Ex Parte Nakaya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2013

11286381 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2013)

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.
11/286,381 11/23/2005 Tomomi Nakaya S011-5661 1090
40627 7590 08/22/2013
ADAMS & WILKS
17 BATTERY PLACE
SUITE 1343
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
HELVEY, PETER N.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3782
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2013 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 TOMOMI NAKAYA and HIROAKI UCHITANI
____________________

Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JILL D. HILL, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejections of claims
1-13 and 16-18.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a suspender for a brushcutter. Claims 1, 10
and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A suspender for a brushcutter, the suspender comprising:
a shoulder belt;
a support member having a plate part attached to the
shoulder belt and a retaining part formed on the plate part so as
to project forward, the retaining part having an upper
projection, a lower projection folded at a bent part so as to
confront one another, an insertion hole formed in the upper
projection in the proximity of the bent part, and a cutaway
formed to extend from the bent part toward the insertion hole;
a hook member that is removably hooked upon the
retaining part of the support member, the hook member having
a hook part and an elastic piece removably connected to the
hook part; and
an insertable/removable stopper member that is insertable
through the insertion hole and the cutaway of the retaining part
of the support member to keep the hook member hooked upon
the retaining part;
wherein the elastic piece of the hook member is
positioned relative to the hook part of the hook member so that
when the stopper member is inserted through the insertion hole
and the cutaway of the retaining part of the support member, the

1 In an After Final Amendment dated May 17, 2010 Appellants proposed
canceling claims 14, 15, 19, and 20. The Amendment was entered for
purposes of appeal as indicated in the Advisory Action dated July 8, 2010.
Therefore cancelled claims 14, 15, 19, and 20 are not before us on appeal.
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
3
elastic piece confronts a lower end part of the stopper member
for making an opening of the hook part open/closable, and
when the stopper member is pushed downward from a retaining
position in which the stopper member keeps the hook member
upon the retaining part to an opening position in which the hook
part is open, the elastic piece is elastically deformed by the
lower end part of the stopper member and the opening of the
hook part opens.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Falstrault
Soule
Lorincz
Zien
Imachi
US 1,466,615
US 1,875,274
US 6,364,260 B1
US 7,201,355 B1
JP 53000936A
Aug. 28, 1923
Aug. 30, 1932
Apr. 2, 2002
Apr. 10, 2007
Jan. 7, 1978

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections: 2
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Imachi, Zien, and Falstrault. Ans. 4.
Claim 2-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Imachi, Zien, Falstrault, and Soule. Ans. 7.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Imachi, Zien, Falstrault, and Lorincz. Ans. 9.
Claims 10, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Imachi and Falstrault. Ans. 9.

2 We note that canceled claims 14 and 15 were erroneously listed in the
Grounds of Rejection. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
4
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Imachi, Falstrault, and Soule. Ans. 11.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Imachi, Falstrault, and Zien. Ans. 12.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Imachi, Falstrault, and Soule. Ans. 13.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 9: Imachi, Zien, Falstrault
Appellants argue claims 1 and 9 together. App. Br. 13-21. We select
independent claim 1 as representative (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011)).
The Examiner finds that Imachi discloses a suspender for a brush
cutter having:
a shoulder belt (5); a support member having a plate part (7)
attached to the shoulder belt and a retaining part (8) formed on
the plate part so as to project forward, the retaining part having
an upper projection (8), an insertion hole formed in the upper
projection; a hook member (3) that is removably hooked upon
the retaining part of the support member; and an
insertable/removable stopper (10) that is insertable through the
insertion hole of the retaining part of the support member to
keep the hook member hooked upon the retaining part.
Ans. 4, citing Imachi, figs. 1-6.
Admitting that Imachi does not disclose that the retaining part
includes a horizontal support that forms a retaining part having an upper
projection (26) with an insertion hole (36) and a lower projection folded at a
bent part, and a cutaway extending from the bent part toward the insertion
hole, and the retaining part serves as a stopper for retaining an article on the
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
5
retaining part, the Examiner relies on Zien to disclose these features. Ans. 4,
citing Zien, fig. 2. The Examiner reasons since Imachi and Zien each teach
forwardly projecting retaining members using a stopper to retain an article
on the retaining part, it would have been obvious “to substitute the folded
projection taught by Zien for the single layer projection taught by Imachi to
achieve the predictable result of supporting an article suspended on the
horizontal retaining part.” Ans. 5. Further, the Examiner relies on Falstrault
to disclose a hook having a hook part and an elastic piece removably
connected to the hook part, reasoning it would have been obvious “to
substitute the clip taught by Falstrault for the clip taught by Imachi to
achieve the predictable result of attaching the brushcutter to the support.”
Ans. 5, citing Falstrault, figs. 1-5. Additionally, the Examiner finds the
following recitation from claim 1:
wherein the elastic piece of the hook member is positioned
relative to the hook part of the hook member so that when the
stopper member is inserted through the insertion hole and the
cutaway of the retaining part of the support member, the elastic
piece confronts a lower end part of the stopper member for
making an opening of the hook part open/closable, and when
the stopper member is pushed downward from a retaining
position in which the stopper member keeps the hook member
upon the retaining part to an opening position in which the hook
part is open, the elastic piece is elastically deformed by the
lower end part of the stopper member and the opening of the
hook part opens
(Ans. 5-6) to be a functional limitation directed to an intended use of the
device, and attributes minimal patentable weight to this limitation.
Likewise, the Examiner finds the recitation “for making an opening of the
hook part open/closable” discloses an intended use. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
6
Appellants present several arguments alleging Examiner error,
including that Imachi does not disclose that the support member includes “a
cutaway formed to extend from the bent part toward the insertion hole,” or a
stopper member insertable through the cutaway of the retaining part to keep
the hook member hooked on the retaining part. App. Br. 14-15. Appellants’
arguments are not persuasive since the Examiner’s findings acknowledge
that Imachi does not disclose the structure of a cutaway formed to extend
from the base part, and relies on Zien for this disclosure. The Examiner
correctly points out that Imachi and Zien each teach the use of a stopper to
retain an article on the retaining part. Ans. 4-5
Appellants also argue that while Zien discloses a retaining part with
an upper projection having an insertion hole and a lower projection folded at
a bent part, Appellants contend that the cutaway formed at the intersection
between the lower projection and bent part does not extend from the bent
part toward the insertion hole. App. Br. 15-16. The Examiner’s annotation
of Figure 3 of Zien clearly demonstrates how the cutaway part (lower
unnumbered hole at arrow) extends from the bent part toward the insertion
hole 36 to meet the limitation of claim 1. Appellants do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s finding that Zien discloses the feature of the cutaway
part extending from the bent part to the insertion hole.
Appellants contend Zien does not teach the limitation that the stopper
member is insertable through both the insertion hole and the cutaway of the
retaining part, since the stopper member (i.e., pin 40) of Zien only extends
through the insertion hole of the retaining part. App. Br. 16. In response,
the Examiner concedes that Zien does not teach a stopper member insertable
through both the insertion hole and the cutaway of the retaining part, and
notes that Zien was only relied on to disclose the folded retaining part since
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
7
Imachi discloses the stopper function. Ans. 15-16. The Examiner’s
annotation of Figure 3 of Imachi demonstrates that the stopper has sufficient
length to be reasonably capable of being inserted through the additional
projection layer formed by the combination of Imachi and Zien. Id. at 16.
Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
position.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s modification
of the support member of Imachi using the folded retaining part of Zien is in
error. Reply Br. 3. First, Appellants contend that the support bracket of
Zien for a bucket provides a different support function than the suspender of
Imachi and claim 1. Id. at 4. Appellants also point out that the pin of Zien
does not extend through the cutaway portion. Id. at 5. As the Examiner
indicated, Zien was only relied on for the disclosure of the folded projection.
Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or
articulated reason to substitute the folded projection of Zien for the single
layer projection of Imachi to achieve the predictable result of supporting an
article suspended on the horizontal retaining part.
Next, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s modification of the
support member of Imachi using the folded projection of Zien is in error, on
the theory that the prior art teaches away from the proposed combination
since Zien does not have a stopper member that extends through a retaining
part on which a hook member is hooked. Reply Br. 5-6. This argument
does not apprise us of error as the Examiner relies on Imachi and not Zien
for the disclosure of a stopper and Appellants do not identify any teaching
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
8
within Zien that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages use of the
folded projection in another retaining part.3
Appellants also argue that Falstrault does not teach “the specific
structure of the retaining part of the support member and of the stopper
member and corresponding structural relationship as set forth above.” App.
Br. 17. However, this argument is not persuasive since the Examiner only
relies on the disclosure of Falstrault concerning the hook and Appellants do
not explicitly point out or explain why the Examiner’s explicit fact finding
regarding the hook of Falstrault is in error.
Further, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s position that the support
member structure of Imachi as modified by the retaining part structure of
Zien and hook of Falstrault would be “capable of” performing the functional
recitation of the claim 1 is in error, and that the functional recitation of claim
1 should be accorded patentable weight. As Appellants explain, the
Examiner has not provided any evidence as to why the recited functional
limitations are inherent characteristics of the references. App. Br. 18-20.
Reply Br. 8-9. Appellants contend that references do not express any ability
to perform the specific functions of claim 1, and the Examiner has failed to
establish how the elastic piece of the hook member in Imachi, as modified
by the retaining part of Zien and hook of Falstrault, would function as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 19-20. Further, Appellants contend that since
the suspender of Imachi as modified by Zien and Falstrault does not teach
the resulting structural and positional relationships, such suspender does not
inherently function as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 9.

3 See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
9
In response, the Examiner points out that the length of the stopper 10
and orientation would be sufficient for the stopper to open the hook piece,
and modifying Imachi by Zien or Falstrault does not change this
functionality. Ans. 17. The Examiner further explains that the combination
of Imachi, Zien, and Falstrault is capable of performing the functional
recitations of the claims, since Appellants’ Specification discloses that the
downward slope of the projection positively forces the positioning of the
hook, similar to the relationship between the link of the hook and the
projection disclosed by Imachi. Ans. 17, citing Spec., fig. 7; Imachi, figs. 2,
3.
Notwithstanding the Appellants’ assertion of error, the Examiner does
provide a technical explanation illustrating how the stopper, hook member
and retaining part of the proposed combination of Imachi, Zien, and
Falstrault interact to meet the functional claim limitation recited in claim 1.
Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in
terms of structure rather than function.4 As correctly noted and illustrated
by the Examiner, the proposed combination of Imachi, Zien, and Falstrault
reads on the structural limitations of claim 1 as claimed and is thus
presumably capable of functioning as claimed, and there is nothing offered
by Appellants that would suggest that the stopper, hook member, and
retaining part of the proposed combination of Imachi, Zien, and Falstrault
could not function as claimed.5

4 See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also see, In
re Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948) (“the patentability of
apparatus claims must be shown in the structure claimed and not merely
upon a use, function, or result thereof”).
5 “[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of the
applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
10
Finally, Appellants argue that the references “lack any motivation to
modify and/or combine their teachings” to arrive at the claimed suspender,
and Examiner used hindsight in arriving at the proposed rejection. App. Br.
21; Reply Br. 5-6. The Examiner reasonably responds that the substitution
of equivalent parts would be obvious “due to the predictability of the results
as well as the well-known practices in hook/clasp manufacturing of
swapping differently shaped components as needed or desired.” Ans. 18.
Appellants’ assertion of error does not explain why the Examiner’s
articulated reasons to combine the references are ineffective to support the
conclusion of obviousness with respect to claims 1 and 24 as discussed
supra. Ans. 8. Because the Examiner’s reasoning includes rational
underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner’s modification was arrived at using hindsight.6
As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 9.

Claim 2-5, 7, and 8: Imachi, Zien, Falstrault, and Soule
Appellants argue dependent claims 2, 3, and 7 as a group and
separately argue claims 4, 5, and 8. App. Br. 22-28. We select claim 2 as
representative of claims 3 and 7.

showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(citing In re King, 801, F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and In re Ludtke,
441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971)).
6 “Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction
based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only
from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1313-14 (CCPA 1971).
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
11
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further includes the limitation that
the elastic piece has a downwardly sloping upper arm part having a steeper
slope than a downwardly sloping lower end part, and the upper end part is
deformed by the stopper member. The Examiner relies on Soule to disclose
a downwardly sloping upper arm having a steeper slope than the
downwardly sloping lower arm part, and reasons that it would be
an obvious matter of design choice to make the different
portions of the elastic piece taught by Falstrault the same shape
as the elastic piece taught by Soule. A change in form or shape
is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary
skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re
Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Ans. 7.
Appellants argue that Soule does not teach the specific structure and
function of the upper arm part and lower arm part recited in claim 2. The
Examiner’s annotation of Figure 2 of Soule clearly illustrates an upper arm
having a steeper downward slope than a lower arm as set forth in claim 1.
Appellants do not identify any error in the Examiner’s finding that Soule
discloses the structure and function of the upper arm part and lower arm part
as recited in claim 2, nor do Appellants’ arguments apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
We sustain the rejection of claim 2 and claims 3 and 7.

Claim 4
Appellants argue that claim 4, which depends from claim 3, is
separately patentable. The Examiner finds that Imachi as modified by Zien,
Falstrault, and Soule further discloses:
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
12
the hook member has a link (Falstrault; 13) that is integrally
connected to a base end portion (Falstrault; left end of 16 at
28) of the hook part and that is removably hooked upon the
retaining part of the support member (see Imachi + claim 1
rejection above) , and a cover (18) having a folded portion that
is removably hooked on the link and a pair of projections
extending from opposite sides of the folded portion; and
wherein the base end part of the elastic piece is removably hung
on an upper end part of the cover and the projections of the
cover are folded so that the fixing part of the elastic piece is
interposed between the folded portion and projections of the
cover (Falstrault; Figs. 1-5).
Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner “has not clearly identified the
specific structure and corresponding relationships” in the cited references
corresponding to the limitations in claim 4. App. Br. 25. Specifically,
Appellants state it is unclear how the cited references teach that “the base
end part of the elastic piece being removably hung on an upper end part of
the cover and the projections of the cover being folded so that the fixing part
of the elastic piece is interposed between the folded portion and projections
of the cover.” App. Br. 25-26. Appellants also contend that the Examiner
has not specified a reason for combining the references. Id. at 25.
In response, the Examiner points to Figures 3 and 5 of Falstrault to
show the “base end of the elastic piece being removably hung on an upper
end of the cover (at arrow) as well as the projections of the cover being
folded so that the fixing part (23) is interposed therebetween.” Ans. 20. The
Examiner maintains that the simple substitutions of equivalent parts would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “due to the
predictability of the results as well as the well-known practices in hook/clasp
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
13
manufacturing of swapping differently shaped components as needed or
desired.” Ans. 20-21.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive to apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings with regards to the teachings of Falstrault. Nor do these
arguments persuade us of error in the Examiner’s articulated reasons for
combining teachings of these references as set forth in the Answer.7
We sustain the rejection of claim 4.

Claim 5
Appellants also argue that claim 5, which depends from claim 4, is
separately patentable. The Examiner finds that Imachi as modified by Zien,
Falstrault, and Soule further discloses:
the base end portion of the hook part is fixed to a lower middle
part of the link; and wherein the folded portion of the cover is
hooked on the lower middle part of the link so that the lower
middle part of the link and the base end part of the hook part are
covered by the cover (Falstrault; Figs. 1-5).
Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner does not specifically identify the
structure in Falstrault corresponding to the features recited in claim 5 and
that the Examiner has not specified a reason for combining the references.
App. Br. 26. The Examiner points to the figures of Falstrault to show “that
the cover is positioned above the base end portion and ‘a lower middle part’
of the link where ‘a part’ and ‘a portion’ can be areas or portions sized as
desired.” Ans. 21. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive to apprise us of

7 See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 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).
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
14
error in the Examiner’s findings with regards to the teachings of Falstrault.
Nor do these arguments persuade us of error in the Examiner’s articulated
reasons for combining teachings of these references as set forth in the
Answer.
We sustain the rejection of claim 5.

Claim 8
Appellants also argue claim 8, which depends from claim 7, is
separately patentable. The Examiner finds that Imachi as modified by Zien,
Falstrault, and Soule discloses all limitations of claim 8 except for the upper
arm slope range. Ans. 8. The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
to make the slope of the upper arm part in the range of 15 to 25
degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions
of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the
optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the
art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Id. at 7.
Appellants contend that the range of slant angles specified in claim 8
contributes to the effectiveness of the invention and this limitation should be
accorded patentable weight since the prior art does not teach this range. The
Examiner reasonably responds that selecting or varying the angle of the
elastic piece of a hook member as needed for a specific application is known
in the clasp/hook art, and Appellants’ invention and each of the cited
references all have hook members where the angle of the elastic piece varies
as it is opened. Ans. 22. As the Examiner also notes, the claim does not
recite the parameters which the angle is measured from. Id.
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
15
On this record, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive to show that
the range cited in claim 8 is critical or achieves an unexpected result relative
to the prior art range.8 Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 8.

Claim 6: Imachi, Zien, Falstrault, and Lorincz
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and includes the further limitation that
the upper and lower projections of the retaining part are parallel and in
spaced-apart relation to one another. The Examiner finds that the support
member of Imachi as modified by the retaining part of Zien and hook of
Falstrault discloses all of the limitations of claim 6 except that the upper and
lower projections of the retaining part are “disposed in parallel” and reasons
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice “to make the different
portions of the retaining part parallel to each other as taught by Lorincz since
a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level
of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re
Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.” Ans. 7.
Appellants admit that Lorincz discloses that the upper and lower
projections are parallel, but argue that there is no motivation to modify the
cited references since Lorincz does not teach that the retaining part has an
insertion hole formed in the upper projection and cutaway for receiving a
stopper that provides a retaining function as recited in claim 1. The
Examiner points out that the parallel arrangement of the Lorincz projections
does not eliminate the need for the stopper, and that the concept of making
the projections parallel is well known in the art despite the different
retention operations of the references. Ans. 22-23. Appellants’ argument is
not persuasive since the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of

8 See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
16
Imachi, Zien, Falstrault, and Lorincz is expressly articulated and Appellants
do not apprise us of error in this articulation. We sustain the rejection of
claim 6.

Claims 10, 11, and 17: Imachi and Falstrault
Appellants argue claims 10 and 17 as a group and separately argue
claim 11. We select claim 10 as representative and claims 11 and 17 stand
or fall with claim 10. Claim 11 is addressed separately.
The Examiner finds that Imachi discloses the limitations of claim 10
except for a hook structure having a cover and elastic piece, and relies on
Falstrault to disclose this feature. Ans. 9-10. The Examiner reasons that
Imachi and Falstrault both teach clips capable of suspending an article from
another structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art “to substitute the clip taught by Falstrault for the clip taught by Imachi to
achieve the predictable result of attaching the brushcutter to the support.”
Id. at 10.
Appellants recite the claim elements of claim 10 and the differences
between claims 1 and 10, but do not provide a separate argument in
addressing the rejection of claim 10. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) requires
more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art.9
For the reasons provided supra with respect to claim 1, we likewise
sustain the rejection of claim 10 and claims 11 and 17.

9 See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
17
Claim 11
Although Appellants argue claim 11, which depends from claim 10,
separately, Appellants’ argument only refers to the arguments made with
respect to the rejection of claim 4. For the reasons discussed supra with
respect to claim 4, we likewise sustain the rejection of claim 11.

Claims 12 and 13: Imachi, Falstrault, and Soule
Appellants’ separate arguments in addressing the rejections of claims
12 and 13, each of which depends from claim 10, only refers to arguments
made with respect to the rejections of claim 7 and 8 respectively. For the
reasons provided supra for claims 7 and 8 respectively, we likewise sustain
the rejection of claims 12 and 13.
Claim 16: Imachi, Falstrault, and Zien
Claims 16 depends from claim 10, and Appellants’ argument refers to
arguments made with respect to claim 1. For the reasons provided supra
with respect to claim 10, we likewise sustain the rejection of claim 16.

Claim 18: Imachi, Falstrault, and Soule
Appellants do not provide a separate argument in addressing the
rejection of independent claim 18, and refers to arguments made with
respect to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 12. For the reasons provided supra with
respect to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 12, we likewise sustain the rejection of claim
18.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-13 and
16-18 are AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2011-009231
Application 11/286,381
18
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh