Ex Parte Kuenzler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2017

12906384 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
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