HANWHA TECHWIN CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021000669 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 15/660,169 07/26/2017 Byung In SONG HT70012 3435 71433 7590 03/02/2022 McLean IP Global 3010 Lyndon B Johnson Freeway Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75234 EXAMINER TAYLOR, JOSHUA D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): contact@mcleanip.com jason.pahng@gmail.com jason.pahng@mcleanip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BYUNG IN SONG and SWEUNG WON CHEUNG Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MINN CHUNG, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-13 and 26-31. Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 20-25 are cancelled. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hanwha Techwin Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims “relate to streaming media captured by a media service apparatus without a plug-in in a user’s web browser.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 and claim 26, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An adaptive media streaming apparatus comprising: a receiver configured to receive media data generated by a media service apparatus using a communication protocol which supports web services; a video web worker configured to determine whether a video codec of video data included in the media data is supported by a first video decoder embedded in a web browser of the adaptive media streaming apparatus; a first video player configured to, in response to the video codec of the video data being unsupported by the first video decoder embedded in the web browser, decode the video data transmitted from the video web worker using a second video decoder written in a script which is supported by the web browser; and a second video player configured to, in response to the video codec of the video data being supported by the first video decoder embedded in the web browser, decode the video data transmitted from the video web worker using the first video decoder embedded in the web browser. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix). 26. An adaptive media streaming apparatus comprising: a receiver configured to receive media data generated by a media service apparatus using a communication protocol which supports web services and configured to receive a script module from the media service apparatus, the script module comprising a second video decoder written in a script that is supported by a web browser of the adaptive media streaming device that allows the adaptive media streaming apparatus to play the media data without installing a plug-in; Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 3 a video web worker configured to determine whether a video codec of video data included in the media data is supported by a first video decoder embedded in the web browser of the adaptive media streaming apparatus that allows the adaptive media streaming apparatus to play the media data without installing a plug-in; a first video player configured to, in response to the video codec of the video data being unsupported by the first video decoder embedded in the web browser, decode the video data transmitted from the video web worker using the second video decoder written in the script which is supported by the web browser; and a second video player configured to, in response to the video codec of the video data being supported by the first video decoder embedded in the web browser, decode the video data transmitted from the video web worker using the first video decoder embedded in the web browser. Appeal Br. 21-22 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on these references: Name Reference Date Marcu US 2002/0040292 A1 Apr. 4, 2002 Duong US 2004/0246937 A1 Dec. 9, 2004 Lee US 2006/0220930 A1 Oct. 5, 2006 van der Meulen US 2011/0022984 A1 Jan. 27, 2011 Tapia US 2012/0092442 A1 Apr. 19, 2012 Pfeffer US 2014/0282784 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Balko US 2016/0029002 A1 Jan. 28, 2016 Sivan US 2016/0088015 A1 Mar. 24, 2016 Hattori US 2016/0156949 A1 June 2, 2016 Shaw US 2017/0070792 A1 Mar. 9, 2017 Sun US 2018/0103261 A1 Apr. 12, 2018 2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only. Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 4 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw and Sivan. Final Act. 3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sivan, and Balko. Final Act. 5. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sivan, and van der Meulen. Final Act. 7. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sivan, Pfeffer, and Duong. Final Act. 7. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sivan, and Hattori. Final Act. 9. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sivan, and Lee. Final Act. 10. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sivan, Lee, and Tapia. Final Act. 11. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sivan, Lee, and Marcu. Final Act. 12. Claims 26 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw and Sun. Final Act. 14. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sun, and Hattori. Final Act. 16. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sun, Lee, and Marcu. Final Act. 17. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sun, and Balko. Final Act. 20. Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 5 Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Sun, and van der Meulen. Final Act. 21. ISSUES First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Shaw and Sivan teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the disputed limitations of claim 1? Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of Shaw and Sivan to achieve the invention of claim 1? Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Shaw and Sun teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the disputed limitations of claim 26? Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of Shaw and Sun to achieve the invention of claim 26? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-25) and (2) the findings, reasons, and explanations set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to the Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-16). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. First Issue The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Shaw and Sivan. In so doing, the Examiner relies primarily on Shaw, finding that it teaches all of the limitations except (1) the use of a “video web worker” to perform the Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 6 video codec compatibility determination,3 (2) the first video decoder is embedded in a web browser, and (3) the second video decoder is “written in a script that is supported by the web browser.” Final Act. 4. Addressing these deficiencies, the Examiner turns to Sivan. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Sivan teaches the use of web workers to perform tasks. Final Act. 4 (citing Sivan ¶¶ 84-95). The Examiner further finds that Sivan’s description of security exploits that use JavaScript and Adobe Flash “shows that it was well-known in the art for video decoders such as Adobe Flash to be embedded in and/or written in a script which is supported by a web browser.” Final Act. 4 (citing Sivan ¶ 3). Appellant argues the Examiner has erred with respect to the disputed limitations: a video web worker configured to determine whether a video codec of video data included in the media data is supported by a first video decoder embedded in a web browser of the adaptive media streaming apparatus; a first video player configured to, in response to the video codec of the video data being unsupported by the first video decoder embedded in the web browser, decode the video data transmitted from the video web worker using a second video decoder written in a script which is supported by the web browser. Appeal Br. 10-12. More specifically, Appellant contends the Examiner has erred because “Shaw does not disclose a video web worker defined in [the disputed] limitations of claim 1,” and consequently “there would be no motivation for Shaw to consider whether a video web worker is configured 3 The Examiner finds that Shaw teaches making the determination, but is deficient only in that Shaw does not explicitly teach that the determination is performed by a “video web worker” as claimed. Final Act. 3-4. Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 7 to determine whether a codec of video data in the media data is supported by a first video decoder embedded in the web browser.” Appeal Br. 11. (emphasis omitted). Appellant further asserts that Sivan “adds nothing to Shaw” and “merely describes a browser based video decoder performing operations to protect against malicious injections.” Appeal Br. 11. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Shaw teaches that “[i]n some cases, delivery of video content items in a vector graphics format instead of a bitmap graphics format may reduce network bandwidth consumption.” Shaw ¶ 8. To realize these benefits, Shaw describes a system which provides “selective communication of a vector graphics format version of a video content item or a bitmap graphics format version of the video content item.” Shaw ¶ 8. This selective communication is implemented by “determining whether a video content item is encoded in a vector video graphics format or a bitmap video graphics format.” Shaw ¶ 11. Depending upon this determination, the video content item is directed to either a vector video decoder or a bitmap decoder. Shaw ¶¶ 53-54. We agree with the Examiner that Shaw’s description of selecting a specific decoder based on the encoding of the video content item teaches most of the disputed limitations. Specifically, we discern no error in the Examiner’s determination that Shaw teaches “determine whether a video codec of video data included in the media data is supported by a first video decoder . . . of the adaptive media streaming apparatus” and “a first video player configured to, in response to the video codec of the video data being unsupported by the first video decoder embedded in the web browser, decode the video data transmitted from the video web worker using a second video decoder . . . which is supported by the web browser.” Final Act. 3-4. Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 8 Shaw is deficient in that Shaw does not explicitly indicate that a “video web worker” makes the determination regarding whether the video content item is in a particular format. We agree with the Examiner that Sivan remedies this deficiency. Sivan relates to a web security method in which maliciously-injected code is blocked from execution within a web browser. Sivan ¶ 30. Sivan describes the use of “a web worker object running within a web worker execution thread, to alleviate at least some of the processing load that would otherwise be incurred on a mean execution thread running in the web browser.” Sivan ¶ 84. Sivan further describes that “[t]he term ‘web worker’ refers to a JavaScript code fragment that executes in the ‘background’, or independently of other Scripps running in the ‘foreground’ the webpage.” Sivan ¶ 47. Sivan further notes the existence of a “Web Workers API” made available to web developers via a downloadable API. We agree with the Examiner that these teachings are sufficient to show that the use of web workers was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. Appellant’s argument that Shaw does not disclose a “video web worker” recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 11) is unpersuasive because “[n]on- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Shaw is also deficient in that it does not explicitly describe the specific types of browser-based decoders recited in the claim. Although Shaw does not specifically discuss browser-based decoders, it does describe the use of client devices that include two different types of decoders capable Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 9 to decoding two different types of encoded video. See Shaw Fig. 2 (device 202 includes decoder(1) and decoder(2)). Sivan discloses that in the context of web browser security, “[s]ecurity exploits of browsers often use JavaScript, sometimes with cross-site scripting (XSS) and occasionally with a secondary payload using Adobe Flash.” Sivan further references the use of programming script written “in any one of JavaScript, Java, Microsoft Silverlight, and Adobe Flash.” Sivan ¶ 38. Based on this description, we agree with the Examiner that Sivan demonstrates that it was known in the art to utilize embedded video decoders such as Microsoft Silverlight. We further agree with the Examiner that Sivan’s statement that “security exploits of browsers often use JavaScript, sometimes with cross-site scripting (XSS) and occasionally with a secondary payload using Adobe Flash” (Sivan ¶ 3) demonstrates that it was known in the art for video decoders to be implemented in a script, such as JavaScript, which supported by a web browser. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Sivan supplies the teachings missing from Shaw. Second Issue In combining the references, Examiner determines: [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shaw to allow for the application to be a video web worker, and for the first video decoder to be embedded in a web browser and the second video decoder to be written in a script which is supported by the web browser. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for well-known constructs within the field of browser-based video delivery to be used. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to provide adequate reasoning in support of the combination. Specifically, Appellant argues Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 10 there would be no motivation for Shaw to incorporate a web worker for the purpose of determining the type of decoder suitable for the video codec of video data. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further asserts that because “a decoder of Shaw is a decoder in an electronic device and the decoder of Sivan is a decoder embedded in a web browser,” the “decoders are mutually exclusive” and “cannot be substituted as being well known without a proper motivation at minimum.” Appeal Br. 11. Further, Appellant contends that “because Shaw already has the logic (118) in the server (102) and the decoders (224, 226) in the electronic device (202) . . . Shaw has no need to take the time or spend resources to determine whether a media data is supported by a video decoder embedded in a web browser.” Appeal Br. 12. We are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in combining the references. At the outset, we note that, as the Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 417 (2007). “[H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. Here, in contrast, Appellant’s arguments rigidly focus on a narrow reading of individual prior art references, without considering a skilled artisan’s “creativity[] and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 11 Here, Shaw demonstrates that it was known in the prior art to determine codec compatibility in select different decoders based on that determination. Shaw ¶¶ 50-55. Although Shaw does not specifically teach determining codec compatibility in the context of a web browser using a video web worker, a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessing the teachings of Sivan, would have understood that Shaw’s codec compatibility determination capability could be applied in the web browser context. Sivan demonstrates that it was known in the art for decoders to be implemented in a scripting language which is supported by a web browser, such as JavaScript, and further that other decoders can be embedded in a web browser. Sivan ¶¶ 3, 38. Sivan further demonstrates that the use of web workers was well-known in the art. Sivan ¶¶ 84-95. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that executing the codec compatibility determination by a web worker would be beneficial because “execution by a web worker does not affect the performance of other foreground functionalities of the webpage.” Sivan ¶ 47. To the extent Appellant argument is directed to bodily substitution of Shaw’s decoder with Sivan’s decoder (Appeal Br. 11), Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In sum, the proposed modifications to Shaw based on the teachings of Sivan would have been obvious because they amount only to predictable variations using prior art elements according to their established functions. Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 12 As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1, and we sustain its rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Third Issue Independent claim 26 to an “adaptive media streaming apparatus” differs somewhat from claim 1 in that it specifies that the adaptive media streaming apparatus includes a first and second decoders that are able “to play the media data without installing a plug-in.” Appeal Br. 21-22 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner rejects claim 26 as obvious over Shaw and Sun. Final Act. 14. As with claim 1, the Examiner relies primarily on Shaw, finding that Shaw teaches most of the claim limitations. Final Act. 14. The Examiner finds Shaw deficient in that it does not explicitly teach (1) a “script module from the media service apparatus . . . comprising a second video decoder written in a script” that allows for playback “without installing a plug-in,” (2) the use of a “video web worker” to perform the video codec compatibility determination,4 and (3) the first video decoder is embedded in a web browser and allows for video playback “without installing a plug-in.” Final Act. 14. The Examiner turns to Sun, finding that Sun remedies Shaw’s deficiencies. Final Act 14-15. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Sun discloses a browser-based video playback tool which utilizes web workers (Sun ¶ 44) and describes a clientless gateway (Sun ¶ 28) which “does not require any plug-ins or client-side decoding software outside the browser in order to support remote desktop presentation” (Sun ¶ 28). Final Act. 14-15. 4 The Examiner finds that Shaw teaches making the determination, but is deficient only in that Shaw does not explicitly teach that the determination is performed by a “video web worker” as claimed. Final Act. 14. Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 13 Appellant’s arguments for claim 26 are similar to those offered in connection with claim 1. Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to show the prior art references teach or suggest the limitations: . . . a video web worker configured to determine whether a video codec of video data included in the media data is supported by a first video decoder embedded in the web browser of the adaptive media streaming apparatus that allows the adaptive media streaming apparatus to play the media data without installing a plug-in; a first video player configured to, in response to the video codec of the video data being unsupported by the first video decoder embedded in the web browser, decode the video data transmitted from the video web worker using the second video decoder written in the script which is supported by the web browser. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that the Examiner has erred because “Shaw does not disclose a video web worker defined in [the disputed] limitations of claim 26,” and consequently “there would be no motivation for Shaw to consider whether a video web worker is configured to determine whether a codec of video data in the media data is supported by a first video decoder embedded in the web browser . . . without installing a plug-in.” Appeal Br. 5-6. (emphasis omitted). Appellant further asserts that Sun “merely described a browser based video decoder performing operations in parallel for multiple CPUs or GPUs.” Appeal Br. 6. We are not persuaded of error. As we noted previously, Shaw teaches a system that provides “selective communication of a vector graphics format version of a video content item or a bitmap graphics format version of the video content item” (Shaw ¶ 8) by “determining whether a video content item is encoded in a vector video graphics format or a bitmap video graphics Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 14 format” (Shaw ¶ 11) such that the video content item is directed to either a vector video decoder or a bitmap decoder (Shaw ¶¶ 53-54). We agree with the Examiner that Shaw’s description of selecting a specific decoder based on the encoding of the video content item teaches most of the disputed limitations. Specifically, we discern no error in the Examiner’s determination that Shaw teaches “an application configured to determine whether a video codec of video data included in the media data is supported by a first video decoder.” Final Act. 14 (citing Shaw ¶ 11). We further agree with the Examiner that Shaw teaches “a first video player configured to, in response to the video codec of the video data being unsupported by the first video decoder embedded in the web browser, decode the video data transmitted from the video web worker using the second video decoder.” Final Act. 14 (citing Shaw ¶¶ 50-55; Fig. 4, element 406). As discussed above, Shaw is deficient with respect to the disputed limitations in that Shaw does not explicitly indicate that a “video web worker” makes the determination regarding whether the video content item is in a particular format. We agree with the Examiner that the use of web workers in Sun’s architecture remedies this deficiency. Sun describes that “[t]he architecture includes a host (210), which is or is part of a browser that operates in a browser environment, [and] one or more Web workers (212).” Sun ¶ 44. Sun notes the well-known and established use of web workers, stating that “[t]he World Wide Web Consortium (“W3C”) and the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (“WHATWG”) define examples of Web workers (212).” Sun ¶ 46. Sun further notes the benefit of using web workers, stating that “[t]he host (210) and the Web workers (212) Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 15 can execute simultaneously on different CPUs, which can reduce overall delay and improve responsiveness.” Sun ¶ 46. Shaw also remains deficient as to the specific types of decoders implemented in the claim. That is, Shaw does not teach browser-based decoders that do not require installation of a plug-in. We agree with the Examiner that Sun’s description that “some example implementations, the decoding and/or rendering operations performed in the browser environment can be performed without using any plugins or client-side decoding software outside the browser,” (Sun ¶ 28) remedies this deficiency because it demonstrates that is was known for video decoders to be embedded in web browsers without the use of browser plugins. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Sun teaches that the non-plugin decoders can be implemented with JavaScript and also notes the support for HTML5 compatible browsers. Sun ¶¶ 98 (“the browser-based video decoder uses the main thread to execute a first script to control overall decoding”), 150 (“Decoding and/or rendering operations can be provided through program code (e.g., JavaScript code) executable in a browser environment for any compatible browser (e.g., HTML5-compatible browser).”). As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in determining that Sun remedies the deficiencies of Shaw with respect to the disputed limitations of claim 26. Fourth Issue Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to the combination of Shaw and Sun. Our analysis regarding the combination of Shaw and Sun is similar to our analysis above with respect to Shaw and Sivan. The main thrust of Appellant’s argument against the proposed combination of Shaw and Sun is that because Shaw “already has the logic Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 16 (118) in the server (102) and the decoders (224, 226) in the electronic device (202)” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to consider using a browser-embedded decoder. Appeal Br. 7. As before, Appellant’s argument rigidly focus on a narrow reading of individual prior art references, without considering a skilled artisan’s “creativity[] and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). As we explained above, Shaw demonstrates that it was known in the prior art to determine codec compatibility in select different decoders based on that determination. Shaw ¶¶ 50-55. Although Shaw does not specifically teach determining codec compatibility in the context of a web browser using a video web worker, a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessing the teachings of Sun, would have understood that Shaw’s codec compatibility determination capability could be extended to the web browser architecture disclosed in Sun. Sun demonstrates that it was known in the art for decoders to be implemented in JavaScript and that decoders may be embedded without needing to install any browser plug-in. Sun ¶¶ 28, 98, 150. Sun further shows that it was known in the art to perform decoding-related operations using web workers. Sun ¶¶ 44-49 (describing how “the host (210) can launch Web workers (212) to enable, at a high level, multi-threaded decoding using multiple CPU threads”). Possessing these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that implementing Shaw’s codec compatibility determination by a web worker would be beneficial because “Web workers (212) can execute simultaneously on different CPUs, which can reduce overall delay and improve responsiveness.” Sun ¶ 46. Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 17 In sum, the proposed modifications to Shaw based on the teachings of Sun would have been obvious because, consistent with the an “expansive and flexible” approach set forth in KSR, the modifications to Shaw based on the teachings of Sun are predictable variations using prior art elements according to their established functions. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 26, and we sustain its rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Remaining Claims Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 7 103 Shaw, Sivan 1-3, 7 4 103 Shaw, Sivan, Balko 4 5 103 Shaw, Sivan, van der Meulen 5 6 103 Shaw, Sivan, Pfeffer, Duong 6 8-10 103 Shaw, Sivan, Hattori 8-10 11 103 Shaw, Sivan, Lee 11 Appeal 2021-000669 Application 15/660,169 18 12 103 Shaw, Sivan, Lee, Tapia 12 13 103 Shaw, Sivan, Lee, Marcu 13 26, 29 103 Shaw, Sun 26, 29 27 103 Shaw, Sun, Hattori 27 28 103 Shaw, Sun, Lee, Marcu 28 30 103 Shaw, Sun, Balko 30 31 103 Shaw, Sun, van der Meulen 31 Overall Outcome 1-13, 26- 31 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED