Ex Parte Kuenzler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 8, 201712906384 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/906,384 11/19/2010 Glenn Howard Kuenzler GLOZ 200566US01 9990 (244648) 74495 7590 06/09/2017 FAY SHARPE LLP/GE LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, LLC 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 EXAMINER ALAEDDINI, BORNA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2844 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2017 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 GLENN HOWARD KUENZLER, TOMISLAV STIMAC, and MARK MAYER Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 Technology Center 2800 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—13, 17, 18, 20—24, and 26—30. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed October 18, 2010, the Examiner’s Final Office Action dated October 15, 2014, Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed May 15, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) dated September 16, 2015, Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed November 16, 2015, and the second Examiner’s Answer dated January 7, 2016. 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lumination LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to lighting systems and devices integrated with global positioning system (GPS) technology. Spec. 11. The lighting system includes at least one lighting fixture having a lighting source and a GPS microchip configured to detect the geographic location of the lighting fixture, and a control for transmitting a signal with operating instructions to the lighting fixture. Id. at 17. In addition, Appellants disclose a method of controlling operation of the lighting system wherein the lighting fixture transmits its GPS coordinate zone to the control and the control broadcasts the signal to the at least one lighting fixture. Id. at | 8. According to Appellants, only the lighting fixture(s) possessing a particular geographic coordinate within the signal carries out the operating instructions. Id. at 19. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A global positioning system (GPS)-based lighting system, comprising: a plurality of lighting fixtures, each including a light source and a GPS microchip incorporated therein, said GPS microchip configured to detect a geographic location of said each lighting fixture; a control system configured to direct a user of the lighting system to a destination, the control system transmitting a signal comprising an operating instruction signal to a plurality of said lighting fixtures, wherein said lighting fixtures are configured to respond to the operating instruction signal specific to each fixtures geographic location; and wherein the operating instruction signal transmitted from the control system is received by at least two of the fixtures and wherein each of said at least two fixtures respond to said operating instruction signal based on its GPS location. 2 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 Rejections The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request our review of, the following grounds of rejection: 1. Claims 1, 3—8, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bourquin;3 2. Claims 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin; 3. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin in view of Sikora;4 4. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin in view of Sikora and Myer;5 5. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin in view of Sikora and Hwang;6 6. Claims 27—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin in view of Matsui;7 and 7. Claims 21—24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin in view of Sikora and Matsui. ANALYSIS After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellants’ claims and Specification 3 Bourquin et al., WO 2009/003279 Al, published January 8, 2009 (“Bourquin”). 4 Sikora, US 8,456,325 Bl, issued June 4, 2013. 5 Myer et al., US 2010/0029268 Al, published February 4, 2010 (“Myer”). 6 Hwang, US 7,659,676 B2, issued February 9, 2010. 7 Matsui et al., JP 2004-118703 A, published April 15, 2004 (“Matsui”). The Examiner relies, without objection, on an English-language machine translation. 3 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 disclosures, we determine that the Appellants’ arguments are insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejections for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Office Action. We offer the following for emphasis only. Rejection 1: Anticipation of claims 1, 3—8, 10, 11, and 13 by Bourquin Appellants argue claims 1,5, and 11 and 13 as separate groups respectively, but do not otherwise argue any of the remaining claims. Therefore, claims 3, 4, 6—8, and 10 stand or fall with the claim from which they depend. Claim 1 The Examiner finds Bourquin discloses a GPS-based lighting system as recited in claim 1, including a plurality of lighting fixtures, each having a light source and a GPS microchip configured to detect the geographic location of its lighting fixture, and a control system configured to direct a user to a destination, wherein the control system transmits a signal with operating instructions to at least two lighting fixtures which respond to the signal specific to each fixture’s geographic location. Final Act. 4—5. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings are not supported in Bourquin. Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellants contend that nothing in Bourquin, Figure 7, indicates that lights turn on based on geographic location. Id. Instead, Appellants assert that lights turn on based on a memory means that records the path taken by a user, and re-lights the returning path without reliance on the GPS location of the lights. Id. 4 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 Further, Appellants urge that the Examiner is relying on separate embodiments in Bourquin. Id. Specifically, Appellants assert that the guidance system of Figure 7 is not associated with GPS location, whereas “the utilization of GPS location is associated only with relying on GPS locations within a preset distance of a motion detector activated fixture.” Id. As such, Appellants contend that Bourquin’s “terminal 768 provides no teaching that fixtures are selected for illumination based on GPS location.” Id. at 6 (emphasis added). Appellants further argue that “a terminal that stores a user selected parking space location and an exit path is not remotely equivalent to a control system that initially selects a parking space and directs a user thereto.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellants contrast the present invention as being directed to a system in which a controller determines the destination of a user, whereas Bourquin is directed to a system in which a user determines a destination. Id. According to Appellants, Bourquin does not teach that the lights selected for illuminating the user’s return path to a parking spot are controlled based on GPS location. Id. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Initially, we note Bourquin discloses that Figure 7 shows another application for the guidance lighting system previously described in reference to the earlier figures. Bourquin 25 (“Another application for the system is as a guidance means, to guide users to requested destinations. One possible application for a guidance lighting system is in a parking lot, as shown in Fig. 7.” (emphasis 8 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 5 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 added)). Thus, Bourquin’s Figure 7 uses the same guidance lighting system earlier described relative to Figures 1—6. As the Examiner finds, Bourquin’s guidance lighting system includes light fixtures each having a GPS microchip configured to detect and communicate its geographic location. The user’s path is lit based on sensing the user’s movement which in turn causes a control system to transmit a signal with operating instructions specific to light fixtures having specific geographic locations. Bourquin 25 (“As the user finds his way from his vehicle to an exit of the parking lot, the lighting system of the invention gradually lights his way based on sensing the user’s movement as described above.” (emphasis added)). Therefore, during the user’s exit from the parking lot, Bourquin teaches the same reliance on GPS location for each light fixture as Appellants. However, Bourquin further teaches that the guidance lighting system can also be used to help the user return to the same parking spot. Bourquin 25. While it is true that Bourquin’s system includes a memory means that records the path taken between a parking spot and the exit, Bourquin teaches that the system calculates a return path to the parking spot, which may be the reverse of the path taken by the user to exit the parking lot. Bourquin 25—26. Bourquin’s use of the permissive term “may” indicates that the system may also calculate a different path than the reverse of the user’s original path. Indeed, Bourquin expressly teaches that the system can calculate a return path to the parking spot based on its geographic location. Bourquin 26 (“[E]ach stall may be mapped in a database associated with the parking lot lighting system. By identifying the appropriate stall, such as by the bar code on a stall receipt, the lighting system calculates a return path to the vehicle to guide the user through the lot.”) Nonetheless, regardless of the manner in 6 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 which the system calculates the return path, Bourquin teaches that the system gradually lights the way to assist the user in locating his parking spot, thereby indicating that the light fixtures are receiving operating instructions based on their geographic location. Bourquin 25—26. Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings in support of the anticipation rejection of claim 1 by Bourquin. Claim 5 Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the GPS microchip is configured to broadcast information to the control system which itself is capable of receiving this information. The Examiner finds Bourquin discloses the GPS microchip is configured to broadcast information to the control system. Final Act. 6. In this regard, the Examiner notes Bourquin teaches that the GPS microchips assist in recording the user’s path and the memory means records the path taken. Id. Appellants argue that nothing in Bourquin teaches or suggests that terminal 72 receives any information from a GPS microchip, nor does the paragraph describing Figure 7 mention GPS location. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants also argue that Bourquin’s terminal 76 does not provide any communication based on GPS location. Id. Appellants contend that Bourquin is silent with respect to how the light fixtures communicate with the parking and exit terminals, and there is no basis to support an assumption that GPS location is used particularly since GPS use is inconsistent with Bourquin’s methodology. Id. at 8—9. Appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us of reversible error. As the Examiner indicates, Appellants’ arguments fail to address Bourquin’s 7 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 control system as defined by the Examiner in the rejection. Ans. 13. The Examiner further notes that the application as depicted in Bourquin, Figure 7, incorporates the lighting fixtures as discussed in Figures 1, 3A, and 3B, which use the GPS locations of the fixtures in identifying the user’s path which is stored in the memory means. Id. The Examiner also correctly observes that Appellants’ claims do not specify when and how the GPS data is to be used, e.g., on an original path or a return path. Id. at 13—14. Indeed, Bourquin teaches that the lighting fixtures “communicate their respective geographic locations with one another.” Bourquin 7. Bourquin further teaches that this communication is controlled by processors 20 which both send and receive signals that indicate their geographic locations. Id. at 14. Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings with regard to anticipation of claim 5 by Bourquin. Claims 11 and 13 Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further requires the “at least one lighting fixture is configured to guide emergency vehicles to a location of an emergency.” Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the system is provided in a parking lot having multiple lighting fixtures configured to selectively turn on and off in response to the instructions for creating a parking guide to guide vehicles to empty spots. Appellants argue these claims together. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 11 to address Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds claim 11 recites an intended use for the system of claim 1. Final Act. 7. In addition, the Examiner finds Bourquin discloses the same structure as claim 1 and, therefore, must be capable of performing the function recited in claim 11. Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner 8 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 cannot ignore a claim limitation concerning what function software is designed to perform, and Bourquin cannot perform the recited function because it is not equipped with this software. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants urge that the recitation in claim 11 is not an intended use because it requires a specific design parameter within the claimed GPS lighting system in the form of software configuration. Id. Appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us of reversible error. “[Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the patentability of an apparatus claim depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that stmcture, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959); In re Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1949). Although “[a] patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally[,] .... choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where the Examiner establishes a reasonable belief that a property or characteristic recited in the claims would have been inherent to the apparatus, the burden of proof shifts to Appellant to show that this characteristic or property is not possessed by the prior art. Id. Here, as the Examiner notes, neither the emergency vehicle nor the location of the emergency are structural features or elements of the GPS- lighting system. Ans. 14. Thus, claim 11 recites the functional capability of the lighting fixture to be able to guide a user to a particular location. 9 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 Bourquin teaches that a user may be guided to a particular location, e.g., to a particular parking spot or stall. Bourquin 25—26 (“The system then calculates a path to the vehicle . . . and gradually lights the way for the user, who is then guided to easily and safely locate the vehicle” and “[b]y identifying the appropriate stall... the lighting system calculates a return path to the vehicle to guide a user through the lot.”) Thus, the Examiner has established a reasonable basis to believe that Bourquin’s system necessarily would have been capable of guiding a user such as an emergency vehicle to a particular location such as the location of an emergency. Moreover, Appellants fail to direct our attention to any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to refute the Examiner’s reasonable determination that Bourquin’s system would have the capability recited in claim 11. Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings with regard to anticipation of claims 11 and 13 by Bourquin. Rejection 3: Obviousness of claim 17 over Bourquin in view of Sikora9 Claim 17 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 9 The Examiner originally made this rejection and designated it as a new ground in the Examiner’s Answer dated September 16, 2015. Appellants filed a Reply Brief on November 16,2015 responding to the new ground of rejection from the Answer. See Reply Br. 1—3. Subsequent thereto, the Office mailed a second Examiner’s Answer on January 7, 2016 without explanation which repeated this rejection and designated it as a new ground. However, the only difference between the original Examiner’s Answer and the second Examiner’s Answer is the signature of the Acting Director for Technology Center 2800 on the second Answer. It appears, therefore, that 10 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 17. A method of controlling the functioning of lighting fixtures, said method comprising: providing at least one lighting fixture with a light source and a global positioning system (GPS) microchip, wherein said GPS microchip provides said at least one lighting fixture with a geographic location; transmitting said geographic location to a control system; said control system determining a controller determined destination for a user of the lighting fixture and broadcasting a signal from said control system to said at least one lighting fixture; receiving said signal by said at least one lighting fixture; wherein said signal includes operating instructions based on the controller determined destination for the user, and wherein lighting fixtures within at least one specific geographic location carry out said operating instructions, wherein said operating instructions include at least one of turning said light source on, off, dimming said light source, flashing said light source, and changing the color of said light source. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 17 should be reversed for the same reasons as set forth above. Appeal Br. 10. However, for the same reasons given in the Answer and above, we likewise do not find these arguments persuasive of reversible error here. Appellants further argue that Bourquin’s first embodiment is meant to be reactionary to conserve energy which, according to Appellants, is incompatible with Sikora’s objective to guide emergency vehicles. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend that, even if Sikora is combined with Bourquin, there is no control system determining a destination for a the second Answer was mailed solely for purposes of compliance with section 41.39(a)(2) (“The examiner must obtain the approval of the Director to furnish an answer that includes a new ground of rejection.”) Accordingly, we will consider Appellants’ response to this rejection on the merits. 11 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 user. Id. Appellants also contend that Sikora fails to disclose a controller determined destination, but instead reacts to a user selected destination, i.e., the emergency destination. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 2—3. Instead, Appellants urge that Bourquin fails to teach transmittal of GPS information to a control system. Reply Br. 2. In addition, Appellants argue that Sikora fails to teach use of a GPS location of a light fixture as a component of the instructions which cause the fixture to conform to the instructions. Appeal Br. 11. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As the Examiner notes (Ans. 16—17), Bourquin teaches that the application as depicted in Figure 7 uses the same GPS lighting system as set forth in Figures 1—6. Bourquin teaches that this application may identify the appropriate stall or destination within a database associated with the system, calculate a return path for the user to the destination, and then gradually illuminate the path to guide the user to the destination. Bourquin 25—26. In other words, Bourquin’s control system determines the destination from the information input by the user. Claim 17 does not require more. Moreover, Appellants fail to provide any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to demonstrate any incompatibility of this application of Bourquin’s system with Sikora. Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and obviousness conclusion with regard to claim 17 over Bourquin in view of Sikora. Rejection 6: Obviousness of claims 27—30 over Bourquin in view ofMatsui Appellants argue claims 27 and 28 and claims 29 and 30 as two separate groups. We select claims 27 and 29 to address Appellants’ arguments. However, we note that claims 27 and 29 recite the same 12 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 additional limitations. In addition, Appellants’ arguments raised against the rejection of claim 27 are substantively similar to those raised against the rejection of claim 29. Accordingly, our reasoning and decision with respect to claim 27 below applies with equal force to claim 29. As such, claims 28— 30 stand or fall with claim 27. Claim 27 depends from claim 1 and further requires a plurality of lighting fixtures arranged in a parking lot which is divided into phases, and wherein the system is configured to fill the phases of the parking lot in a particular order by selecting phases of the parking lot in the particular order; instructing lighting fixtures within a selected phase to illuminate the phase while instructing lighting fixtures within other phases to illuminate the other phases at a lower level; and guiding a vehicle to an empty parking space by illuminating a path to the empty space. The Examiner finds Bourquin teaches the system of claim 27 except for filling the phases of the parking lot according to preference or order and guiding a vehicle to an empty parking space by illuminating a path to the empty space. Final Act. 14. For these features, the Examiner finds Matsui teaches a parking lot guidance system for filling the phases of a parking lot according to a location preference by instructing lighting fixtures to illuminate the phases to guide a vehicle to an empty parking space. Id. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to use the guidance system of Matsui in Bourquin’s lighting control system in order to prevent traffic jams inside the parking lot and to save time.” Id. Appellants argue that the combination of Bourquin and Matsui lacks proper motivation because Bourquin fails to teach an entrance gate where traffic jams may occur and, therefore, Bourquin’s system would not benefit 13 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 from Matsui’s teaching. Appeal Br. 11. However, we first note that the Examiner’s stated motivation, i.e., to prevent traffic jams and save time, is disclosed in Matsui. In addition, the problem for which Matsui’s guidance system applies is directed toward parking lots generally, and not to a specific parking lot or entrance gate. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected Matsui’s guidance system would be equally applicable to other parking lots including that of Bourquin. KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.) Appellants next argue that Matsui fails to teach a lighting fixture that responds to a controller based on GPS location. Appeal Br. 11. As such, Appellants contend that there is no reason to conclude that Bourquin would be modified in view of Matsui to rely on GPS location to provide a guidance system. Id. However, Appellants incorrectly assert, as indicated above, that Bourquin only uses GPS to illuminate fixtures based on a user’s proximity to a sensor with no guidance, and the guidance of Figure 7 does not use GPS location. As we stated above, Bourquin’s Figure 7 relies on the same GPS- based lighting system of Figures 1, 3 A, and 3B. The Examiner’s combination of Bourquin and Matsui merely involves applying Bourquin’s system to select an empty parking space and guide a user to the parking space as Matsui suggests. Appellants further argue that Matsui and Bourquin, Figure 7, are directed to parking garages or enclosed structures in which GPS location is unreliable. Appeal Br. 11. Initially, we note that neither Bourquin, Figure 7, nor Matsui are limited to enclosed parking garages. Both references teach application to parking lots generally. See Bourquin 25 (“One possible 14 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 application for a guidance lighting system is in a parking lot, as shown in Fig. 7”) and Matsui Title of the Invention (“A guidance system in a parking lot”). Accordingly, the ordinary artisan would reasonably have recognized the application of Bourquin’s GPS locations in an outdoor parking lot in order to guide vehicles to empty parking spaces as taught by Matsui. Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 27—30 over Bourquin in view of Matsui. Rejection 7: Obviousness of claims 21—24 and 26 over Bourquin in view of Sikora and Matsui Claim 21 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 21. A method of geographically controlling a plurality of lighting fixtures of a parking lot, the parking lot divided into phases, said method comprising: providing each of said plurality of lighting fixtures with a light source and a global positioning system (GPS) microchip; identifying the geographic location of said lighting fixture based on information provided by said GPS microchip; providing said lighting control system with operating instructions specific to particular geographic location; broadcasting a signal, including said operating instructions, to each of said plurality of lighting fixtures, wherein only the lighting fixtures possessing said particular geographic location carry out said operating instructions; and filling the phases of the parking lot according to a location preference or in a particular order, the filling including: said lighting control system selecting phases of the parking lot according to the location preference or in the particular order; 15 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 said lighting control system instructing lighting fixtures within selected phases to illuminate the phases while instructing lighting fixtures within other phases to illuminate the other phases at a lower level; and said lighting control system guiding a vehicle to an empty parking space by illuminating a path to the empty space. Appellants do not argue the claims under this rejection separately. We select claim 21 to address Appellants’ arguments. Claims 22—24 and 26 stand or fall with claim 21. Appellants first argue that this rejection should be reversed for the reasons previously presented with regard to the rejection of claim 1. However, as indicated above, those arguments were not persuasive of reversible error. Appellants additionally repeat their arguments against the combination of Bourquin and Matsui as applied in the obviousness rejection of claim 27. Again, as indicated above, those arguments were also not persuasive of reversible error. Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 21—24 and 26 over Bourquin in view of Sikora and Matsui. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above, and in the Final Office Action and the Answer, we sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 1, 3—8, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bourquin; 16 Appeal 2016-002365 Application 12/906,384 claims 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin; claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin in view of Sikora; claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin in view of Sikora and Myer; claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin in view of Sikora and Hwang; claims 27—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin in view of Matsui; and claims 21—24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bourquin in view of Sikora and Matsui. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3—13, 17, 18, 20—24, and 26—30 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)(1). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation