Ex Parte Nagy et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201712900458 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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. 12/900,458 10/07/2010 Akos Nagy HP3-0903 7835 36787 7590 BLYNN L. SHIDELER THE BLK LAW GROUP 3500 BROKKTREE ROAD SUITE 200 WEXFORD, PA 15090 EXAMINER CADUGAN, ERICA E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3722 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2017 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): patents @ BLKLawGroup.com cbelleci @ BLKLawGroup .com blynn @ BLKLawGroup. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AKOS NAGY, PHILIP PLANT, KEVIN WEHNER, and JASON SATTESON Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Akos Nagy et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 2—13 and 17—20. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The Appeal Brief identifies HP3 Software, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellants’ disclosure is directed to “glass processing equipment with . . . a dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter.” Spec. 13. Claim 2, reproduced below from page 24 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief with paragraph structure added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 2. An Insulated Glass (IG) line with a dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter further including a buffer storage unit downstream of the cutter and having i) at least one storage rack defining a plurality of lite storage locations, ii) a storage rack feeding unit configured to place lites into any storage location of each storage rack, and iii) a storage rack unloading unit configured to take lites from any storage location of each storage rack. REJECTIONS Claims 2—13 and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 5—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wirsam (US 7,255,253 B2, issued Aug. 14, 2007). Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wirsam, Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA1”), and Lisec (US 5,685,437, issued Nov. 11, 1997). 2 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 Claims 8, 11—13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wirsam and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA2”). Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA2, Lisec, and AAPA1. ANALYSIS Indefiniteness Rejections The Examiner determines all of the claims to be indefinite for a variety of reasons (Final Act. 5—8), each of which is discussed in turn below. “Dynamic Batch-Less Direct Feed Cutter” The Examiner determines that “a dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter” as recited in claims 2 and 17 is indefinite because “the scope of what is encompassed by this limitation and what is excluded by this limitation is not clear,” as the claims do not specify what is being fed or how such feeding is “direct.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner similarly finds the same language, as well as “dynamic batch-less cutting table” in claim 8, to be indefinite because “it is unclear how or in what regard the cutter/cutting table itself is considered to be ‘dynamic’ or ‘batch-less’ as claimed.” Id. at 5—7; see also Ans. 16—19. Appellants traverse, arguing one of ordinary skill would understand that a “direct feed cutter in the IG line as shown and described is a cutting table integrated into the IG line, as opposed to off-line/separated from the remaining elements of the IG line.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellants further argue that “the [Specification defines that the term ‘[djynamic’ within the 3 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 meaning of this application defines that the schedule can be altered throughout the production run.” Id.', see also Spec. 131. Continuing, Appellants assert that “[t]he dynamic term references the ability of the scheduler to ‘re-optimize’ the schedule following a given set of production, such as after each IGU [(Insulated Glass Unit)] is assembled, whereby the position of an IGU can change in the final production schedule as the scheduler re-schedules.” Appeal Br. 12. Regarding “batch-less,” Appellants assert that the term “is described in the [Specification as referencing a scheduler not limited to consideration of glass workpieces within a single schedule and not limited to that which utilizes a fixed pool of inputs of potential glass work pieces to be scheduled for that batch production run.” Id. at 13. Appellants also argue that “[bjatchless would mean without batches to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Reply Br. 2. A claim is indefinite when it contains language that is “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also In re McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential). The indefmiteness determination is “based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the entire written description and developing prosecution history.” Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Specification contrasts a batch-type insulated glass line, in which production runs are not altered, with a dynamic insulated glass line, in which the insulated glass unit destination for a given glass work piece can change during operation. See 4 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 Spec. H 40-41. The Specification also sets forth that “[t]he dynamic term references the ability of the scheduler to ‘re-optimize’ the schedule following a given set of production . . . whereby the position of an IGU can change in the final production schedule as the scheduler re-schedules.” Id. 141. The Specification explains that allowing the production run to be altered during operation facilitates the generation of replacement pieces for any work pieces that may be broken during the production run. Id. 42— 43. Additionally, the Specification explains that a direct feed cutting table is one that is a component of the cutting line. Id. at || 38—39. Thus, when considering the claim language in view of the Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter and a dynamic batch-less cutting table to be a cutter or cutting table that is a component of the cutting line and has a production schedule that can be altered during use. Because this is the only indefmiteness issue raised by the Examiner in connection with claims 2, 5, 6, and 7, we do not sustain the rejection of those claims as being indefinite. “IGUs” The Examiner determines that claim 8 is indefinite because “the claim has not identified what is meant by the acronym ‘IGUs’.” Final Act. 8. (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue that this term is well-known in the industry. Appeal Br. 14. As the Specification defines “IGU” as insulated glass unit (Spec. 1 6), we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the 5 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 claim language in view of the Specification, would understand the meaning of IGU to be an insulated glass unit. “Unloading Station” The Examiner determines that claims 8 and 17 are indefinite because they recite an unloading station for removing finished IGUs from the IG line and “it is unclear how or in what regard the unloading station removes IGUs from itself.” Final Act. 8. Appellants argue that “the unloading station is clearly part of the IG line and its purpose is for removing finished IGUs from the IG line as will be understood by [one] of ordinary skill in the art.” Appeal Br. 14. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Specification sets forth that the unloading station is located at the end of the IG assembly line and includes storage racks. Spec. 153. Thus, when considering the claim language in view of the Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the unloading station is the terminal part of the IG line at which assembled IGUs are positioned until they are removed from the IG line. Lack of Antecedent Basis The Examiner determines that “[t]here are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner identifies examples of such limitations in claims 3,4, 10, and 19 and notes that “[t]his is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences.” Id. 6 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 Appellants fail to address this rejection. Appeal Br. 10-14. Accordingly, Appellants have waived any argument of error and summary affirmance of the rejection is warranted. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that summary affirmance without consideration of the substantive merits is appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection). However, as the Examiner has only provided reasoning for the rejection of claims 3,4, 10, and 19, it is only the rejection of these claims that we sustain. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (setting forth the requirements for a prima facie rejection). Although we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 10, and 19 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the indefmiteness does not impact our consideration of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. “Intervening Spacer” The Examiner determines that claims 8 and 17 are indefinite because the recitation of an “intervening spacer” is unclear. Final Act. 7—8. Appellants fail to address this rejection. Appeal Br. 10-14. Accordingly, Appellants have waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain this rejection of claims 8 and 17. As claims 9—13 depend from and incorporate the recitations of claim 8, we also sustain the indefmiteness rejection of these claims. As claims 18—20 depend from and incorporate the recitations of claim 17, we also sustain the indefmiteness rejection of these claims. Although we sustain the rejection of claims 8—13 and 17—20 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the indefmiteness 7 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 does not impact our consideration of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Anticipation Rejection Claims 2 and 5 The Examiner finds that Wirsam discloses all of the elements of independent claim 2. Final Act. 8—10. More specifically, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Wirsam discloses a dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter. Id. at 9—10 (citing Wirsam 2:20-42, 3:15—4:12, 5:40-43, 6:25—51, 7:1—28, 9:50, Figs. 1, 3; Spec. 131 (defining “dynamic”)). Appellants traverse, arguing that Wirsam “fails to teach or suggest the claimed dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter, and clearly teaches away from this structure.” Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted). Appellants also argue that Wirsam does not disclose a buffer as claimed. Id. at 17. Initially, we note that a “teaching away” argument is inapplicable to an anticipation rejection. Regarding Appellants’ substantive arguments, Appellants merely quote paragraphs from the background and summary sections of Wirsam and make a conclusory statement that Wirsam does not disclose a dynamic batch-less direct feed cutter or buffer. Id. at 15—17. Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, and, thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments in the absence of factual evidence or technical reasoning apprising us of Examiner error. Furthermore, the portions of Wirsam quoted by Appellants disclose that Wirsam’s production line “react[s] in flexible manner to malfunctions” and 8 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 includes an “interim buffer,” which seems contradictory to Appellants’ assertions. Id. at 17; see also Wirsam 3:13—37. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 and its dependent claim 5, which is not argued separately, as being anticipated by Wirsam. Claim 6 Claim 6 depends indirectly from claim 2 and further requires “a plurality of work piece supply racks adjacent the feeding table.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Wirsam discloses such storage racks. Final Act. 10 (citing Wirsam 5:4—15, Fig. 1). Appellants argue that “[tjhere are no racks within the meaning of the glass processing art shown in [Wirsam] adjacent the deposition table 18.” Appeal Br. 17. “Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Appellants’ arguments are presented in conclusory fashion with no supporting evidence or persuasive technical reasoning, and thus fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 as being anticipated by Wirsam. Claim 7 Claim 7 depends directly from claim 2 and further requires “a dynamic Insulated Glass Unit assembly line scheduler providing production control on the IG line including the cutter.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). 9 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 The Examiner finds that Wirsam discloses such a scheduler. Final Act. 11 (citing Wirsam 7:18—36). Appellants argue that Wirsam “fails to teach or suggest the claimed dynamic Insulated Glass Unit assembly line scheduler as claimed.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellants’ arguments again fail to address the Examiner’s findings as set forth in the rejection and, therefore, fail to apprise us of error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 as being anticipated by Wirsam. Obviousness Rejection Based on Wirsam, AAPA1, andLisec Claim 3 Claim 3 depends directly from claim 2 and further requires “a tempered glass supply adjacent the buffer storage unit feeding conveyor wherein the buffer storage unit can selectively receive tempered glass lites from the tempered glass supply.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Wirsam discloses an insulated glass line substantially as recited in claim 3, including, inter alia, the insertion of special ESG or VSG glass panes into the insulated glass line via interim buffer 80. Final Act. 11. The Examiner notes that Official Notice “that tempered-type toughened safety glass is a well-known and widely-used type of toughened safety glass” was taken in a prior Office Action, and reasons that because Appellants did not traverse the Official Notice, it is taken to be admitted prior art (“AAPA1”). Id. at 12. The Examiner further reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute tempered 10 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 glass in place of Wirsam’s ESG or VSG toughened glass “for the purpose of providing a known type of toughened glass pane that has known beneficial properties” and because “such amounts to the simple substitution of one known element... for another ... to obtain predictable results.” Id. Appellants respond by quoting a portion of the rejection and arguing that there is no “teaching of providing an ADDITIONAL tempered glass supply and providing this adjacent the buffer storage unit feeding conveyor as set forth in the claims. Merely substituting one type of glass with another fails to meet the claim limitation.” Appeal Br. 18—19. Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. Initially, Appellants’ reference to an “additional” tempered glass supply is confusing, as there is no requirement for a glass supply, tempered or otherwise, in parent claim 2. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 L.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Moreover, Appellants’ conclusory arguments fail to address the rejection as set forth by the Examiner and, therefore, fail to apprise us of error. Lor example, the Examiner’s rejection states that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to hold tempered glass panes in Lisec’s harp racks positioned adjacent Wirsam’s interim buffer to “minimize^ damage to the glass panes, and [to] minimize^ the size of the glass supply.” Final Act. 13. Appellants have not persuasively set forth any error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. Appellants also assert that “[t]here is no admitted prior art which remotely suggests a tempered glass supply adjacent the claimed buffer storage unit feeding conveyor wherein the buffer storage unit can selectively 11 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 receive tempered glass lites from the tempered glass supply in the IG line as claimed.” Appeal Br. 20. As the admitted prior art relied upon by the Examiner is simply that “tempered-type toughened safety glass is a well-known and widely-used type of toughened safety glass” (Final Act. 12), Appellants’ argument is unresponsive to the rejection as set forth by the Examiner and, thus, fails persuasively to identify any Examiner error. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA1, and Lisec. Claim 4 Claim 4 depends directly from claim 3 and further requires “the tempered glass supply is formed of a plurality of harp racks, each rack having a plurality of tempered glass lite storage locations.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Wirsam, AAPA1, and Lisec as set forth above regarding the rejection of claim 3, and further finds that “the use of plural harp racks, each rack having a plurality of storage locations, for storing glass panes is well-known” and relies on Lisec to “teach[] the use of a plurality of such harp racks.” Final Act. 12—13 (citing Lisec 3:37-49). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Lisec’s harp racks in Wirsam’s IG line to provide and hold a plurality of the tempered glass panes . . . to be (directly) supplied to the buffer 80, for the purpose of providing such tempered glass panes in a manner that minimizes damage to the glass panes, and that minimizes the size of the glass supply, as explicitly taught by Lisec. Id. at 13 (citing Lisec 1:5—37, 4:3—19). 12 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 Appellants argue that there is no “teaching of using harp racks adjacent the claimed buffer storage unit feeding conveyor as the claimed tempered glass supply.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellants’ conclusory argument fails to address the rejection as set forth by the Examiner, which positions Lisec’s harp racks adjacent Wirsam’s interim buffer to “minimize[] damage to the glass panes, and [to] minimize^ the size of the glass supply.” Final Act. 13. Appellants’ arguments fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA1, and Lisec. Obviousness Rejection Based on Wirsam and AAPA2 Appellants argue claims 8, 11—13, 17, and 18 together. Appeal Br. 20—22. We select claim 8 as representative, treating claims 11—13, 17, and 18 as standing or falling with representative claim 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Independent claim 8 recites: 8. An Insulated Glass (IG) line comprising a) A dynamic batch-less cutting table; b) A breakout table adjacent the cutting table and adapted to receive lites from the cutting table; c) A buffer storage unit downstream of the breakout table and having i) at least one storage rack defining a plurality of lite storage locations, ii) a storage rack feeding unit configured to place lites into any storage location of each storage rack, and iii) a storage rack unloading unit configured to take lites from any storage location of each storage rack; 13 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 d) A buffer storage unit feeding conveyor receiving lites from the breakout table and feeding the lites to the storage rack feeding unit; e) A washer for washing lites downstream of the storage rack unloading unit; f) A spacer applicator for selectively attaching spacers to lites downstream of the washer; g) An assembler for coupling multiple lites with an intervening spacer downstream of the spacer applicator; h) An unloading station for removing finished IGUs from the IG line downstream of the assembler. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.) (with some paragraph structure added). The Examiner finds that Wirsam discloses an insulated glass line as described above regarding the anticipation rejection, and further discloses a breakout table and a buffer storage unit feeding conveyor. Final Act. 13—14. The Examiner further finds that “Wirsam does not explicitly teach a washer, a spacer applicator, an assembler, or an unloading station.” Id. at 14. The Examiner note[s] that [Appellants] admit[] that the portion of the IG line that is downstream from the output conveyor 34 of the buffer station (32+30+34) is known. In particular, note that [Appellants] admit[] in paragraph 0050 that “[T]he output conveyor 34 will feed the appropriate lites in the appropriate order for forming IGUs to a conveyor 40 at the beginning of what is a conventional IG line". Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner reproduces paragraphs 50—53 of the Specification, with emphasis added, and reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute^ the known IG processing line taught by AAPA2, including the washer, the spacer applicator, the assembler, and the unloading station . . ., for the generic further IG processing line taught by Wirsam, noting that such amounts to the simple 14 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 substitution of one known element (i.e., the known IG line from AAPA2) for another (the generic IG line 90 from Wirsam) to obtain predictable results (i.e., predictable results in the form of the manufacture of insulated glass units). Id. at 14—15 (citing Spec. ^fl[ 50-53, Figs. 1—2; Wirsam 7:17, Figs. 1, 3). Appellants traverse, first arguing that “[Wirsam] fails to teach or suggest the claimed dynamic batch-less cutting table.” Appeal Br. 21. (emphasis omitted). This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above regarding the rejection of claim 2. Next, Appellants argue that Wirsam “clearly teaches away from this structure as noted above. [Wirsam] expressly teaches a batched based system and uses sub-plates to accommodate the subsequent lots. [Wirsam] expressly teaches away from the present claimed invention.” Id. Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. A reference teaches away from a claimed invention or a proposed modification if “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants’ conclusory argument fails to set forth any such discouragement, and, thus, fails to apprise us of error. 15 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 Finally, Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s interpretation of admitted prior art, arguing that “[t]he elements of the disclosed IG line operate in a conventional fashion, but that does not make the combination of these elements in the claimed arrangement admitted prior art.” Appeal Br. 21. Continuing, Appellants “admit that washers in the art are known in the abstract, spacer applicators in the art are known, as are assemblers” and that “[tjhese elements will form an IGU in a conventional fashion and in that sense form a conventional IG line.” Id. at 21—22. However, Appellants argue, “the IG line as shown and claimed is not an admitted prior art IG line.” Id. at 22. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As correctly noted by the Examiner, paragraph 50 of the Specification discloses that once the lites are removed from the buffer storage rack and placed on conveyor 40, the lites are fed in the appropriate order for forming IGUs into a “conventional IG line.” Paragraphs 51—53 go on to describe the aspects of such a known IG line, describing each of elements e) through h) of claim 8. We further note that the Background of the Invention section of the Specification also describes these claim elements as being conventional. See Spec. H26—29. Moreover, although Appellants argue that the “the IG line as shown and claimed” is somehow different (Appeal Br. 21—22), Appellants do not provide any explanation for their conclusory argument, and thus fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. For example, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s expressed reasoning setting forth why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to employ what Appellants’ Specification describes as a conventional IP line for the “extant 16 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 further processing 90” downstream of Wirsam’s interim buffer 80. See Wirsam 7:4—7; see also Final Act. 15. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 8, 11—13, 17, and 18 as being unpatentable over Wirsam and AAPA2 Obviousness Rejection Based on Wirsam, AAPA2, Lisec, and AAPA1 Appellants argue claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 together. Appeal Br. 22—23 We select claim 9 as representative, treating claims 10, 19, and 20 as standing or falling with representative claim 9. Claim 9 depends directly from claim 8 and further requires “a tempered glass supply adjacent the buffer storage unit feeding conveyor wherein the buffer storage unit can selectively receive tempered glass lites from the tempered glass supply.” Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Wirsam and AAPA2 disclose the insulated glass line as described above regarding the rejection of claim 8. Final Act. 16. The Examiner relies on AAPA1 and Lisec as described above regarding the rejection of claims 3 and 4. Id. at 17—18. Appellants traverse, first making arguments similar to those advanced with respect to the rejections of claims 3 and 8. Appeal Br. 22. These arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above. Appellants also argue that “[t]he suggestion that the stated combination is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art is ludicrous when these teachings are considered as a whole.” Id. Continuing, Appellants assert that “[t]he [Ejxaminer is merely pointing out existing bits and pieces in the prior art, and when that cannot even be found is merely suggesting 17 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 such teachings are known, and reconstructing the prior art based upon the use of the claims as a blueprint for hindsight reconstruction.” Id. at 22—23. Appellants’ inflammatory language is conclusory and unresponsive to the rejection as set forth by the Examiner. Appellants continue to make broad, general allegations without specifically identifying error or providing supporting evidence or persuasive technical reasoning. To the extent that Appellants argue the Examiner improperly used hindsight, the argument is of no import where, as here, the Examiner provides a rationale for the modifications that we determine is supported adequately by sufficient facts. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA2, Lisec, and AAPA1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2—13 and 17—20 as being indefinite is affirmed as to claims 3, 4, 8—13, and 17—20, and reversed as to claims 2 and 5—7. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2 and 5—7 as being anticipated by Wirsam is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3 and 4 as being unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA1, and Lisec is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8, 11—13, 17, and 18 as being unpatentable over Wirsam and AAPA2 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable over Wirsam, AAPA2, Lisec, and AAPA1 is affirmed. 18 Appeal 2016-001838 Application 12/900,458 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 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation