Frank Reiss et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 26, 2019

13509329 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2019)

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.
13/509,329 05/11/2012 Frank Reiss 410001-581PUS
- 319873.00
4589
27799 7590 11/26/2019
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park Avenue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
EXAMINER
MEADE, LORNE EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2019 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):
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsecretary@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FRANK REISS, ULRICH ORTH, and
HOLGER HUITENGA
__________________

Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 11–14, 16–26, and 29–31. Appeal Br. 3.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies MAN Diesel & Turbo SE as the real party in interest. See Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 11, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
11. A burner for a turbine comprising:
a flame tube (10) defining a combustion space (11);
a casing (20) enclosing said flame tube (10) from radially
outward at a predetermined distance from said flame tube (10)
and forming an oxidant collection chamber (21) between said
flame tube (10) and said casing (20);
a burner bottom (30) bounding said oxidant collection
chamber (21) and said combustion space (11) at an axial end of
said burner;
a swirler (40) arranged axially between said flame tube
(10) and said burner bottom (30) axially adjoining said burner
bottom (30) and radially adjoining said oxidant collection
chamber (21) for supplying a fuel-oxidant mixture into said
combustion space (11), said swirler (40) comprising a plurality
of guide vanes (41) extending from the burner bottom (30) of
the swirler and arranged at a circumferential distance from one
another along a circumferential direction (UR) of said burner so
that the respective distances between said guide vanes (41)
form a plurality of radial inlet passages (42) to said combustion
space (11), said radial inlet passages having a tangential
component along its path;
a single fuel supply pipe (43a, 43b, 43c, 43d) provided in
the burner bottom (30) of each respective inlet flow region of at
least some of said inlet passages (42), said fuel supply pipe
(43a, 43b, 43c, 43d) having a length and extending lengthwise
through said respective inlet passage (42) in an axial direction
(AR) of said burner and traverse to an oxidant flow direction
(OR), and wherein each fuel supply pipe (43a, 43b, 43c, 43d)
comprises a wall having at least one fuel output opening (44,
45) radial to said fuel supply pipe (43a, 43b, 43c, 43d) for
mixing fuel (BS) into said respective inlet passage (42) with a
directional component extending transverse to the oxidant flow
direction (OR),
wherein at least one of said fuel supply pipes (43d) is
arranged off-center in the burner bottom (30) of said respective
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

3
inlet passage (42) with respect to a center longitudinal axis (L)
of said respective inlet passage (42).

REJECTIONS
Claims 11–14, 16–26, and 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 11–14, 16–18, 20, 22–26, 29, and 30 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kesseli (US 5,450,724, iss. Sept.
19, 1995) and Milosavljevic (WO 2009/121780 A1, pub. Oct. 8, 2009).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kesseli, Milosavljevic, and Puri (US 6,094,916, iss. Aug. 1, 2000).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kesseli, Milosavljevic, and Corr, II (US 7,093,445 B2, iss. Aug. 22, 2006)
(hereinafter “Corr”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kesseli, Milosavljevic, Corr, and ELKady (US 2008/0163627 A1, pub. July
10, 2008).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kesseli, Milosavljevic, and Rokke (US 6,609,376 B2, iss. Aug. 26, 2003).
Claims 11–14, 16–18, 20, 22–26, 29, and 30 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kesseli and Lam (US 8,484,979 B2,
iss. July 16, 2013).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kesseli, Lam, and Puri.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kesseli, Lam, and Corr.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

4
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kesseli, Lam, Corr, and ELKady.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kesseli, Lam, and Rokke.
ANALYSIS
Claims 11–14, 16–26, and 29–31 for Indefiniteness.
The Examiner determines that the limitation “wherein at least one of
said fuel supply pipes (43d) is arranged off-center in the burner bottom (30)
of said respective inlet passage (42) with respect to a center longitudinal axis
(L) of said respective inlet passage (42)” renders claim 11 indefinite because
“off-center” is a relative term that is undefined by the claim. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds that the Specification lacks guidance as to how far the
fuel supply pipe must be from the center longitudinal axis to be “off-center.”
Id. at 4. The Examiner reasons that manufacturing tolerances may place a
fuel supply pipe off-center, but the Specification does not indicate whether a
manufacturing tolerance makes the fuel pipe “off-center.” Id. at 4–6. The
Examiner also finds it is unclear whether “off-center” is measured relative to
a center point or to the outer perimeter of the fuel pipe. Id. at 6, 8.
Appellant argues that “off-center” means “[n]ot centered; offset,” and
the claims and Specification make clear that “off-center” in the inlet passage
is measured relative to a center longitudinal axis (L) as shown in Figure 2.
Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant argues that a fuel supply pipe that is off-center
due to a manufacturing tolerance “is not the same as purposefully arranging
the fuel supply pipes off-center” as claimed. Id. at 5 (“‘off-center’ is used to
mean arranged specifically off the center line, including engineering
tolerances.”).
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

5
“[R]elative terminology in claim language, including terms of degree,
does not automatically render the claim indefinite.” MPEP § 2173.05(b) (9th
ed. rev. 08.2017 Jan. 2018). “Acceptability of the claim language depends
on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed,
in light of the specification.” Id.
Here, claim 11 requires “at least one of said fuel supply pipes (43d) is
arranged off-center . . . of said respective inlet passage (42) with respect to a
center longitudinal axis (L) of said respective inlet passage (42).” Appeal
Br. 3 (Claims App.).2 Thus, “off-center” is determined in relation to a center
longitudinal axis (L) of a respective inlet passage according to claim 11.
Appellant’s Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates this relationship.

2 Citations to the Claims Appendix are to Appeal Brief filed April 20, 2018.
All other citations to the Appeal Brief refer to the Appeal Brief filed March
29, 2018.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

6
Appellant’s Figure 2 above is a schematic sectional view of a portion
of the burner. Id. at 6:6–7. The Specification discloses that the “fuel supply
pipes 43a, 43b, 43c can be arranged centrally in the respective inlet passages
42 with respect to center longitudinal axes L of the respective inlet passages
42.” Spec. 7:27–29. In addition, “one or more or all of the fuel supply pipes
43d can also be arranged off-center in the respective inlet passages 42 with
respect to center longitudinal axes L thereof.” Id. at 7:30–31.
Figure 2 illustrates centrally arranged fuel pipes 43a, 43b, 43c being
centered on and bisected by longitudinal axis L. However, off-center fuel
pipe 43d is not centered on or bisected by longitudinal axis L. Its circular
cross-sectional area is divided into unequal portions by longitudinal axis L.
Unlike centrally arranged fuel pipes 43a, 43b, 43c, the center of off-center
fuel pipe 43d is offset from center longitudinal axis L in inlet passage 42.
Claim 11 requires the fuel supply pipe(s) to be “arranged off-center.”
As Appellant argues, an ordinary meanings of “arrange” includes “to put
into a proper order or into a correct or suitable sequence, relationship, or
adjustment,” “to move and organize (things) into a particular order or
position,” “to give a particular order or position to the parts of (something).”
Appeal Br. 6 (citing http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrange).
This meaning is consistent with the Specification, which discloses that
the fuel supply pipes are arranged centrally or off-center in inlet passages 42
with respect to a center longitudinal axis L of each inlet passage 42. Spec.
7:27–31. These disclosures require “off-center” fuel pipes to be positioned
with their centers offset from a center longitudinal axis L of an inlet passage.
Fuel pipe 43b is described as being arranged off-center in passage 42 from
axis L rather than as being offset due to a manufacturing tolerance. Id.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

7
All three conditions illustrated by the Examiner (Final Act. 8; Ans. 4)
would be considered “off-center” under this interpretation because none of
the fuel supply pipes are centered on the inlet passage longitudinal axes.
None of their circular cross-sections are bisected by any of the axes either.
The Examiner is correct that the Specification does not indicate how
far a fuel supply pipe has to be from the center longitudinal axis to be “off-
center.” See Final Act. 4–5. However, merely claiming broadly does not
render a claim indefinite as long as its meaning is clear. See In re Gardner,
427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) (“Breadth is not indefiniteness.”).
Thus, we do not sustain this rejection.
Claims 11–14, 16–18, 20, 22–26, 29, and 30
Rejected over Kesseli and Milosavljevic
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner finds that Kesseli teaches a burner
with a single fuel supply pipe 63, 64 in the burner bottom of each inlet flow
region 67 of at least some inlet passages (mixing channels 61) but does not
teach at least one fuel supply pipes is arranged off-center in inlet passage 61.
Final Act. 12–13. The Examiner relies on Milosavljevic to teach a burner
with fuel supply pipe 15 arranged off-center to a center longitudinal axis of
the inlet passage formed by the adjacent swirler guide vanes 3a. Id. at 13.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to modify Kesseli’s single fuel supply pipe to be off-center as taught
by Milosavljevic to facilitate ultra-low emissions by efficiently mixing the
fuel and air mixture and thereby avoid high temperature regions caused by
fuel rich areas and concentration gradients at the flame front as taught by
Milosavljevic. Id. at 13–14. The Examiner illustrates these findings with
annotations on Figure 7b of Milosavljevic, reproduced below.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

8

Figure 7b above illustrates two fuel tubes 15 arranged on each side of
mixing rod 15b in an inlet passage formed by swirler wings 3a. Fuel tubes
15, 15 are placed so the air mass flow is constant through each passage.
Milosavljevic, 19:23–31. The Examiner annotates the off-center fuel pipes.
The Examiner finds that Kesseli teaches a single fuel supply pipe in
the fuel inlet flow region in the burner bottom as claimed (Ans. 8–9) and
reasons it would have been obvious to modify the single fuel supply pipe of
Kesseli in view of Milosavljevic’s teaching of one off-center fuel supply
pipe to the left of the passage longitudinal axis or one off-center fuel supply
pipe to the right of the passage longitudinal axis (id. at 10). The Examiner
concludes that the combined teachings of Kesseli and Milosavljevic suggest
to a skilled artisan to arrange Kesseli’s single fuel supply pipe at a location
that is off-center in the burner bottom with respect to a center longitudinal
axis of the inlet passage as recited in claim 11. Id. at 13.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

9
Appellant argues that neither reference arranges a single fuel supply
pipe in a single inlet passage at a location that is off-center with respect to a
center longitudinal axis of that inlet passage as claimed. See Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant argues that Milosavljevic uses two fuel tubes 15, 15 with a single
mixing rod 15b in each inlet passage, and Milosavljevic would not function
as intended if it was modified to use a single fuel supply pipe as claimed. Id.
at 11; Reply Br. 4. As a result, Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would
combine two fuel tubes and a mixing rod in each channel of Kesseli rather
than a single off-center rod per channel as claimed. Id. at 11; Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner is correct that Kesseli teaches a single fuel supply pipe
63 arranged in each inlet passage 61. We also understand the Examiner to
rely on teachings of Milosavljevic to modify Kesseli’s teaching of a single
fuel supply pipe in each inlet passage. However, we are not persuaded that a
skilled artisan would have been motivated to arrange Kesseli’s single fuel
supply pipe “off-center” as claimed based on Milosavljevic’s teachings.
The Examiner is correct that Milosavljevic teaches the arrangement in
Figure 7b provides efficient mixing via multiple injection points from fuel
tubes 15 and “perfect premixing” of gaseous fuel and air can achieve ultra-
low emissions. Milosavljevic, 8:21–26, 19:23–26; Final Act. 13 (citing id.).
However, a skilled artisan would understand the teachings of Milosavljevic
in this regard to apply to the arrangement of one fuel tube 15 on each side of
mixing rod 15 in each inlet passage. See Milosavljevic, 19:23–29. We are
not persuaded that the benefits taught in Milosavljevic can be achieved with
a single fuel supply pipe arranged off-center in an inlet passage as claimed.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to arrange Kesseli’s single pipe to be off-center as claimed.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

10
Rather, we agree with Appellant that a skilled artisan who desired to
achieve the benefits taught in Milosavljevic would modify Kesseli to use the
arrangement taught by Milosavljevic as needed to premix fuel and air better,
namely two fuel tubes 15, 15 and mixing rod 12. As illustrated in Figure 7b
above, fuel tubes 15, 15 and mixing rod 12 are centered in the inlet passage
formed by adjacent swirler wings 3a, 3a. Furthermore, fuel tubes 15, 15 are
placed between mixing rod 12 and a respective swirler wing 3a, 3a. We find
no teaching or suggestion in Milosavljevic to arrange a single fuel pipe off-
center in an inlet passage as claimed. Thus, we are not persuaded that a
skilled artisan would have been motivated to arrange Kesseli’s single fuel
pipe off-center in an inlet passage, by itself, based on Milosavljevic’s
teachings to arrange mixing rod 12 in the center of an inlet passage with fuel
tubes 15 arranged between mixing rod 12 and a respective swirler wing 3a.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 or claims 12–14, 16–
26, and 29–31, which depend therefrom.
Dependent Claims 19–21 and 31
The Examiner’s reliance on Puri, Corr, ELKady, or Rokke to teach the
respective features of claims 19–21 and 31 does not cure the deficiency of
Kesseli and Milosavljevic described above as to claim 11. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejections of these claims.
Claims 11–14, 16–18, 20, 22–26, 29, and 30
Rejected over Kesseli and Lam
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 11–14, 16–18, 20, 22–26, 29,
and 30 as a group. See Appeal Br. 11–13. We select independent claim 11
as the representative claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Accordingly,
claims 12–14, 16–18, 20, 22–26, 29, and 30 stand or fall with claim 11.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

11
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner finds that Kesseli teaches a burner
as claimed to include fuel pipes 63, 64 provided in the burner bottom of each
inlet flow region 67 at some inlet passages 61 but does not teach at least one
fuel supply pipe is arranged off-center in an inlet passage 61 with respect to
a center longitudinal axis of said respective inlet passage 61. Final Act. 21–
23. The Examiner relies on Lam to teach a similar burner having at least
one fuel supply opening (5 or 6) arranged off-center in the burner bottom of
the respective inlet passage formed between adjacent swirler guide vanes 2
with respect to a center longitudinal axis of the inlet passage. The Examiner
illustrates his findings on Figure 1 of Lam, reproduced below. Id. at 23.

Figure 1 of Lam above illustrates swirler passages 4 formed between
vanes 2 and fuel injection openings 5, 6 arranged in swirler passages 4 with
the Examiner’s annotation of off-center openings. Lam, 4:15–23; Ans. 15.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

12
The Examiner finds that the drawings of Lam reasonably disclose and
suggest to a skilled artisan that at least one fuel supply opening (5 or 6) is
arranged off-center in the burner bottom of a respective inlet passage with
respect to a center longitudinal axis of the inlet passage as indicated by the
Examiner’s annotations on Figure 1, as reproduced above. Ans. 13–15, 17–
19, 21–22. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a
skilled artisan to substitute at least one off-center fuel supply opening of
Lam for at least one fuel supply opening of Kesseli with no change in their
respective functions to yield predictable results, namely, to supply fuel to a
respective fuel supply pipe that would spray the fuel into the inlet passage to
mix with the flow of oxidant forming a fuel-air mixture. Final Act. 24–25.
Appellant argues that Figure 1 of Lam is diagrammatic and not to
scale so no teaching about the orientation of the components can be garnered
from the drawings except what is disclosed in the Lam’s disclosure about the
drawings. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant also argues that “[t]here is nothing
in Lam expressly teaching or suggesting that the fuel injection openings 5, 6
are arranged off-center in a respective channel.” Id. at 12. Appellant further
argues in the Reply Brief that Lam describes fuel injection openings 5, 6 as
identical from a design-engineering point of view but labelled with different
reference numbers to indicate their respective group membership in the fuel-
air premixing arrangement. Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner has the better position. It is well-settled that drawings
in a utility or design patent can be cited against claims of a utility patent
application. See In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 913–14 (CCPA 1979). Prior
art teachings to include the drawings are evaluated on the basis of what they
reasonably disclose and suggest to a skilled artisan. Id. at 914.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

13
Furthermore, “a claimed invention may be anticipated or rendered
obvious by a drawing in a reference, whether the drawing disclosure be
accidental or intentional.” In re Meng, 492 F.2d 843, 847 (CCPA 1974)
(citation omitted); Aslanian, 590 F.2d at 914 (holding “a drawing in a utility
patent can be cited against the claims of a utility patent application even
though the feature shown in the drawing was unintended or unexplained in
the specification of the reference patent.”); In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072
(CCPA 1972) (“[W]e did not mean that things patent drawings show clearly
are to be disregarded.”).
Lam teaches that “fuel injection openings 5, 6 are arranged in these
swirler passages 4.” Lam, 4:22–23. Figure 1 of Lam, reproduced above
with Examiner annotations, illustrates the claimed arrangement of a single
fuel pipe 5/6 in each fuel inlet passage (swirler passage 4) with some fuel
supply pipes 5, 6 arranged off-center. In response, Appellant argues that
Figure 1 is diagrammatic/not to scale and cannot be relied on to teach any
orientation of the components apart from what is described in the
specification of Lam. Appeal Br. 11–12.
Appellant is correct that patent drawings cannot be relied on to teach
precise proportions of elements or particular sizes if the specification is
completely silent on the issue. Id. at 12 (quoting Hockerson-Halberstadt,
Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). However, the
Examiner is not relying on Figure 1 of Lam to teach precise proportions or
particular sizes of claimed elements. The Examiner relies on Figure 1 of
Lam to teach fuel supply pipes arranged off-center as claimed. Figure 1 of
Lam illustrates several fuel pipe openings 5, 6 as off-center in passage 4 to
the extent that some pipe openings almost touch a wall of passage 4.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

14
Appellant’s disclosure describes the claimed off-center fuel supply
pipes similarly. Appellant’s Figure 2, reproduced above, is “a schematic
cross-sectional view of a portion of the burner.” Spec. 6:6–7 (emphasis
added). Appellant’s Figure 2 illustrates “off-center” fuel supply pipe 43d as
closer to one side wall of radial inlet passage 42 than to the other side wall.
Lam describes Figure 1 as illustrating a typical swirler 1 with fuel
injection openings 5, 6, “arranged in these swirler passages 4.” Lam, 4:15–
23. Figure 1 of Lam illustrates some fuel outlets 5, 6 arranged off-center in
swirler inlet passages 4 as the Examiner identifies with annotations of “Off-
center Fuel outlets” on Figure 1 of Lam as reproduced above. The off-center
fuel outlets are illustrated in the same manner as the claimed off-center fuel
supply pipe 43d, namely, the “off-center” fuel outlets are closer to one side
wall of swirler passage 4 than to the other. Some fuel outlets 5, 6 almost
touch a side wall of swirler passage 4 as indicated in Figure 1 of Lam above.
Lam discloses that “[i]n FIG. 1, the fuel injection openings 5 and 6,
although identical from a design-engineering point of view, are labelled with
different reference numbers, indicating their different respective group
membership in the fuel-air premixing arrangement 11.” Id. at 4:31–35. This
teaching relates to the fact that fuel injection openings 5 receive fuel via rail
16, which is controlled by valve 14, whereas fuel openings 6 receive fuel via
rail 17 unimpeded. Lam, 4:41–52. This teaching indicates that fuel
injection openings 5, 6 have the same configuration, but it does not address
how fuel openings 5, 6 are arranged in swirler passages 4.
Even if we consider the off-center arrangements of fuel openings 5, 6
illustrated in Figure 1 of Lam to be unexplained or unintended, Figure 1 still
clearly shows fuel pipes arranged off-center as claimed.
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

15
A skilled artisan would understand Figure 1 of Lam to teach fuel
openings 5, 6 that may be arranged centrally or arranged off-center as
claimed. Appellant has not identified any teaching in Lam that requires
fuel openings 5, 6 to be centered in swirler passages 4. We find none.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 11 and claims 12–14, 16–18, 20, 22–26, 29, and 30, which fall with
claim 11.
Rejections of Dependent Claims 19–21 and 31
Appellant does not present arguments for the rejections of claims 19–
21 and 31 apart from their dependence from claim 11. See Appeal Br. 12.
This argument is not persuasive in view of our affirmance of the rejection of
claim 11, and we sustain the rejection of these claims as well.
CONCLUSION
In summary
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–14, 16–26,
29–31
112, para. 2 Indefiniteness 11–14, 16–
26, 29–31
11–14, 16–18,
20, 22–26, 29,
30
103(a) Kesseli,
Milosavljevic
11–14, 16–
18, 20, 22–
26, 29, 30
19 103(a) Kesseli,
Milosavljevic,
Puri
19
20 103(a) Kesseli,
Milosavljevic,
Corr
20
21 103(a) Kesseli,
Milosavljevic,
ELKady
21
Appeal 2018-009227
Application 13/509,329

16
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
31 103(a) Kesseli,
Milosavljevic,
Rokke
31
11–14, 16–18,
20, 22–26, 29,
30
103(a) Kesseli, Lam 11–14, 16–
18, 20, 22–
26, 29, 30

19 103(a) Kesseli, Lam,
Puri
19
20 103(a) Kesseli, Lam,
Corr
20
21 103(a) Kesseli, Lam,
Corr, ELKady
21
31 103(a) Kesseli, Lam,
Rokke
31
Overall
Outcome
11–14, 16–
26, 29–31

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED