 34--40).
The Appellants argue that Testman requires the collector to be
connected and sealed to the engine and, when the collector is removed, the
13
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
collector is collapsible for easy storage and transport, and that, therefore, the
suggested combination of Testman and Thomas would impermissibly
change the principle of operation of the collector of Testman or make it
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (Br. 17). The Appellants appear to
argue that both the principle of operation of the collector of Testman and its
intended purpose are to collect waste water through direct attachment to the
engine (id.). The Appellants state that "[ o ]ne could not simply remove the
connections of Testman Jr. and expect that prior art device to work to collect
waste water" (Br. 18).
Both Testman and Thomas disclose devices for collecting waste liquid
from an aircraft engine by positioning a collector below the engine. Both
the principle of operation and the intended purpose of the collectors of
Thomas and Testman are to collect waste water from below an aircraft
engine. Therefore, modifying Testman's method by collecting waste water
with the collector configuration of Thomas would not change the principle
of operation or make it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. An artisan of
ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the
combination because the principle of operation and the intended purpose of
the collectors of Testman and Thomas are the same, and Thomas discloses
that the movable support frame (20) is an improvement upon conventional
collectors, including that taught by Testman, as described above.
The Examiner finds that an artisan of ordinary skill would have
modified the collector of Testman to include the collector configuration
taught by Thomas, in which the collector does not physically contact the
14
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
engine, in order to provide for quick set up and reduce the possibility of
leaking used washing fluid (Ans. 9). The Examiner contends that
obviousness is established because Thomas provides a motivation to modify
the method of Testman and that an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reasonable expectation of success in the combination (Ans. 9
and 26).
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires showing that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had both an apparent reason or
suggestion to modify the prior art and predictability or a reasonable
expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,
comparing the collector of Testman with that of Thomas, that collecting
waste water from an aircraft engine by towing the collector into position
under the engine without connecting the support frame to the engine as done
by Thomas (col. 5, 11. 29-36) is much simpler and less time consuming than
securing the collector to the engine using the straps of Testman ( 40, 42, 44,
46, 50, 52) (Fig. 2). Thomas' disclosure that the movable support frame (20)
is set up more easily and in a less time consuming manner than conventional
systems, of which the collector of Testman is cited (Thomas, col. 2, 11. 34--
40), would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a motivation to
use Thomas' collector in the engine washing procedure of Testman.
Accordingly, to set up the collector more easily and in a less time
consuming manner than conventional systems, as argued by the Examiner
(Ans. 27), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in
15
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to replace the collector of
Testman with that of Thomas in order to collect the waste water from an
aircraft engine during an engine washing procedure. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
418.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection
of independent claim 31 and, therefore, dependent claims 32 and 35,
independent claim 36 and, therefore, dependent claims 37-38, 40, 48-50,
54, and 55, and independent claim 70 and, therefore, dependent claims 71
and 72. 5
Claims 33 and 34 over Testman in view of
Thomas and Tadayon
The Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 33
and 34, which depend from claim 31 (Br. 18). Therefore, for the same
reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view
of Thomas and Tada yon.
Claims 39, 45--47, and 51-53 over Testman
in view of Thomas and Latimer
The Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 39,
45--47, and 51-53, which depend from claim 31or36 (Br. 18). Therefore,
5 The Appellants' other arguments, including that the collector of Thomas
cannot be used to collect waste liquid entrained in an airstream (Br. 16), are
not well taken because they argue limitations not required by the claims.
See In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348(CCPA1982). The limitation "waste
liquid" does not require all waste liquid, including that entrained in the air
stream.
16
Appeal014-003841
Application 11/877, 1 73
for the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible
error in the rejection of claims 39, 45--47, and 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Testman in view of Thomas and Latimer.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 36-40 and 48-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, claims 31--40 and 45-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, claims 36, 48-50, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Testman, claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman, claims 37 and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view ofTadayon, and claims 51-53
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Latimer are reversed.
The rejections of claim 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Testman,
claims 32 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman, claim 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Tadayon, claim 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas and Tadayon, claims 45-
47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Latimer, claims 31, 32,
35, 36-38, 40, 48-50, 54, 55, and 70-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Testman in view of Thomas, claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Testman in view of Thomas and Tadayon, and claims 39, 45--47 and 51-53
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas and Latimer are
affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision 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).
AFFIRMED
17