Ex Parte Meschter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13053378 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/053,378 03/22/2011 Peter Joel Meschter 246989 8137
6147 7590 02/02/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. K1-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
EXAMINER
LA VILLA, MICHAEL EUGENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney @ ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER JOEL MESCHTER
and RAYMOND GRANT ROWE
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—9 and 11—23 of Application
13/053,378 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 4—9 (November
5, 2014). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 General Electric Company is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
BACKGROUND
The ’378 Application describes coating systems for protecting
components exposed to a high-temperature environment, such as the hot gas
flow path in a gas turbine engine. Spec. 11. The Specification describes the
coatings as capable of protecting an underlying coating or substrate from hot
corrosion initiated by molten salts. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’378 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A coating system on a substrate of an article, the coating
system comprising:
at least one coating layer overlying the substrate, the coating
layer having a composition that is susceptible to hot corrosion
promoted by molten salt impurities; and
a corrosion barrier coating overlying the coating layer and
wherein the corrosion barrier coating contains at least one rare-
earth oxide-containing compound that reacts with the molten salt
impurities to form a dense, protective byproduct barrier layer on
the surface of the corrosion barrier coating, the at least one rare-
earth oxide-containing compound being present in the corrosion
barrier coating in an amount of at least 15 weight percent of the
corrosion barrier coating
wherein the rare-earth oxide-containing compound is
comprised of a rare earth zirconate (REUZ^Cb), a rare earth
hafhate (RE2HT2O7) or a mixture thereof
wherein RE in the RE2Zr207 is selected from the group
consisting of Sc, Ce, Pr, Pm, Sm, Eu, Tb, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu
and combinations thereof and
wherein RE in the RE2Hf207 is selected from the group
consisting of Sc, Ce, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb,
Lu and combinations thereof.
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains2 the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maloney,3 as evidenced
by Kozak.4 Final Act. 4; Ans. 2.
2. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Maloney, as evidenced by
Kozak, and Subramanian.5 Final Act. 5; Ans. 4.
3. Claims 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Maloney, as
evidenced by Kozak, and Appellants’ Admissions.6 Final Act.
6; Ans. 5.
4. Claims 1—5, 9, 11—13, 16, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of: (i) claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement; (ii) claims 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Maloney, as evidenced by Kozak, and Appellants’
Admissions (see n.3,4,6, infra)', and (iii) claims 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Spitsberg (see n.7, infra),
Maloney (as evidenced by Kozak), and Appellants’ Admissions. Ans. 9.
3 US 6,177,200 Bl, issued Jan. 23, 2001.
4 Kozak et al., Zirconium & Hafnium: Inorganic & Coordination Chemistry,
Encyclopedia of Inorganic Chemistry 1—24 (2006) (hereinafter “Kozak”).
5 US 2008/0292859 Al, published Nov. 27, 2008.
6 Spec. 1 5.
3
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
Spitsberg7 and Maloney, as evidenced by Kozak. Final Act. 6;
Ans. 6.
5. Claims 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Spitsberg,
Maloney (as evidenced by Kozak), and Appellants’
Admissions. Final Act. 9; Ans. 8.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 22,
and 23 as obvious over Maloney, with evidence provided by Kozak. Final
Act. 4; Ans. 2.
Appellants make separate arguments for reversal of this rejection with
respect to three groups of claims: (1) claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 16,
Appeal Br. 9—15; (2) claim 22, id. at 15; and (3) claim 23, id. at 15—16. We
address Appellants’ arguments regarding each group of claims in turn.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 16. Appellants argue for reversal of the
rejection of these claims as obvious based upon the limitations of
independent claim 1 and do not present substantive argument with respect to
dependent claims 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 16. The dependent claims, therefore,
stand or fall with representative claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue that this rejection should be reversed because:
(1) the cited references fail to suggest the reactivity of the disclosed
pyrochlores with molten salt impurities, Appeal Br. at 9—11, (2) reaction of
Maloney’s thermal barrier layer with molten salt impurities would be
considered undesirable, id. at 11, (3) the Examiner’s cited evidence and/or
7 EP 1683773 A2, published July 26, 2006.
4
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
reasoning fails to support a finding for suggestion or motivation to use the
claimed rare earth zirconate or hafhate compounds, id. at 11—13, and (4) the
Examiner has not provided evidence or reasoning to support a finding of
predictability and/or reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 13—14. We
address these arguments below.
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that Maloney’s layers “could and do form [the] claimed by­
product layer when they are subjected to conventional operating
environment.” Appeal Br. 11, citing Adv. Act. 2. Appellants further argue
that because
Maloney is silent as to the reactivity of the disclosed
pyrochlores, the burden is on the examiner to provide technical
reasons, e.g., known chemical reactions, to support the position
that Maloney’s disclosed pyrochlores would inherently react
with molten salt impurities to form a dense layer as recited in
Appellants’ claims.
Id.
Appellants’ arguments misplace their focus on whether Maloney’s
disclosed and suggested A2B2O7 compounds would necessarily form the
claimed by-product layer when subjected to a conventional operating
environment. The Examiner did not find Maloney anticipates the claims.
Rather, the Examiner determined that Maloney rendered these claims
obvious. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2. The Examiner, therefore, is not required to
establish inherency by showing that Maloney’s thermal barrier coating
would necessarily react with molten salt impurities to form a dense layer.
See, e.g., In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
We find that, at the time of the invention, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that Maloney teaches the coating of a gas
5
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
turbine superalloy substrate with, inter alia, a thermal barrier coating formed
of cubic pyrochlore (A2B2O7). Maloney Abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 3B, 6; 2:66—
6:35; 7:38—8:36; and claims. Maloney identifies zirconates (B=Zr) with Dy
and Nd (A=Dy or Nd) among the cubic pyrochlores disclosed, id. at Fig. 2,
and teaches that B in A2B2O7 may be any of Ti, Zr, and/or Hf. Id. 6:27—30;
Fig. 2. Thus, the ordinarily-skilled artisan would have considered the whole
of Maloney’s disclosure and realized, based on Kozak’s evidence that Zr(IV)
and Hf(IV) have similar ionic radii, see Kozak Section 2.2; Table 1, that Hf
would have been expected to be positioned near Zr in Maloney’s Figure 2.
In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the
disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). As the Supreme Court
has noted, such a combination using Hf as an element in Maloney’s cubic
pyrochlores as hafhate cubic pyrochlores, including those having rare earth
elements Dy and/or Nd, is likely to be obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”). Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in concluding that their claimed combination of familiar
elements is such a case of obviousness.
Second, Appellants argue in connection with argument (2) that
because Maloney’s coatings are intended to protect the underlying metal
substrate, there is insufficient motivation for the ordinary skilled artisan “to
apply a coating that would be predicted to react with molten salt impurities.”
Appeal Br. 11.
6
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because a determination of
obviousness does not require any recognition that Maloney’s coatings would
have reacted with molten salt impurities. “[I]t is not required . . . that the
prior art disclose or suggest the properties newly-discovered by an applicant
in order for there to be a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Dillon, 919
F.2d 688, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). There is no dispute here that
Maloney is silent as to the claimed formation of a by-product layer, which
results from the reaction of a rare-earth oxide-containing compound with
molten salt impurities. Appeal Br. 9-10; Ans. 3. The Examiner, however,
determined that because Maloney’s thermal barrier suggests hafhate cubic
pyrochlores having Dy and/or Nd as claimed, it would have been expected
that Maloney’s thermal barrier would react with molten salt impurities to
form the same or substantially the same by-product layer as claimed. Ans.
3.
Appellants, furthermore, do not point to any evidence that the
ordinary skilled artisan would have selected from Maloney materials that
would resist reaction with the molten salt impurities. Appeal Br. 11.
Without such evidence, this assertion is not persuasive. See Estee Lauder
Inc. v. L ’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[Arguments of
counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.”). Thus,
Appellants’ argument does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination.
Third, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because claim 1 recites
two Markush groups:
wherein RE in the RE2Zr207 is selected from the group
consisting of Sc, Ce, Pr, Pm, Sm, Eu, Tb, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu
and combinations thereof and
7
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
wherein RE in the RE2Hf207 is selected from the group
consisting of Sc, Ce, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb,
Lu and combinations thereof.
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.). Nd and Dy are members of the RE2Hf207
group. As the Examiner found, Maloney discloses Nd and Dy. Ans. 2,
citing Maloney Fig. 2. Where a claim element relies on a Markush group
and one member of the Markush group would have been obvious, the claim
element is obvious. Cf. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. BaxterInt7, Inc., 582 F.3d
1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Element (a) is written in Markush form, such
that the entire element is disclosed by the prior art if one alternative in the
Markush group is in the prior art.”).
Claim 1, furthermore, recites the limitation “wherein the rare-earth
oxide-containing compound is comprised of a rare earth zirconate
(RE2Zr2C>7), a rare earth hafiiate (RE2Hf2C>7), or a mixture thereof...”
(emphasis added). Claim 1, therefore, encompasses the presence of a rare
earth hafiiate, either pure or mixed. For the reasons set forth above,
Maloney renders claim 1 obvious because it fairly suggests a rare earth
hafiiate; NdHfiCb and/or DyHfiCb.
Fourth, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would not have provided a reasonable expectation of success because
Maloney teaches that: (i) pyrochlores are complex materials and (ii) the
ionic radii of both the A and B pyrochlore components in A2B2C>7 must be
considered. Appeal Br. 14. Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it
ignores Maloney’s teaching that: (i) based on ionic radii, suitable elements
for A may be Nd or Dy and a suitable element for B may be Zr; and (ii) B
may be any of Zr and/or Hf (which have similar valence 4+ ionic radii)
8
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
and/or Ti. Maloney Fig. 2; 6:27—30. “A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
Claim 22. Appellants argue that “there is no disclosure in Maloney
that suggests that Sc, Ce, Pr, Pm, Eu, Tb, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and/or Lu would
form an A2B2O7 pyrochlore when B is a zirconate.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. As the Examiner found,
“[cjlaim 22 is interpreted to encompass[] rare earth hafhates of [cjlaim 1.”
Ans. 14. For the reasons set forth above, the Examiner’s finding comports
with our construction of the claim.8
Claim 23. Appellants rely on the same arguments that we previously
found unpersuasive in connection with arguments for reversal of claim
group (1) above. They are similarly unpersuasive for the reversal of claim
23.
For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by any of
Appellants’ arguments for reversal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1,
6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 22, and 23. We, therefore, affirm Rejection 1.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 8 as obvious over
the combination of Maloney, as evidenced by Kozak, and Subramanian.
Final Act. 5; Ans. 4.
8 Based upon our review of Appellants’ Briefs, we believe that Appellants
intended to direct claim 22 to a rare-earth oxide-containing compound
comprised of a rare earth zirconate (RE^Z^CE), thereby excluding a rare
earth hafnate (RE2Hf20v) or a mixture thereof. If prosecution of the ’378
Application continues, Appellants should amend the claim to specifically
require the presence of a rare earth zirconate as the rare-earth oxide-
containing compound without the presence of a rare earth hafnate.
9
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
The Examiner found that Maloney, with evidence from Kozak,
suggests every limitation of the coating system recited in claims 5 and 8
except the inclusion of a thermal barrier layer. Ans. 4. The Examiner
further found that Subramanian teaches a gas turbine nickel superalloy
substrate that is coated with, inter alia, a ceramic thermal barrier layer to
confer additional protection. Id., citing Subramanian Abstract; || 22—70.
Appellants argue that the “Subramanian disclosure is limited to the
use of gadolinium (Gd) pyrochlore materials.” Appeal Br. 17. Therefore,
according to Appellants, “Subramanian’s disclosure would direct one skilled
in the art to use gadolinium materials instead of the RE components recited
in Appellants’ [c]laim 1.” Id.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it is not directed to the
Examiner’s rationale for modifying Maloney to incorporate Subramanian’s
thermal barrier layer. Rather, Appellants’ argument is directed to whether it
was improper for the Examiner to combine Subramanian with Maloney
when each reference discloses different rare earth components.
The test for obviousness[, however,] is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants’ argument fails to
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have
been obvious to confer additional thermal protection for the substrate of
Maloney according to the teachings of Subramanian. “A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550
U.S.at421.
10
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument. Thus, we affirm Rejection 2.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 as
obvious over the combination of Maloney, as evidenced by Kozak, and
Appellants’ Admissions. Final Act. 6; Ans. 5.
Appellants argue for reversal of this rejection with respect to two
groups of claims: (5) claims 14, 17, 18, and 20, Appeal Br. 18—21; and (7)9
claim 21, id. at 22—23. We address Appellants’ arguments regarding each
group of claims in turn.
Claims 14, 17, 18, and 20. Appellants rely on the same arguments
that we previously found unpersuasive in connection with arguments for
reversal of Rejection 1 of claims group (1) above. Likewise, Appellants’
arguments for reversal of claims 14, 17, 18, and 20 are similarly
unpersuasive.
Claim 21. Appellants rely on similar arguments that we previously
found unpersuasive in connection with arguments for reversal of Rejection
1 of claims groups (1) and (2) above. For example, Appellants note that
claim 21 depends from independent claim 17 and argue that “there is no
disclosure in Maloney that suggests that Sc, Ce, Pr, Pm, Eu, Tb, Ho, Er, Tm,
Yb, and/or Lu would form an A2B2O7 pyrochlore when B is a zirconate.”
Appeal Br. 22.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. As the Examiner found,
“[cjlaim 21 is interpreted to encompass[] rare earth hafhates of [cjlaim 17.”
9 The Examiner has withdrawn the obviousness rejections to claims group
(6). See n.2, supra.
11
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
Ans. 14. The Examiner’s finding comports with our construction of the
claim, which recites a Markush group including rare earth hafnates, and
mixtures thereof, as members.10
For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by any of
Appellants’ arguments for reversal of the obviousness rejection of claims 14,
17, 18, 20, and 21. We, therefore, affirm Rejection 3.
Rejection 4. The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 9, 11—13, 16, 22, and
23 as obvious over the combination of Spitsberg and Maloney, as evidenced
by Kozak. Final Act. 6; Ans. 6.
According to the Examiner, “Spitsberg teaches and/or renders obvious
hafnia stabilized with lanthanide metal oxide over a range of relative
amounts of hafnia and lanthanide metal oxide, which range includes relative
molar amounts of 33.3 mol. % RE2O3 (and up to 40 mol. %) and 66.6 mol.
% Hf02.” Ans. 10. The Examiner found that “[a]t these relative molar
amounts, the overall composition is therefore RETE^CE.” Id.', see also Ans.
6, citing Spitsberg Abstract; || 1 42.
Based upon these findings, the Examiner concluded that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to prepare the specifically taught stable
compounds of Maloney that are encompassed by the claims since
they are among the suggested compounds of Spitsberg and since
10 For similar reasons set forth above in footnote 8, we believe that
Appellants intended to direct claim 21 to a rare-earth oxide-containing
compound comprised of a rare earth zirconate (RE^Z^CE), while excluding a
rare earth hafhate (RE^E^CE) or a mixture thereof. If prosecution of the
’378 Application continues, Appellants should amend the claim to
specifically require the presence of a rare earth zirconate as the rare-earth
oxide-containing compound without the presence of a rare earth hafnate.
12
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
they are taught as being appropriate for thermal barrier
applications such as present in Spitsberg.
Ans. 7.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that this rejection should be reversed
because the Examiner has not identified a sufficient motivation to combine
Spitsberg and Maloney. Appeal Br. 25—26; Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants
further argue that the Examiner
does not point to any evidence or provide specific technical
reasons why one skilled in the art would be motivated to
combine Maloney with Spitsberg when Spitsberg 1) relates to
chemically distinct Zr and Hf compounds and 2) does not
disclose or suggest any . . . hafnates having the formula
A2B2O7.
Reply Br. 4.
We find the Examiner’s proffered reason for combining Spitsberg
with Maloney to be insufficient for the reasons set forth below.
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must
provide an adequate reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention to have modified the reference or combination of
references to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[I]t
can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.”). In the absence of such an explanation, the
rejection must be reversed. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”); In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within
13
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification
of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not
been explained).
In this case, the Examiner has not adequately explained why a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been
motivated to combine Spitsberg with Maloney in the absence of any
teaching that relative molar amounts of hafnia and lanthanide metal oxide
would result in the claimed RE2HT2O7 compound. As Appellants argue,
“[t]he burden is on the [EJxaminer to cite evidence in the references or
provide [] adequate technical reasoning to support a finding that [Jhafnates
are the same as or suggested by Spitsberg’s stabilized [jhafnia.” Appeal
Br. 24. The Examiner has not met this burden. The Examiner, furthermore,
fails to identify any suggestion that Spitsberg’s relative molar amounts of
hafnia and lanthanide metal oxide would have been capable of forming a
dense, protective byproduct barrier layer beneficial to a thermal barrier
layer. Thus, Appellants persuasively argue that Spitsberg, in combination
with Maloney, fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claims 1—5, 9, 11—13, 16, 22,
and 23.11
11 We express no opinion regarding the persuasiveness of Appellants’
arguments that (i) Spitsberg’s physical barrier layer does not react with
molten salt impurities, Appeal Br. 25, (ii) reaction of Spitsberg’s physical
barrier layer with molten salts would be considered undesirable, id., and
(iii) the Examiner has not provided evidence or technical reasoning in
support of a finding of predictability and/or reasonable expectation of
success. Id. at 26.
14
Appeal 2016-000952
Application 13/053,378
Rejection 5. The Examiner rejected claims 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 as
obvious over the combination of Spitsberg, Maloney (as evidenced by
Kozak), and Appellants’ Admissions. Ans. 5.
The Examiner’s discussion of Appellants’ Admissions does not
provide the reasoning and explanation that was missing from Rejection 4.
Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of claims 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 as
obvious.
DECISION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the obviousness rejections
based upon the combination of Maloney, as evidenced by Kozak, either with
or without: (i) Subramanian or (ii) Appellants’ Admissions.
We reverse the obviousness rejections based upon the combination of
Spitsberg, Maloney (as evidenced by Kozak), either with or without
Appellants’ Admissions.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15