Ex Parte Siomina

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 25, 2019

14062524 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/062,524 10/24/2013
102721 7590 04/29/2019
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Iana Siomina
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1009-0437 I P39017 US2 7364
EXAMINER
MADAN!, FARIDEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2019 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IANA SIOMINA
Appeal 2018-006270 1
Application 14/062,524
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-17, 23-41, 4 7, and 48, all of the pending claims. App.
1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
July 10, 2017) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 30, 2018); the Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed February 7, 2017) and the Advisory
Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed April 14, 2017); the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.," mailed March 30, 2018); and the originally-filed Specification
("Spec.," filed October 24, 2013). Rather than repeat the Examiner's
findings and determinations and Appellant's contentions in their entirety, we
refer to these documents.
2 Appellant asserts Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the real party-in-
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
Br. 2. Claims 18-22 and 42-46 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's recited nodes and methods relate "generally to wireless
communication networks and in particular to networks and devices
performing positioning of devices based on measurements of radio
transmissions." Spec. ,-J2. Figure 3C of the Specification is reproduced
below.
.FIG. 3C
Figure 3C depicts a measuring node ( e.g., a Location Measurement Unit
(LMU)), which shares antennas with multiple radio base stations (eNodeBs)
and is connected to some radio base stations via a gateway. Id. ,-i 76; see id.
,-J 9. The Specification states that a network node may be "a radio base
station, relay, mobile relay, etc." and that the component carriers may or
may not be co-located with the network node.3 Id. ,-i 35.
3 During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). The term "node' is not
2
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
As noted above, claims 1-1 7, 23-41, 4 7, and 48 are pending. Claims
1, 15, 23, 25, 39, and 47 are independent. App. Br. 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29-30
(Claims App.). Claims 2-14 depend directly from claim 1, claims 16 and 17
depend directly from claim 15; claim 24 depends directly from claim 23;
claims 26-38 depend directly from claim 25; claims 40 and 41 depend
directly from claim 39; and claim 48 depends directly from claim 48. Id. at
20-34.
Claims 1 and 23, reproduced below, are illustrative.
1. A method in a network node for controlling measurements of
radio signals transmitted by a wireless device, wherein the
measurements are performed by a measuring node associated
with two or more receiving points, comprising:
obtaining a receiving point configuration for at least one
measuring node associated with two or more receiving points,
wherein the receiving point configuration comprises one or more
of: identifiers of at least two of the two or more receiving points,
and configuration parameters for the at least two receiving
points;
selecting one or more receiving points for performing
measurements, based on the obtained configuration; and
configuring the selected receiving points for performing
the measurements.
23. A method, in a first network node, the method comprising:
defined expressly in the Specification (see, e.g., Spec. ,i,i 10, 11, 14), but we
determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have understood the term "node" broadly to include "[a]
junction of some type" or "[i]n networking, a device, such as a client
computer, a server, or a shared printer, that is connected to the network and
is capable of communicating with other network devices." MICROSOFT
COMPUTER DICTIONARY 366 (5th ed. 2002). We find this interpretation to be
consistent with the use of the term "node" in the Specification, as well as in
the art applied by the Examiner.
3
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
obtaining measurements for two or more receiving points
associated with one or more measuring nodes, wherein at least
one of the measuring nodes is associated with two or more of
the receiving points;
assigning measurement identifiers to the measurements,
based on a rule relating measurements and receiving points,
wherein each measurement identifier corresponds to one or
more receiving points; and
forwarding the measurements and the corresponding
measurement identifiers to a second network node.
Id. at 20, 24.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name Number Issued/Published Filed
Issakov4 US 2013/0163440 Al Jun.27,2013 Dec. 27, 2011
Zhang US 2013/0040664 Al Feb. 14,2013 Aug. 1, 2012
De Nicolas US 2011/0249625 A 1 Oct. 13, 2011 Jun. 9, 2011
Siomina5 US 2011/0207477 Al Aug. 25, 2011 Feb. 7,2011
Schedelbeck US 2008/0220725 Al Sep. 11, 2008 Sep.24,2007
Dobrowski US2007/0161371 Al Jul. 12, 2007 Jan. 11, 2007
Kennedy US 7,162,252 B2 Jan. 9,2007 Dec. 19, 2003
Moriwaki US 2006/0202834 Al Sep. 14,2006 Aug. 26, 2005
The Examiner rejects the pending claims on the following grounds.
(1) Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 15-17, 25-27, 29-31, 33, 35, and 39-
41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Siomina and Schedelbeck. App. Br. 9.
4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
5 Siomina also is Appellant.
4
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
(2) Claims 1 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Kennedy and Schedelbeck.
Id.
(3) Claims 4 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Siomina, Schedelbeck, and
Zhang. Id.
(4) Claims 8, 10, 13, 32, 34, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Siomina,
Schedelbeck, and Issakov. Id.
(5) Claims 12 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Siomina, Schedelbeck, and
Dobrowski. Id.
(6) Claims 14 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Siomina, Schedelbeck, and
Martin. Id.
(7) Claims 23 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Schedelbeck and
Moriwaki. Id.
(8) Claims 24 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Schedelbeck, Moriwaki,
and Issakov. Id.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Unless
otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer as our
own and add any additional findings of fact appearing below for emphasis.
We address the rejections below.
5
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
ANALYSIS
Obviousness
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
1. Independent Claims 1, 15, 25, and 39
a. Siomina and Schedelbeck
The Examiner determines that independent claims 1, 15, 25, and 39
are rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Siomina and
Schedelbeck. Final Act. 7-14, 18-21; see Ans. 2-7. In particular, focusing
on the rejection of independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Siomina
teaches "a method in a network node for controlling measurements of radio
signals transmitted by a wireless device, wherein the measurements are
performed by a measuring node associated with two or more receiving
points." Final Act. 7 ( citing Siomina ,i 167). Specifically, the Examiner
finds that Siomina's third network node, i.e., positioning node 130 or a
"measuring node," may comprises a plurality of receivers for measuring
Reference Signal Time Differences (RSTD) (Siomina ,i,i 107, 108, 167) and
that such a third network node may be included in module 800 (id. ,i,i 240,
262, 264), i.e., a network node. Final Act. 7; Ans. 2-3. Further, Siomina's
third network nodes may comprise LMUs. Siomina ,i 167; cf Spec. ,i,i 75-
76, Fig. 3C (reproduced above). Finally, the Examiner finds that Siomina
teaches that "obtaining a receiving point configuration." Final Act. 8 ( citing
6
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
Siomina ,i 264 ("The module 800 may also optionally comprise, e.g., a
receiver 810. The receiver 810 may be configured to obtain a geographical
position of a first network node 110, e.g., from a GPS receiver." ( emphasis
added)).
The Examiner acknowledges Siomina does not teach expressly
obtaining a receiving point configuration "for at least one measuring node
associated with two or more receiving points, wherein the receiving point
configuration comprises one or more of: identifiers of at least two of the two
or more receiving points, and configuration parameters for the at least two
receiving points" or the steps of "selecting one or more receiving points for
performing measurements, based on the obtained configuration" or
"configuring the selected receiving points for performing the
measurements." Final Act. 8; see App. Br. 20 (Claims App.). Nevertheless,
the Examiner finds that Schedelbeck teaches or suggests these limitations
and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
combine the teachings of Schedelbeck with those of Siomina to achieve the
method recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8-9.
Initially, we note that the Examiner finds that Schedelbeck also
teaches obtaining a receiving point configurationfor at least one measuring
node. Final Act. 8 ( citing Schedelbeck, ,i 28, Fig. I); see Ans. 5-6. After
reviewing the cited portions of Schedelbeck, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner has shown that Schedelbeck teaches or suggests an
"evaluation/measuring circuit." Final Act. 8 ( emphasis added); Ans. 6. The
cited portions of Schedelbeck merely disclose evaluation circuit 39.
Schedelbeck ,i,i 28-31, Fig. 2. We find no mention of a "measuring circuit";
in fact, we find no express mention of measuring in Schedelbeck. See App.
7
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
Br. 18 ("Schedelbeck does not disclose or suggest obtaining measurements
for two or more receiving points associated with measuring nodes, where at
least one of the measuring nodes is associated with two or more of the
receiving points associated with two or more receiving points."); see also
Reply Br. 9 (With respect to claim 23, Appellant contends that
Schedelbeck's paragraph 30 "does not touch on how evaluation circuit 39
obtains measurements for two or more receiving points."). Nevertheless, as
noted above, the Examiner finds that Siomina teaches making such
measurements. Final Act. 7 ( citing Siomina ,-J,-Jl 07, 108); see Ans. 5
("Examiner respectfully directs the Appellant to primary reference
(Siomina) which was used in the Final Office Action, for example, the third
network node/positioning node 130 controls measurements of radio signal
from terminals made by LMUs [0164] and [0264]."). We find the
Examiner's reliance on Siomina sufficient to teach this limitation within the
combined teachings of Siomina and Schedelbeck.
The Examiner further relies on Schedelbeck to teach or suggest that a
measuring node, such as Siomina's positioning node 130, may be associated
with two or more receiving points, such as Schedelbeck's transceivers 31
and 36. Final Act. 8 ( citing Schedelbeck ,-J28, Fig. 2). Further, the Examiner
finds that Schedelbeck teaches or suggests that the obtained receiving point
configuration may include at least configuration parameters for the at least
two receiving points. Id. ( citing Schedelbeck ,-J 28 ( configuration parameters
received by transceiver 31 are transmitted to transceiver 36 via
reconfiguration request signal 41) ). As Schedelbeck explains, the
configuration parameters contained in reconfiguration request signal 41 are
evaluated in evaluation circuit 39 of transceiver 36. Schedelbeck ,-J,-J 28, 29.
8
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
Based on a result of the evaluation, the evaluation circuit
39 generates a reconfiguration response signal 42 and outputs the
reconfiguration response signal 42 via the communications
interface 37 to the first transceiver 31. For example, when the
evaluation circuit 39 determines that the second transceiver 36
cannot accommodate the new configuration parameters or the
new bounds on configuration parameters, the evaluation circuit
39 generates a reconfiguration response signal 42 to indicate
failure of the second transceiver 3 6 to accommodate the new
configuration. When the evaluation circuit 39 determines that
the second transceiver 3 6 is capable of accommodating the new
configuration, it generates a reconfiguration response signal 42
which indicates that the new configuration can be
accommodated.
Id. ,i 30 ( emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner concludes that the evaluation
circuit 39 selects configuration parameters for transceivers or receiving
points, and, consequently, evaluation circuit 39 selects the receiving points
"based on configuration parameters," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6; see
Schedelbeck ,i 25 ("As used herein, the term 'configuration parameter' refers
to any parameter which defines general boundary conditions on an operation
of a data transmission system and transmitted signals." ( emphasis added)).
Finally, the Examiner finds that Schedelbeck teaches or suggest the
step of "configuring the selected receiving points for performing the
measurements. Final Act. 8-9 ( citing Schedelbeck ,i,i 30, 31 ). Thus, the
Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to incorporate a method in a
network node for estimation (as disclosed by Siomina) to a
method/mechanism of configuring or reconfiguring parameters
to improve data transmission quality (Schedelbeck, [ii 22]).
Id. at 9.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in the rejection of
9
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
independent claims 1 and 25 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Siomina and Schedelbeck for at least three reasons. App.
Br. 10-15. For the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred.
First, Appellant contends that the Examiner fails to identify where
Siomina teaches a "network node." App. Br. 11. In particular, Appellant
notes that:
The Final Office Action refers to a "positioning node 130/third
node" in Siomina and states that the "third node receives radio
signals from terminals" and that measurements are performed by
a measuring node, or LMU. The Final Office Action then states
that "receivers are part of third node which comprise LMU;
therefore connected/associated with receivers."
Id. Nevertheless, as noted above, the Examiner explains that module 800
corresponds to the recited "network node" and such a module may control
LMU measurements by LMUs in positioning node 130. See Final Act. 7-8
(citing Siomina ,-J,-J 108, 167,264); Ans. 2 (citing Siomina ,-J,-J 167,240); see
also Siomina ,-J 262 ("[T]he module 800 may alternatively be comprised in
the positioning node 130 according to some embodiments. The positioning
node 130 and/or the first network node 110 are comprised in a wireless
communication network 100."). Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner has
identified where Siomina teaches the recited "network node."
Second, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to identify where
Siomina teaches a "network node" that "obtain[ s] a receiving point
configuration." App. Br. 11. In particular, Appellant contends, "the Final
Office Action asserts that Siomina's paragraph 264 discloses that such a
network node obtains a receiving point configuration . . . . In fact, as stated
by the Final Office Action, Siomina's paragraph 264 merely describes a
10
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
receiver of a base station that is 'configured to receive and obtain."' Id.
Nevertheless, as the Examiner explains, Siomina teaches module 800
comprises receiver 810 that is configured to obtain a reference timing
measure for signals received from second network nodes 120. Ans. 3 ( citing
Siomina ,i 264). Further, the Examiner explains Siomina teaches module
800 may comprised within positioning node 130. Id. ( citing Siomina ,i 262).
Thus, the Examiner concludes that Siomina teaches the receiver of
positioning node 130 (i.e., the third network node) obtains receiving point
configuration. We agree with the Examiner.
Alternatively, the Examiner explains Schedelbeck teaches transceiver
13 is part of a customer premises equipment (CPE) and communication
system arrangement. Id. ( citing Schedelbeck ,i 21 ). Thus, referring to
Schedelbeck's Figure 2, a CPE, e.g., communication system 30, which
obtains configuration parameters for transceivers 31 and 36 and is capable of
transmitting and receiving signals through transceiver 31 or 36 (see
Schedelbeck ,i,i 25-27), is interpreted as the recited "network node" of
claim 1. Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner also concludes that combined
teachings of Siomina and Schedelbeck also teach or suggest the recited
network node that obtains receiving point configuration. Again, we agree.
Third, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show that
Schedelbeck's evaluation circuit 39 teaches or suggests the step of "selecting
one or more receiving points for performing measurements, based on the
obtained configuration." App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2-4. In particular,
Appellant contends
the evaluation circuit 39 of the second transceiver 36 does not
obtain a receiving point configuration and then select one or
more transceivers out of the two or more transceivers to perform
11
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
measurements, based on the rece1vmg point configuration.
Instead, the evaluation circuit 39 merely determines whether the
second transceiver 36 can accommodate new configuration
parameters for any ongoing operations.
App. Br. 13. Nevertheless, as noted above, "the term 'configuration
parameter' refers to any parameter which defines general boundary
conditions on an operation of a data transmission system and transmitted
signals." Schedelbeck ,i 25 (emphasis added). Further, transceiver
operation drives changes to configuration parameters. See id. ,i,i 22-23.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that, although evaluation circuit 39
determines and reports whether transceiver 3 6 can accommodate changed
configuration parameters (see id. ,i 30), this determination encompasses
selecting transceivers 31 and 36 based on the obtained configuration
parameters. Final Act. 6; Ans. 4.
Appellant further contends that, to the extent that Schedelbeck may
teach selecting transceivers 31 and 36, Schedelbeck does not make the
selection "for performing measurements." App. Br. 14. Nevertheless, the
Examiner relies on Siomina, rather than Schedelbeck, to teach "the
measurements ... performed by a measuring node associated with two or
more receiving points." Final Act. 7. As the Examiner notes, Appellant
may not properly challenge Siomina and Schedelbeck individually when
their combined teachings are relied upon to show obviousness. Id. at 6;
Ans. 6.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combined teachings of Siomina and Schedelbeck render independent
claims 1 obvious, and we sustain that rejection. Appellant relies on the
contentions with respect to independent claim 1 in challenging the rejections
12
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
to independent claims 15, 25, and 39. App. Br. 15, 17; Reply Br. 6, 7.
Appellant does not contest the rejections of dependent claims 2-14, 16, 17,
26-38, 40, and 41, apart from their contentions with respect to their base
claims. App. Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 7. Therefore, we sustain the rejections to
those additional independent claims and the dependent claims, as well.
b. Kennedy and Schedelbeck
The Examiner also determines that claims 1 and 25 are rendered
obvious over the teachings of Kennedy and Schedelbeck. Final Act. 26-30;
see Ans. 7. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting these
claims in view of Appellant's contentions with respect to the teachings of
Schedelbeck regarding independent claim 1. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 7.
For the reasons given above, we are persuaded that the combined
teachings of Kennedy and Schedelbeck render independent claims 1 and 25
obvious. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejections of these claims.
2. Independent Claims 23 and 47
The Examiner determines that independent claims 23 and 4 7 are
rendered obvious over the teachings of Schedelbeck and Moriwaki. Final
Act. 22-24; see Ans. 7-9. In particular, the Examiner finds Schedelbeck
teaches the step of "obtaining measurements for two or more receiving
points associated with one or more measuring nodes, wherein at least one of
the measuring nodes is associated with two or more of the receiving points."
Final Act. 22; see App. Br. 22 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that
Schedelbeck teaches monitoring and measuring circuits (Final Act. 22
( citing Schedelbeck ,-J,-J 21, 28, Fig. I)) and that "evaluation circuit 39
(measuring node) is associated with both transceivers 31 and 36" (Ans. 8
13
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
(italics added) ( citing Schedelbeck ,i 30, Fig. 2)). The Examiner does not
rely on Moriwaki or any other reference to teach this limitation of
independent claim 23. The Examiner relies on substantially similar findings
and conclusions to support the rejection of independent claim 47. Final
Act. 23-24.
Appellant contends that:
Schedelbeck does not disclose or suggest obtaining
measurements for two or more receiving points associated with
measuring nodes, where at least one of the measuring nodes is
associated with two or more of the receiving points. Indeed,
Schedelbeck is silent as to a single measuring node being
associated with multiple receiving points. For example, the
transceiver pairs in Fig. 1 of Schedelbeck have monitoring
circuits that monitor a signal to noise ratio, and the Final Office
Action equates Schedelbeck's CPE transceivers in Fig. 1 to
receiving points and the monitoring circuits to measuring nodes.
However, each CPE transceiver in Figure 1 has its own
monitoring circuit and no monitoring circuit is associated with
two or more CPEs.
App. Br. 18 ( emphasis added); see Final Act. 22 ( citing Schedelbeck ,i,i 21,
28, Fig. I). With reference to Figure 1, Schedelbeck discloses that "the first
transceiver 12 and the second transceiver 13 are equipped with monitoring
circuits 14 and 15, respectively," and "[t]he monitoring circuits 14, 15
monitor transmission conditions such as a signal to noise ratio, for upstream
and downstream data transmission, respectively." Schedelbeck ,i 23
(emphasis added). Nevertheless, the Examiner does not show how
Schedelbeck's monitoring occurs or that the monitoring includes the
measurement of any signal.
In addition, claim 23 recites that "measurements" are obtained ''for
two or more receiving points associated with one or more measuring nodes."
14
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
App. Br. 24 (emphasis added) (Claims App.). The Examiner fails to show
how Schedelbeck's evaluation circuit 39 of transceiver 36, which is
associated with only one "receiving point," could achieve this limitation or
what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be the
relationship between Schedelbeck's monitoring circuits 14 and 15, depicted
in Figure 1, and Schedelbeck's evaluation circuit 39, depicted in Figure 2.
Final Act. 22; Ans. 8; see Reply Br. 8-9.
As noted above, we are not persuaded that Schedelbeck teaches or
suggests a "measuring node." See supra Section La. Initially, we note that
the Examiner does not identify any express reference to "measuring" or
"measurements" in the paragraphs or figures of Schedelbeck, upon which
the Examiner relies. See Final Act. 22; Ans. 8. Further, after reviewing the
cited paragraphs and figures of Schedelbeck, we find no reference to
"measuring" or "measurements." See Schedelbeck ,i,i 21, 28, 30, Figs. 1, 2.
Moreover, after reviewing the entirety of Schedelbeck, we find no express
reference to "measuring" or "measurements." Thus, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner fails to show that Schedelbeck teaches this
limitation of independent claim 23. See Final Act, 18-19; Reply Br. 8-9.
For the reasons given above, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combined teachings of Schedelbeck and Moriwaki
render independent claim 23 obvious, and we do not sustain that rejection.
Appellant relies on the contentions with respect to independent claim 23 in
challenging the rejections to independent claim 47. App. Br. 19; Reply
Br. 9. Similarly, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 47 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Schedelbeck and Moriwaki, and we
do not sustain that rejection. Because we do not sustain the rejections of
15
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
their base claims and because the Examiner does not assert that Issakov
supplies the missing limitations of their base claims, we are persuaded that
the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 24 and 48. Final Act. 25-
26; Ans. 9; see App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 10. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejections to those dependent claims.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting:
(a) claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 15-1 7, 2 5-2 7, 2 9-31, 3 3, 3 5, and 3 9-
41 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Siomina
and Schedelbeck;
(b) claims 1 and 25 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Kennedy and Schedelbeck;
( c) claims 4 and 28 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Siomina, Schedelbeck, and Zhang;
(d) claims 8, 10, 13, 32, 34, and 37 as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Siomina, Schedelbeck, and Issakov;
( e) claims 12 and 3 6 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Siomina, Schedelbeck, and Dobrowski; and
(f) claims 14 and 38 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Siomina, Schedelbeck, and Martin.
(2) The Examiner erred in rejecting:
(a) claims 23 and 47 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Schedelbeck and Moriwaki; and
(b) claims 24 and 48 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of, Schedelbeck, Moriwaki, and Issakov.
16
Appeal 2018-006270
Application 14/062,524
(3) Claims 1-17 and 25-41 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 and 25-41 and
reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 23, 24, 47, and 48.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17