Ex Parte LeanzaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201211300875 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/300,875 12/15/2005 Anthony S. Leanza ASL-7446NP 6250 26294 7590 09/27/2012 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. 1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700 CLEVELAND, OH 44114 EXAMINER NEGRON, ISMAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2885 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANTHONY S. LEANZA ____________________ Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-23, 25, 27, 28, and 30-42. Claims 3, 5, 26, and 29 have been canceled. Claims 11 and 24 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but have been indicated by the Examiner as allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims (Final Rej. 17-18). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appellant’s Disclosed Invention Appellant discloses an illuminated clipboard 100 for issuing traffic tickets at night (Title; Abs.; Fig. 1; Spec. 1:8-11 and 2:1-9). The illuminated clipboard 100 includes a base 102; illumination sources 150, 156, 194, and 210; a license viewing device 106 with openings 142 and 146 for receiving a license; a current time/date display 180 and setting means 184; and a future court date time/date display 182 and setting means 186/188 (Abs.; Fig. 1). A license 144/148 inserted into openings 142 and 146 can activate a momentary switch 172/170 for illuminating the license with a visible spectrum light source 156 and/or a UV light source 150 (Figs. 1-3). The clipboard 100 also has a ticket writing area 104 and ticket holding area 190, and a supplemental license viewing area 110 including auxiliary license holding slots 196 (Figs. 1-3). 1 Throughout our Decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief filed Feb. 12, 2009 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 14, 2009 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed July 8, 2009 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 3 Exemplary Claims Exemplary claims 1, 8, 12, 25, 31, 33, 36, and 40 under appeal, with emphases added, read as follows: 1. An illuminated clipboard, comprising: a clipboard base; a license receiving/viewing device located on the clipboard base; and a license illumination source adapted to selectively illuminate the license receiving/viewing device; wherein a portion of the clipboard base further includes a ticket- holding area, the ticket-holding area including a ticket-clip for removably holding a ticket to the clipboard base in the ticket-holding area. 8. The illuminated clipboard of claim 7, further including momentary switches located so as to be activated by a license held by said license receiving/viewing device. 12. The illuminated clipboard of claim 1, wherein the license receiving/viewing device includes a magnifier to allow magnified viewing of a license positioned in the license receiving/viewing device. 25. An illuminated clipboard, comprising: a clipboard base; a license receiving/viewing device adapted to removably hold a license in at least one orientation; a first display adapted to display at least one of a current time and a current date; and a second display adapted to display at least one of a future time and a future date; wherein a portion of the clipboard base includes a ticket-holding area, the ticket-holding area including a ticket clip for removably holding a ticket to the clipboard base in the ticket-holding area. Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 4 31. An illuminated clipboard comprising: a clipboard; a source of illumination; a magnifier; and a driver's license holder mounted to the clipboard for holding a driver's license under the magnifier, said driver's license holder being transparent so that information on a driver's license can be viewed through said driver's license holder, the driver's license being illuminated by the source of illumination. 33. A method of issuing a traffic ticket, comprising the steps of: obtaining a license from a driver to be ticketed; removably holding the license to a license receiving/viewing device associated with a clipboard base; illuminating the license receiving/viewing device with a license illumination source associated with the license receiving/viewing device; holding a traffic ticket blank to a ticket-holding area associated with the clipboard base; illuminating the ticket-holding area with a ticket illumination source; obtaining driver information from the license; obtaining at least one of current date and current time information from a first display on the clipboard; obtaining at least one of future date and future time information from a second display on the clipboard; and creating a completed traffic ticket by writing at least one of the driver information, current date and current time information, and future date and future time information on the traffic ticket blank. Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 5 36. An apparatus for supporting and illuminating an identification card, the apparatus comprising: an identification card receiving/viewing device adapted to removably hold the identification card; and an identification card illuminator adapted to selectively illuminate the identification card when the identification card is in the identification card receiving/viewing device, said identification card illuminator including an ultraviolet light source for illuminating the identification card for a first predetermined time period and a second light source in the visible spectrum for illuminating the identification card after said first predetermined time period. 40. A clipboard comprising: a clipboard base; a traffic ticket holding device; and a driver's license holder including a slot for receiving a driver's license, said driver's license holder being transparent so that information on a driver's license can be viewed through said driver's license holder. Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13-16, 18-20, 25, 27, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hart (US 3,947,926). Ans. 4-7. (2) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Merrell (US 6,241,360 B1). Ans. 7-8. (3) The Examiner rejected claims 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Miller (US 2,729,908). Ans. 8-9. (4) The Examiner rejected claims 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schlosser (US 2004/0099546 A1). Ans. 9-11. Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 6 (5) The Examiner rejected claims 8-10 and 21-23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merrell and Tomaka (US 2005/0086840 A1).2 Ans. 11-14. (6) The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hart and Bissell (US 3,500,034). Ans. 14-15. (7) The Examiner rejected claims 33-35 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art described at page 2, lines 1-9 of the Specification (“AAPA”) and Merrell. Ans. 15. (8) The Examiner rejected claims 36 and 37 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merrell. Ans. 16-17. (9) The Examiner rejected claim 38 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merrell and Bissell. Ans. 17-18. (10) The Examiner rejected claim 39 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merrell and Tomaka (US 2005/0086840 A1). Ans. 18. Appellant’s Contentions PETITIONABLE MATTERS: Drawing Objection Appellant seeks our review of the Examiner’s objection to the drawings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4). App. Br. 35. We take this opportunity to direct the Appellant’s attention to MPEP § 1201, which states: 2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 8-10, and Appellant relies on the arguments as to claim 1 from which claims 8-10 depend (see App. Br. 61-63; Reply Br. 19-20). Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 7 The line of demarcation between appealable matters for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) and petitionable matters for the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Director) should be carefully observed. The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that should be decided by the Director on petition, and the Director will not ordinarily entertain a petition where the question presented is a matter appealable to the Board. MPEP § 1201, 8th ed., rev. July 2008. The Examiner’s objections to the drawings and refusal to enter an amendment are reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 and are thus not within the jurisdiction of the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 1.127 (2009). In the present case, Appellant should have resolved the objections to the drawings and refusal to enter proposed drawing amendments by petition prior to the matter reaching the Board. APPEALABLE MATTERS: Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections (1) Appellant contends (App. Br. 37-50; Reply Br. 4-11) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13-16, 18-20, 25, 27, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hart for numerous reasons, including: (i) regarding claim 1, Hart’s element 1 is a base of a box that is not part of the clipboard 13, because the box and the clipboard are two separate and distinct things (App. Br. 38-39); and (ii) Hart’s clipboard 13 fails to include a license receiving/viewing device, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 39). Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 8 (2) Appellant contends (App. Br. 51-54; Reply Br. 12-13) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 7, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Merrell for numerous reasons, including: (i) Merrell fails to teach that light 12 is for viewing a license, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 52-53); (ii) Merrell’s clip 18 is not a license receiving/viewing device as recited in claim 1, and does not operate to slidably hold a license as recited in claim 7 (App. Br. 53); and (iii) Merrell fails to disclose a card receiving/viewing device, a card illuminator, form-holding area, and form illuminator, as recited in claim 15 (App. Br. 53-54). (3) Appellant contends (App. Br. 55-57; Reply Br. 15-16) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Miller for numerous reasons, including: (i) Miller fails to teach a traffic ticket holding device, as recited in claim 40 (App. Br. 55-57); (ii) Miller’s element 50 is not a clipboard base as required by claim 40, but instead is a vehicle sun visor (App. Br. 56); and (iii) Miller fails to teach or suggest a driver’s license holder, as recited in claim 40, because when metal plate 20 is slid into opening 16 panel 10 is no longer see-through (App. Br.56-57). (4) Appellant contends (App. Br. 58-60; Reply Br. 17-18) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schlosser for numerous reasons, including: (i) a booklet is not a clipboard, and Schlosser’s hinged booklet 10 with front cover 12 and back cover 14 connected via hinge 16 fails Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 9 to disclose a clipboard, i.e. a writing board with a spring clip for holding papers, as recited in claim 31 (App. Br. 58-59; Reply Br. 17); and (ii) Schlosser, including paragraph [0030], fails to disclose a court date information indicator (App. Br. 59-60). (5) Appellant contends (App. Br. 61-63; Reply Br. 19-20) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merrell and Tomaka for the same reasons provided as to claim 1 rejected as being anticipated over Merrell. We do not consider the arguments as to claim 1 (see App. Br. 61-63; Reply Br. 19-20) to be separate arguments for the patentability of claims 8-10. Although Appellant appeals (see App. Br. 5) the rejection of claims 21-23, Appellant does not present any arguments as to claims 21-23 in the briefs. (6) Appellant contends (App. Br. 64-67; Reply Br. 21) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart and Bissell for the same reasons provided supra as to the anticipation rejection over Hart. (7) Appellant contends (App. Br. 68-69; Reply Br. 22-23) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Merrell because Merrell fails to show two separate displays for information, including a current time/date and a future court time/date (App. Br. 69; Reply Br. 22). (8) Appellant contends (App. Br. 70-71; Reply Br. 24) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merrell because: Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 10 (i) Merrell’s switch 32 allows a user to switch between two light sources, and is not adapted to selectively switch between light sources after a predetermined time as recited in claim 36 (App. Br. 70); and (ii) Merrell has no card receiving device and not teaching of receiving a card in any particular orientation, as recited in claim 37 (App. Br. 71). (9) Appellant contends (App. Br. 72; Reply Br. 25) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merrell and Bissell because Merrell has license receiving/viewing slot, so there is no reason to add a magnifier to provide magnification of an identification card that does not exist (App. Br. 72). (10) Appellant contends (App. Br. 73; Reply Br. 26) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merrell and Tomaka because Tomaka’s switch is on the entire time a film is in the holder, thus Tomaka’s switch is not a momentary switch for activating a light source for a predetermined period of time, as recited in claim 39 (App. Br. 73). Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 11 Issues on Appeal3 Based on Appellant’s arguments, the following issues are presented on appeal: (1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13-16, 18- 20, 25, 27, 28, and 30 as being anticipated by Hart, and (ii) claims 12 and 17 as being unpatentable over Hart and Bissell, because Hart’s base member 1 shown in Figure 1 is not a clipboard base as recited in claims 1, 15, and 25? (2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 7, and 15 as being anticipated by Merrell, and (ii) claims 8-10 as being unpatentable over Merrell and Tomaka, because: (i) Merrell’s clip 18 is not a license receiving/viewing device for viewing a license as recited in claim 1, and does not operate to slidably hold a license as recited in claim 7; and (ii) Merrell fails to disclose a card receiving/viewing device, a card illuminator, form-holding area, and form illuminator, as recited in claim 15? 3 Appellant has not presented any arguments in the briefs with regard to the obviousness rejection of claims 21-23 (see generally App. Br. 61-63; Reply Br. 19-20 (presenting arguments only as to claims 8-10, and merely arguing the rejection of claims 8-10 over Merrell and Tomaka for the same reasons as provided for the rejection of claim 1 (from which claims 8-10 ultimately depend))) over Merrell. Because Appellant has not addressed the rejection of claims 21-23 in the briefs, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)), and we will sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 21-23 pro forma. We decide the appeal of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-10 on the same basis as claim 1. In view of the foregoing, our discussion in this regard is limited to Appellant’s arguments as to the rejection of claim 1 under § 103(a) over Merrell. Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 12 (3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 40-42 as being anticipated by Miller because Miller fails to disclose a clipboard base, traffic ticket holding device, and driver’s license holder? (4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 31 and 32 as being anticipated by Schlosser because Schlosser fails to disclose a clipboard? (5) Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 33-35 as being unpatentable over AAPA and Merrell because Merrell fails to teach or suggest two separate displays for current and future time/date information? (6) Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 36 and 37 as being unpatentable over Merrell because Merrell fails to teach or suggest (i) illuminating an identification card for a first predetermined period of time, and illuminating a second light source in the visible spectrum after the predetermined time period, as recited in claim 36, and (ii) an identification card receiving/viewing device adapted to accept a card in one of plural orientations, as recited in claim 37? (7) Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 38 as being unpatentable over Merrell and Bissell because the combination of Merrell and Bissell fails to teach or suggest an identification card receiving/viewing device having a magnifier for magnifying the card, as recited in claim 38? (8) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 39 as being unpatentable over Merrell and Tomaka because Tomaka fails to teach or suggest a switch for activating the illuminator upon insertion of the card, as recited in claim 39? Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 13 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 36-73) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-26) that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s arguments with regard to the § 102(b) rejection of claims 31 and 32 over Schlosser (rejection (4) and issue (4)) and the § 103(a) rejection of claims 33-35 over AAPA and Merrell (rejection (7) and issue (5)). We find that the Examiner’s interpretation of “clip” (see Ans. 49) is not relevant to the language of claims 31 and 32 which recite a “clipboard.” The term clipboard should be assigned its ordinary meaning, and understood as broadly as reasonable in light of the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The ordinary meaning of “clipboard” is a writing pad having a clip for holding papers thereto, and more specifically “[a] small writing board with a spring clip at the top for holding papers or a writing pad.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, 2ND COLLEGE ED., p. 282 (1982). This definition is in agreement with the clipboard 100 shown in Appellant’s Figure 1, and with Appellant’s proffered definition (see Reply Br. 17). Therefore, we construe clipboard to mean “a small writing board with a spring clip at the top for holding papers or a writing pad.” In light of this definition, Schlosser’s guest check presenter 10 is not a clipboard (see Fig. 1; ¶ [0022]). Because Schlosser fails to disclose a clipboard, Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 31 and 32 as being anticipated by Schlosser are persuasive, and we will not sustain this rejection. Appellant’s arguments that Merrell, and thus the combination of Merrell and AAPA, fails to show two separate displays for current and Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 14 future times/dates as recited in claims 33-35 is persuasive. Merrell only shows one clock display 28 for displaying a current time/date information in a clock aperture 26 (Fig. 3; col. 5, ll. 22-23). Thus, Merrell cannot teach or suggest a second display for displaying and obtaining at least one of a future date and time information, as recited in claims 33-35. We agree with Appellant that the combination of AAPA (describing the process of writing a ticket using a clipboard) and Merrell (a clipboard with only one display for current time/date information) does not teach or suggest the method of issuing a traffic ticket recited in claims 33-35, including the steps of obtaining at least one of a current date and time information from a first display on the clipboard, and obtaining at least one of a future date and time from a second display on the clipboard. In view of our findings with regard to Merrell, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 33-35. We find Appellant’s arguments with regard to the remaining §§ 102(b) and 103(a) rejections (rejections (1)-(3), (5), (6), and (8)-(10) and issues (1)-(3) and (6)-(8)) unpersuasive in light of the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Answer (Ans. 4-9, 11-49, 52, 53, and 55-58), along with some particular findings with regard to the applied references infra. With regard to rejections (1)-(3), (5), (6), and (8)-(10), we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 4-9, 11-49, 52, 53, and 55-58). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner as to the anticipation rejections over Hart, Merrell, and Miller (rejections (1)-(3)), and the obviousness rejections over Merrell Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 15 and Tomaka (rejections (5) and (10)), Hart and Bissell (rejection (6)), Merrell (rejection (8)), and Merrell and Bissell (rejection (9)). We highlight and emphasize certain arguments and teaching and suggestions of the applied references as follows. With regard to claims 1, 15, and 25, Hart’s clipboard 13 constitutes a paper or ticket holding area has a base member 1 that is a clipboard base, since it is the base of the clipboard 13 (Fig. 1). Clip 14 holds down paper or tickets (i.e. a ticket-clip), watches or clocks 23 and 24 serve as displays for current and future date/time information, light 18 illuminates the board, clip devices 15 and 16 operate as slots and card holders capable of slidably holding down a card, license, or other form of paper (col. 1, l. 35 to col. 2, l. 31). With regard to claims 1, 7, and 15, Merrell’s spring loaded hinge (i.e., clip) 18 is equivalent to a license receiving/viewing device located on the base 14 of a clipboard, as recited in claim 1. The hinge 18 can hold a license in at least one or more orientations in a slidable fashion under the hinge 18, as recited in claim 7. The clipboard base 14, receiving/viewing device 18, and illuminator 12 could also hold a card (a license is a form of card), as recited in claim 15. Miller’s anti-glare shield and road map holder 8 clips to sun visor 50 using resilient arms 56 and V-shaped member 58 (see Figs. 1, 4, and 5; col. 1, ll. 18-19; col. 2, ll. 21-43; and col. 3, ll. 24-34), therefore Miller meets the claim limitations of claims 40-42 of a clipboard having a clipboard base, traffic ticket holding device, and driver’s license holder having a slot. Appellant’s argument that Miller fails to teach or suggest a driver’s license holder as recited in claim 40 because metal plate 20 is not see-through when Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 16 it is slid into opening 16 of panel 10 is unpersuasive, because Miller’s transparent panel 10 is designed to go on top of a map 22, with the rigid metal backing plate 20 underneath on the opposite side for the purpose of attracting magnets which are used to hold the map in place (col. 2, ll. 24-61). Tomaka discloses clipboard or portable viewer 20 (Fig. 3; ¶ [0030]) having a momentary action microswitch 56 that automatically changes states when it is depressed (¶¶ [0032] and [0034]; Fig. 5C), so as to turn on electroluminescent display 72 when an x-ray film 60 is inserted. Thus, Tomaka teaches or suggests a receiving/viewing device having a switch for activating an illuminator upon insertion of a film or card, as recited in claim 39. Bissell discloses a magnifier 12 and an illumination source for providing a magnified view of a license, card, or other reading material (Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 48-51), as recited in claim 38. In view of the foregoing, the Examiner’s application of the prior art to the claims on appeal, broadly interpreted in light of the Specification, is not unreasonable or unfounded, except for the determination that (i) Schlosser’s guest check presenter is equivalent to a clipboard, and (ii) Merrell fails to show first and second displays for displaying current and future date/time information. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting: (i) claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13-16, 18-20, 25, 27, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hart; Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 17 (ii) claims 1, 7, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Merrell; (iii) claims 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Miller; (iv) claims 8-10 and 21-23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merrell and Tomaka, because Appellant has not presented any arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 8-10 and 21- 23 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merrell and Tomaka. As such, Appellant has not argued that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims, or otherwise shown the obviousness rejection to be in error (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)); (v) claims 12 and 17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hart and Bissell; (vi) claims 36 and 37 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merrell; (vii) claim 38 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merrell and Bissell; and (viii) claim 39 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merrell and Tomaka. (2) The Examiner erred in rejecting: (i) claims 31 and 32 as being anticipated by Schlosser; and (ii) claims 33-35 as being unpatentable over AAPA and Merrell. Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 18 DECISION (1) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13-16, 18-20, 25, 27, 28, and 30 as being anticipated by Hart is affirmed. (2) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, and 15 as being anticipated by Merrell is affirmed. (3) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 40-42 as being anticipated by Miller is affirmed. (4) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 32 as being anticipated by Schlosser is reversed. (5) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-10 and 21-23 as being unpatentable over Merrell and Tomaka is affirmed. (6) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 17 as being unpatentable over Hart and Bissell is affirmed. (7) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 33-35 as being unpatentable over AAPA and Merrell is reversed. (8) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 36 and 37 as being unpatentable over Merrell is affirmed. (9) The Examiner’s rejection of claim 38 as being unpatentable over Merrell and Bissell is affirmed. (10) The Examiner’s rejection of claim 39 as being unpatentable over Merrell and Tomaka is affirmed. Appeal 2009-013678 Application 11/300,875 19 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation