Ex Parte Hoffman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2013

10763353 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RANDY HOFFMAN, HAI CHIANG, and JOHN WAGER
____________

Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 26, 31-39, 48, 50, 54, 55, 60, and 64.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 13, 16-18, 20-25, 27-30, 40-47, 49, 51-53, 56-59, 61-63,
and 65-67 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal involves a semiconductor device that
includes a source electrode, a drain electrode, and a channel coupled to the
source electrode and the drain electrode. Spec. 17, ll. 1-2. Details of the
appealed subject matter are recited in illustrative independent claim 4,
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.1
4. A semiconductor device, comprising:
a source electrode;
a drain electrode;
a channel coupled to the source electrode and the drain
electrode and comprised of a ternary compound containing zinc,
tin and oxygen, where at least a portion of the channel is formed
from a zinc-tin oxide compound having the following
stoichiometry: Zn2SnO4; and
a gate electrode configured to permit application of an
electric field to the channel.

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following references at pages 4 to 23 of the Answer:2
Taylor US 4,521,698 Jun. 4, 1985
Cillessen US 5,744,864 Apr. 28, 1998
Krivokapic US 6,100,558 Aug. 8, 2000
Ando US 6,184,946 B1 Feb. 6, 2001

1References to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) are directed to Appellants’
Appeal Brief filed October 15, 2009, and references to the Reply are
directed to Appellants’ Reply Brief filed July 22, 2010.
2 References to the Answer (“Ans.”) are directed to the Examiner’s Answer
mailed May 26, 2010.
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

3
Henrichs US 2003/0185266 A1 Oct. 2, 2003
Hong US 6,674,495 B1 Jan. 6, 2004
Carcia US 2004/0127038 A1 Jul. 1, 2004
Hornik US 2004/0169210 A1 Sep. 2, 2004
David L. Young, Helio Moutinho, Yanfa Yan, and Timothy J. Coutts,
Growth and Characterization of Radio Frequency Magnetron Sputter-
Deposited Zinc Stannate, Zn2SnO4, Thin Films, 92 J. Applied Physics 310
(Jul. 1, 2002) (hereinafter “Young”)
Jun Fang, Aihong Huang, Peixu Zhu, Ningsheng Xu, Jianqin Xie, Junsheng
Chi, Shouhua Feng, Ruren Xu, and Mingmei Wu, Hydrothermal
Preparation and Characterization of Zn2SnO4 Particles, 36 Materials
Research Bulletin 1391-1397 (2001) (hereinafter “Fang”)
Appellants seek review of the following grounds of rejection set forth
by the Examiner at pages 4-23 of the Answer:
1. Claims 4, 6-9, 11, 26, 31-36, 48, 50, 54, 55, and 60 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Carcia (Ans. 5-10);
2. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Carcia and Taylor (Ans. 10-13);
3. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Carcia and Hong (Ans. 13-14);
4. Claims 15 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Carcia, Krivokapic, and Hornik (Ans. 14-
15);
5. Claim 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Carcia, Cillessen, and Ando (Ans. 15-16);
6. Claims 4, 7-9, 12, 19, 26, 32-35, 37, 48, 50, 54, 55, 60, and 64
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cillessen (Ans. 17-22);
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

4
7. Claims 6, 11, 31, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Cillessen and Carcia (Ans.
23); and
8. Claims 14 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Carcia and Krivokapic (Ans. 23).
ISSUES
i. Whether the Examiner erred in determining that Carcia’s
disclosure is prior art to the subject matter claimed (App. Br.
13-14);
ii. Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Carcia anticipates
independent claims 4, 48, 50, and 60 because Carcia fails to
meet the claim limitation concerning the zinc-tin oxide
(Zn2SnO4) compound (App. Br. 14-17);
iii. Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 19 and 64
because the advantages and features of a zinc-tin-oxygen
channel layer are significant (App. Br. 17-18, 21); and
iv. Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 7-9, 12, 19,
26, 32-35, 37, 48, 50, 54, 55, 60, and 64 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cillessen because Cillessen
does not disclose the zinc-tin-oxygen compound (App. Br. 22-
34).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and we have reviewed
the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the
Examiner has erred. As a preliminary matter, we note that Appellants raise,
in the Reply, the issue of the Examiner’s refusal to enter an after-final
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

5
amendment. Reply 11-14. In an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), it is the
Examiner’s final rejection that we review. See In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553,
1556 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Rather than by appeal to the Board, the issue of the
Examiner’s refusal should have been addressed by petition to the Director of
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395,
1403 (CCPA 1971). We now turn to the issues on appeal.
A. Issue Concerning Whether Carcia is Prior Art
Appellants contend that the disclosure of Carcia, particularly what is
described in paragraph 10 therein, is not prior art because the present
application pre-dates Carcia. App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants argue
that the present application claims priority to a provisional application, serial
number 60/417,767 (the “’767 Application”), which was filed on July 25,
2003. Id. Carcia was filed after the ’767 Application, and, in Appellants’
view, paragraph 10 of Carcia cannot pre-date the ‘767 Application. App. Br.
13-14.
The Examiner responds that Carcia is prior art to the subject matter
recited in Appellants’ claims because the specific compound (Zn2SnO4) and
compound delineation ((ZnO)j(SnO2)1-j) recited in independent claims 4, 19,
48, 50, 60, and 64 is not disclosed in the ’767 Application. Ans. 24.
Because of this omission, Carcia’s filing date of September 24, 2003 pre-
dates the present application’s filing date of January 23, 2004. Id.
In response to the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants argue that the ’767
Application discloses the “channel layer formed from a zinc-tin-oxide
material.” Reply 6. Appellants point out other sections in the ’767
Application where similar disclosures are found. Id.
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

6
We are unpersuaded by Applicants’ arguments that the Examiner
incorrectly determined Carcia to be prior art to the subject matter claimed.
“[F]or the non-provisional utility application to be afforded the priority date
of the provisional application, . . . the written description of the provisional
must adequately support the claims of the non-provisional application . . . .”
New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed.
Cir. 2002). To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, paragraph 1, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date
under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, or 365(c), each claim limitation must be
expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed
disclosure. We agree with the Examiner that the ’767 Application fails to
disclose the recited compound (Zn2SnO4) and the recited compound
delineation ((ZnO)j(SnO2)1-j). Although Appellants argue that a generic
“zinc-tin-oxide channel layer” is disclosed, Appellants do not provide
sufficient objective evidence showing that such a generic disclosure supports
the recited compound.
B. Section 102 rejection:
Whether Carcia Discloses Claimed Zinc-Tin Oxide Compounds
Independent claims 4, 19, 48, and 60 require that “at least a portion of
the channel is formed from a zinc-tin oxide compound having the following
stoichiometery: (Zn2SnO4).” Claim 50 recites “a channel coupled to the
source electrode and the drain electrode and comprised of a ternary
compound containing zinc, tin, and oxygen having the stoichiometery:
((ZnO)j(SnO2)1-j), where j is between 0.05 and 0.95.”
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

7
Appellants contend that the portions of Carcia relied on by the
Examiner to reject claims 4, 6-9, 11, 26, 31-36, 48, 50, 54, 55, and 60 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) do not disclose “any ternary zinc-tin-oxide.” App. Br.
14. Specifically, Appellants argue that Carcia only discloses binary
compounds, and that paragraph 10 of Carcia does not teach the use of any
ternary compounds as transistor channels. Id. Appellants further contend
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the
language in paragraph 10 to include zinc-tin-oxide. In particular, Appellants
argue that combinations of the binary compounds disclosed in Carcia would
include a variety or compounds – 15 to be exact – and that none of the
resulting ternary compounds would yield the recited compound (Zn2SnO4).
App. Br. 15. Furthermore, in Appellants’ view, Carcia is “completely silent
with respect to the possibility of creating non-stoichiometric compounds,”
and that, therefore, Carcia does not disclose the compound ((ZnO)j(SnO2)1-j),
as recited in claim 50. App. Br. 16.
We agree with Appellants’ contentions. Carcia does not disclose the
recited compounds, i.e. (Zn2SnO4) and ((ZnO)j(SnO2)1-j), where j is between
0.05 and 0.95. Although we agree with the Examiner that a combination of
the binary compounds ZnO and SnO2 is known to result in the recited
compound (Zn2SnO4), the disclosure in Carcia – of the binary compounds
with the suggestion that they could be combined – is insufficient to support
an anticipation rejection. “[A]nticipation under § 102 can be found only
when the reference discloses exactly what is claimed and that where there
are differences between the reference disclosure and the claim, the rejection
must be based on § 103 which takes differences into account.” Titanium
Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

8
1985) (Claims to titanium (Ti) alloy with 0.8% nickel (Ni) and 0.3%
molybdenum (Mo) were not anticipated by, although they were held obvious
over, a graph in a Russian article on Ti-Mo-Ni alloys in which the graph
contained an actual data point corresponding to a Ti alloy containing 0.25%
Mo and 0.75% Ni.).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 4, 48, 50, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 3 Because
they depend on claims 4, 48, 50, and 60, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-9, 11, 26, 31-36, 54, and 55, not separately
argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Carcia.
C. Section 103(a) Rejection over Carcia as Primary Reference:
Claims 12, 14, 15, 38, and 39
Appellants do not argue separately the § 103 rejection of dependent
claims 12, 14, 15, 38, and 39 over Carcia as primary reference. App. Br. 19.
Because claims 12, 14, and 15 depend on claim 50, and because this ground
of rejection is premised on the finding of anticipation by Carcia, we do not
sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Carcia as
the primary reference. Similarly, because claims 38 and 39 depend on claim
60, and because this ground of rejection is premised on the finding of
anticipation by Carcia, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Carcia as the primary reference.

3 In light of this decision and in the event of further prosecution, the
Examiner is invited to re-evaluate the rejection of claims 4, 6-9, 11, 26, 31-
36, 48, 50, 54, 55, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Carcia.
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

9
D. Section 103(a) Rejection over Carcia as Primary Reference:
Claim 19
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 for
obviousness over Carcia because: (1) Carcia is not prior art; (2) Carcia does
not disclose “a method, means, or apparatus for chemically combining the
elements recited in paragraph 0010 of Carcia to form the claimed ‘zinc-tin-
oxide compound having the following stoichiometry: (Zn2SnO4)’;” and (3)
the features and advantages of the claimed subject matter do not support the
rejection. App. Br. 17-18. Because we decided supra that the Examiner did
not err in relying on Carcia as prior art, we turn to the second and third
arguments.
Considering that the rejection of claim 19 is for obviousness,
Appellants’ argument that Carcia does not disclose the claimed zinc-tin
oxide compound (App. Br. 15, 18) is not persuasive. In particular, we agree
with the Examiner that Carcia’s disclosure of a limited set of oxide
compounds, including ZnO and SnO2, with the teaching that these
compounds could be combined to form a transparent oxide semiconductor,
would predictably yield the claimed ternary compound: Zn2SnO4. Ans. 26
(relying on argument “d”). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 421 (2007). We “can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. And
“‘[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.’”
Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). Furthermore, Appellants have
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

10
presented no evidence that combining a limited set of oxide compounds,
including ZnO and SnO2, to form transparent oxide semiconductor Zn2SnO4
would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog, 485
F.3d at 1162 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
As for Appellants’ contention that the subject matter provides features
or advantages not known or available in the cited art (App. Br. 18), we are
also not persuaded. First, Appellants’ argument of unexpected results is
unsupported by objective evidence. A showing of unexpected results must
be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d
1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory
statements that claimed compound possesses unusually low immune
response or unexpected biological activity that is unsupported by
comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of
obviousness). On this point, the Examiner correctly finds that Appellants
have provided insufficient data on mobility or modeling for the claimed
ternary compound to support Appellants’ claim of unexpected results. See
Ans. 25-26 (also referring to knowledge in the prior art (e.g. Young) of
mobility of Zn2SnO4 greater than that disclosed by Appellants).
Furthermore, Appellants’ allegations of advantages and features
directed to the transparency, high chemical stability and low cost are
unpersuasive to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness because these
are inherent properties of the claimed compound. Specifically, the “means
for providing a channel,” recited in claim 19, encompass the devices for
producing the claimed channel layer, e.g., RF sputtering (Spec. 4, ll. 12-15),
which results in a semiconductor device that is no different than those
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

11
disclosed in the prior art. See Carcia, ¶¶ 34, 39 (disclosing using RF
magnetron sputtering). Appellants fail to show sufficient evidence that the
process for forming the claimed channel layer is different or produces results
different from those of the prior art. Therefore, to the extent Appellants’
Specification provides for a structure or device for forming the channel layer
similar to that described in the prior art, that prior art meets the claimed
limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Carcia and Taylor.
E. Section 103(a) Rejection over Carcia as Primary Reference:
Claim 64
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 64 for
obviousness over Carcia, Cillessen, and Ando. In particular, Appellants
argue that: (1) Carcia is not prior art; (2) Cillessen does not teach or suggest
the use of ternary zinc-tin oxide as a channel material; and (3) the features
and advantages of the claimed subject matter do not support the rejection.
App. Br. 20-21. We have decided arguments (1) and (3) with respect to
claim 19 above, and therefore, we turn to the argument that Cillessen fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
In Appellants’ view, Cillessen fails to teach the disputed limitation
because the use of a “zinc-tin oxide [compound] as [a] channel material was
against the collective knowledge possessed by those of skill in the art.”
App. Br. 21. Appellants argue that ternary compounds were known to have
poor electron mobility, rendering them unusable for transistor channels, and
that due to Appellants’ surprising results the subject matter in dispute is non-
obvious. App. Br. 20. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

12
As stated with respect to claim 19 above, Appellants’ argument of
unexpected results of the claimed ternary compound is unsupported by
objective evidence. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Appellants provided insufficient data on mobility or modeling for the
claimed ternary compound to support Appellants’ claim of surprising or
unexpected results. See Ans. 25-26 (also referring to knowledge in the prior
art (e.g. Young) of mobility of Zn2SnO4 greater than that disclosed by
Appellants). We also observe that to the extent disclosed in Appellants’
Specification (Spec. 3, l. 19 – 4, l. 15), Appellants’ observation of a high
degree of charge mobility was a result of combining ZnO and SnO2 to form
transparent oxide semiconductor Zn2SnO4 – a result that would be produced
by forming the Zn2SnO4 of the prior art.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 64 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Carcia, Cillessen, and Ando.
F. Section 103(a) Rejection over Cillessen as Primary Reference:
Claims 4, 7-9, 12, 19, 26, 32-35, 48, 50, 54, 55, 60, and 64
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) independent claims 4, 19, 48, 60, and 64 because
Cillessen fails to teach or suggest a zinc-tin oxide compound, and more
specifically Zn2SnO4, and (2) independent claim 50 because Cillessen fails
to teach or suggest a ternary compound containing zinc, tin, and oxygen of
the following stoichiometry: ((ZnO)j(SnO2)1-j), where j is between 0.05 and
0.95. App. Br. 23. In particular, Appellants argue that the passage in
Cillessen on which the Examiner relies lists eight different binary
compounds and that mixtures and combinations of the eight compounds
could yield 486 unique combinations, rendering the claimed subject matter
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

13
non-obvious. App. Br. 23-31. In Appellants’ view, there is no evidence that
the claimed ternary compound is a known option and pursuing every
possible option, from the plethora of combinations resulting from Cillessen’s
disclosure, would be, if not impossible, impractical. App. Br. 31-32.
The Examiner responds that Appellants’ argument overestimates the
number of combinations suggested by Cillessen. Ans. 27. The Examiner
points out that the obvious combinations are the simplest and most easily
carried out, and that a very limited number of compounds would result from
such combinations. Id. The Examiner finds that the combination of ZnO
and SnO2, and the teaching of Cillessen preferring the selection of covalent
oxides in the group of Sn, Zn, and In, would form a simple compound
having the stoichiometry Zn2SnO4. Ans. 19.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Cillessen
teaches a finite list of oxides that includes ZnO and SnO2 and teaches
forming ternary compounds from these oxides. Cillessen, col. 5, ll. 39-45.
Cillessen also teaches that the preferred oxide materials are covalent oxides
of the metals in the group Sn, Zn, and In. Cillessen, col. 5, ll. 51-52.
Considering that Cillessen is directed to the formation of transparent
switching elements (Cillessen, col. 1, ll. 5-12), and the fact that the claimed
zinc-tin oxide is known to be the result of a combination of ZnO and SnO2,
we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in
the art has a good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical
grasp. Ans. 18.
Next, Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not enable the
claimed subject matter. App. Br. 32. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’
argument. “Even if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

14
for all that it teaches.” Beckman Instruments Inc. v.LKB Produkter AB, 892
F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Therefore, “a non-enabling reference may
qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103.” Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
Appellants further contend that the claimed invention is contrary to
the generally accepted wisdom in the art. App. Br. 32. Appellants support
this contention with arguments of surprising or unexpected results and
advantages of the claimed subject matter. App. Br. 32-33. These arguments
were found unpersuasive. See supra, Sections D and E.
Finally, and with regard to independent claim 50, Appellants argue
that Cillessen is “completely silent with respect to the possibility of creating
non-stoichiometric compounds.” App. Br. 34. Specifically, Appellants
argue that Cillessen discloses only compounds corresponding to the law of
definite proportions and that, therefore, the claim limitation of a compound
with the stoichiometry of ((ZnO)j(SnO2)1-j), where j is between 0.05 and
0.95, could not be created by a simple mixture of the compounds listed in
Cillessen. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Instead, we agree
with the Examiner’s findings that by selecting j=2/3, the recited composition
results in the compound Zn2SnO4. Ans. 28 (referring also to findings in
page 26 of the Answer). Appellants have not overcome the prima facie case
of obviousness concerning the claims reciting the compound Zn2SnO4. And
therefore, because that compound is within the range claimed in independent
claim 50, Appellants also have not overcome the prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 50. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

15
2003) (“[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a
somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness.”)
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 4, 19, 48,
50, 60, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cillessen. For the same
reasons, and because they depend on claim 50, we also sustain: (1) the
§ 103(a) rejection over Cillessen of claims 7-9, 12, 54 and 55; and (2) the
§ 103(a) rejection over Cillessen in view of Carcia of claims 6 and 11, not
separately argued. For the same reasons, and because they depend on claim
60, we also sustain: (1) the § 103(a) rejection of claims 26, 32-35, and 37,
not separately argued; and (2) the § 103(a) rejection over Cillessen in view
of Carcia of claims 31 and 36, not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4, 6-9, 11,
26, 31-36, 48, 50, 54, 55, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Carcia.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carcia and Taylor.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carcia and Hong.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 15 and 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carcia, Krivokapic, and
Hornik.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 64 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carcia, Cillessen, and Ando.
Appeal 2011-000376
Application 10/763,353

16
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 7-9, 12, 19, 26, 32-
35, 37, 48, 50, 54, 55, 60, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cillessen.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6, 11, 31, and 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cillessen and Carcia.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14 and 38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carcia and Krivokapic.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 19, 26, 31-37,
48, 50, 54, 55, 60, and 64 is affirmed, but is reversed with respect to
rejecting claims 14, 15, 38, and 39.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj