Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 13, 20212020002160 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/106,499 12/13/2013 Yong Zhang 4657-69400 7116 97698 7590 09/13/2021 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. 4965 Preston Park Blvd, Suite 195E Plano, TX 75093 EXAMINER MUNDUR, PADMAVATHI V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2441 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/13/2021 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): aipatent@huawei.com dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YONG ZHANG Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 7, 19, 22–24, and 27. See Final Act. 1. Claims 1, 19, and 27 are independent. Appeal Br. 29, 31–32, 34–35 1 We refer to the Specification, filed December 13, 2013 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed October 11, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed June 24, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) and Supplemental Appeal Brief, filed August 6, 2019 (Supp. Appeal Br.); Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 22, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed January 22, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 2 (Claims App.). Claims 5, 8–18, 20, 21, 25, and 26 are canceled. Id. at 30– 33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the background problem of prior art client/server systems (e.g., as might be used in accessing a web page over the Internet) and the solution implemented by the claimed invention as follows: In a communication model with client/server architecture, when a client requests an object from a server, the object requested by the client generally has a lot of associated objects. When the client requests an object, the number of requests and responses between the client and the server also increases, which also increases the burden on the network and leads to a network communication delay. Previous solutions to this problem use a client caching technology, by which requested objects can be acquired directly from a cache. However, before the client directly uses an object in the cache, the client still needs to query the server to determine whether the object expires before determining whether to directly use the object in the cache. Therefore, several request response processes are still needed between the client and the server before using an object in the cache, which leads to a significant network delay. The embodiments disclosed by the present application reduce network traffic and network communication delay in a client/server architecture. In some embodiments, when determining that the object requested by the client has one or more associated objects, the server adds association indication information to the object sent to the client to indicate to the client that the object requested by the client has one or more associated objects. Therefore, different from the prior art where the client needs to request associated objects from the server one by one, the embodiments disclosed herein enable the client to receive additional associated objects without having to explicitly request the server for the additional associated objects. Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 3 Appeal Br. 4–5 (citation omitted). Claim 1, reproduced below with claim element labels added, is illustrative: 1. A method for acquiring an object, the method comprising: [i] receiving, by a server, a request message from a client, wherein the request message comprises identifier information of a target object requested by the client; [ii] determining one or more associated objects of the target object requested by the client; [iii] sending, in response to the request message, the target object and association indication information to the client, wherein the association indication information indicates that the server has the one or more associated objects available for pushing to the client, and [(a)] the association indication information being located in a frame of the target object, [(b)] enabling the client to wait for next data sent by the server instead of sending a new request message when the client receives the target object; [iv] generating, by the server, verification information comprising identifier information of the one or more associated objects; [v] sending, by the server, the verification information to the client for the client to verify a need for the one or more associated objects; [vi] receiving verification result information from the client, wherein the verification result information comprises a verification result with respect to at least one target associated object selected from the one or more associated objects; [vii] identifying, by the server, according to the verification result information, the at least one target associated object; and [viii] sending, by the server, the at least one target associated object to the client without receiving a request message from the client for requesting the at least one target associated object. Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 4 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Beard US 2003/0163371 Al Aug. 28, 2003 Watson US 2011/0222404 Al Sept. 15, 2011 Shmulevich US 8,156,141,B1 Apr. 10, 2012 Ruellan US 2013/0339472 Al Dec. 19, 2013 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6, 7, 19, 22–24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 19, 23, 24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Watson, Ruellan, and Beard. Final Act. 3–20. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Watson, Ruellan, Beard and Shmulevich. Final Act. 20–21. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). OPINION We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). Except to the extent inconsistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own the findings set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from which Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 5 this appeal is taken and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for Indefiniteness The Examiner finds claim 1’s recitation of “‘the client to wait for next data sent by the server instead of sending a new request message when the client receives the target object . . . ’ [(claim element iii(b)] is ambiguous and unclear to what this limitation is referring in terms of protocol or other behavior.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds the questioned recitation “appears to be more descriptive of the operation of the client than any protocol behavior that may be attributed to the implementation in the claimed invention.” Id. According to the Examiner, the “[a]bsence of such details [of enabling the client to wait instead of sending a new request message] is the reason for the claims being rejected.” Id. Appellant contends the claim language is definite and supported by the Specification, citing to paragraphs 41 and 44 which read as follows: [0041] Step 13: When the target object has one or more associated objects, the server adds association indication information to the target object, and sends the target object to the client, so that the client continues to wait for receiving data after receiving the target object. [0044] If the target object carries the association indication information, the client continues to wait for next data sent by the server rather than sends another request to the server in the prior art. We apply the indefiniteness test approved by In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam): “A claim is indefinite when it contains Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 6 words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” and “claims are required to be cast in clear-as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite-terms.” See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1310, 1313; Ex parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015- 006416 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) at *8–11 (explaining because of different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTAB and the courts, the PTAB continues to follow Packard after the Supreme Court’s Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) decision). In assessing whether a claim is indefinite, we determine whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the Specification. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is erroneous because we determine the meaning of the claim language is clear in light of the Specification. Spec. ¶¶ 41, 44. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established those skilled in the art would not understand what is claimed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and we, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2–4, 6, 7, 19, 22–24, and 27, for similar reasons. Rejection of Independent Claims 1, 19, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds Watson’s disclosure of establishing packet data communications including a “server [that] return[s] resources to the client that the client has not requested in those instances that the server is aware that this resource will be required” (Watson ¶ 133) teaches or suggests substantially all of elements i through v, except for element iii(a) requiring association indication information be located in a frame of the target object. Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 7 Final Act. 4–7 (citing Watson ¶¶ 9, 85, 107, 133, 135, 143; Fig. 1). Addressing how the association information is transmitted, the Examiner finds Beard’s disclosure of an advertising system in which a control program is placed in a first frame of advertisement information teaches or suggests the requirements of element iii(a). Id. at 8 (citing Beard ¶¶ 73–76; Fig. 2). According to the Examiner, the reasons “to send server-identified resource information as the last frame using request prioritization” is “to enforce a priority order such that higher priority objects such as the main resource object are delivered before lower priority ones.” Id. at 8 (citing Watson ¶ 137, Beard, Abstract). The Examiner finds the limitations of claim elements vi–viii are taught or suggested by Ruellan’s disclosure of a client device C that parses a main resource received from a server and, after any suitable delay, “requests the server device S for any secondary resource referenced in the main resource[] that is missing, i.e.[,] that the client device does not yet hold in its cache memories and that is not being pushed by the server device S.” Id. at 6–7 (citing Ruellan ¶¶ 34–35, 215–22, Abstract, Figs. 5, 9). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious . . . to modify and augment the client in Watson reference to send verification results information, (Cache content of available resources) to the server and the server using that information determining which target associated objects to PUSH to the client and then sending those objects [as taught by Rullen]. Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner supports the combination as follows: The motivation/suggestion would have been to obtain a plurality of resources available in the client device and notifying the server device with data structures representing the filtered or sub-lists Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 8 of resource. The benefit would have been to prevent sending redundant objects to the client when it has cached the same information thereby saving network bandwidth and loading the and rendering web pages on the client faster and the additional benefit with the server PUSHING the objects would have been a reduction in the number of requests that the client sent. Id. (citing Ruellan: ¶¶ 34–35, 219, Abstract). Appellant presents several contentions of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as follows (we adopt Appellant’s numbering scheme for ease of reference): B.1. Watson fails to teach the limitations of claim element iii because, according to Appellant, (I) “Watson is silent regarding sending anything to instruct the client to refrain from sending requests for resources associated with a requested resource, ” (Appeal Br. 16) and (II) “nowhere in Watson is there any mention of details regarding when and how to send the response header, and nothing in Watson discloses or suggests that the response header would cause the client to wait for next data sent by the server instead of sending a new request message” (id.). B.2. “Beard fails to disclose that the association indication information is located in a frame of a target object, and that the association indication information enables the client to wait for next data sent by the server instead of sending a new request message when receiving the target object.” Id. at 18. B.3. Watson’s cache-related information sent to a client by a server fails to teach or suggest verification information for the client to Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 9 verify a need for the one or more associated objects as recited by claim element v. Id. at 21–22. We address Appellant’s contentions of error in connection with the rejection of claim 1, as follow. B.1 Instructing Client to Refrain From Sending Requests for Resources Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding “that the ‘association indication information’ recited in the independent claims is the same as Watson’s suggestions of resources or a response header for a server- identified resource.” Id. at 14. According to Appellant, although “Watson discloses that the suggested resources identify a selection of resources that the client may wish to request, . . . nowhere in Watson is there any mention about the timing of sending the suggested resources to the client.” Id. at 16. In response, the Examiner finds “there is nothing in the claim or the specification that makes a mention of the timing of sending the suggested resources, or that the association indication information includes any instructions for the client to wait for next data.” Ans. 8. The Examiner explains as follows: In the absence of details unique to the implementation of the claimed invention, Examiner interprets the claim limitation for examining purposes as standard operation of the HTTP protocol where the exchange between the client and the server is governed by request and response over persistent (or other) connection. Watson uses the HTTP protocol and persistent connection where the client waits to receive all of the response, Par. [0107], [0143]. As recited in the claim and supported by Watson, in response to a request message from a client, Watson’s server sends as response: 1) the target object, 2) association indication information, and 3) verification information for the associated objects indicated in the association indication information. Until Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 10 the client receives all of the HTTP response to the original request, it is not expected to make any new request. As indicated in previous office actions and here, the claims and the specification lack subject matter to interpret the claims in any other way. Ans. at 9–10. Appellant’s contention in unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification.”); In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.”). However, although we interpret claim limitations consistent with the specification, we do not import limitations from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). In support of claim element iii(b) reciting that the association indication information enables the client to wait for next data sent by the server instead of sending a new request message when the client receives the target object, Appellant directs attention to paragraphs 43 and 44 of the Specification. Supp. Appeal Br. 3. Paragraph 44 reads as follows: Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 11 If the target object carries the association indication information, the client continues to wait for next data sent by the server rather than sends another request to the server in the prior art. As found by the Examiner, we also find little detail in the Specification concerning limitations as to how the client wait is accomplished or implemented. Ans. 9. Furthermore, rather than requiring the client wait only if the association information indicates that the server has an object available for pushing and not waiting otherwise, claim element iii(b) merely recites enabling the client to wait [at least] when the client receives the client receives the target object. Therefore, under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the argued claim element, we agree with the Examiner that disputed claim element iii(b) is taught or suggested by the combination of (1) Watson’s disclosure of the use of the HTTP protocol and a persistent connection wherein a client waits for the entirety of an HTTP response to be received, in combination with (2) Beard’s disclosure of placing a control program in a first frame of advertisement information. Final Act. 4–5, 7; Ans. 9–10. B.2 Association Indication Information Located in Frame of Target Object Appellant argues Beard fails to teach claim element iii(a) because Beard discloses presentation and control information, not the recited association indication information. Appeal Br. 17–18. Appellant further argues “Beard’s advertisement information is distributed to a user’s computer in accordance with scheduling information that is derived from payments and advertising contracts, and thus, is not the same as a target object requested by a client, as recited by the independent claims.” Id. at 18. Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 12 The Examiner responds, finding “Appellant appears to be arguing over references individually which is improper when the rejection is based on a combination of references.” Ans. 10. The Examiner further explains claim element iii(a) is taught by the combination of Beard’s “frame that contains both data and control information” and Watson’s use of an “HTTP connection which operates on the principle of request/response in a packet- based network” to send “1) [a] requested resource (corresponds to target object); [and] 2) suggestions of other resources (corresponds to association indication information).” Id.at 11. Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error because it fails to address the Examiner’s findings. In particular, the Examiner finds Watson, not the argued Beard reference, teaches sending a target object and association indication information to a client. Final Act. 4, Ans. 10–11. Thus, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 11), Appellant’s argument is an improper attack on the Beard reference individually when the rejection is based on the combination of Watson and Beard in addition to Ruellan. “Non-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., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). B.3 Verification by Client of Need for Associated Object(s) Appellant contends Watson fails to teach claim element v, arguing as follows: Watson discloses that a server sends a response header to a client, in which the response header includes cache related information. See [Watson ¶ 135]. Waton’s client uses the cache related information to consult the cache at the client and determine Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 13 whether to request the object. See id. In Watson, the cache- related information is described as being a date, ETags, or cache- control directives. See id. However, Watson does not disclose sending, by the server, the verification information comprising identifier information of the one or more associated objects to the client for the client to verify a need for the one or more associated objects, as recited by the independent claims. Appeal Br. 21–22. The Examiner responds, finding as follows: Watson in Par. [0133] describes the server identifying resources that will be required by the client in addition to the main resource and all resources are identified by their URLs, Par. [0085] (identifier information of the associated objects); Par. [0135] also describes the server sending cache-related information (Date, ETags, cache-control directives) to be included in the server response so that the client can consult its cache and determine whether to request the object. The term ‘verification information’ is a non-standard term but interpreted based on the context as relating to cache validation. Sending verification information recited in the claim is interpreted as sending cache related information of the server identified resources and the client using that information including the identifier URL information and other to perform a cache validation (client verifies). Ans. 11–12. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible error because it fails to address the Examiner’s findings. In particular, Appellant’s argument is, in essence, a general denial that the applied reference teaches or suggests the disputed claim element without sufficient explanation or supporting evidence. In contrast, we find the Examiner’s findings to be reasonable and supported by the evidence of record. Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 14 For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s contentions in connection with the rejection of independent method claim 1 and corresponding independent apparatus claims 19 and 27 are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. Accordingly we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Watson, Ruellan, and Beard together with the rejection of dependent claims 4–7, 23, and 24, which are not argued separately with particularity. Rejection of Dependent Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim 2 reads as follows: 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: transferring the request message to an upper layer application, so that the upper layer application determines, according to the identifier information of the target object, whether to invoke a predetermined interface; and determining, according to an invocation situation of the predetermined interface, whether the target object has one or more associated objects. Supp. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds the steps of claim 2 are taught by Watson’s description of “an upper layer application like SPDY inserting a multiplexing feature for the HTTP request so that multiple transactions can take place in parallel with assigned priorities over a single TCP connection.” Final Act. 8 (citing Watson ¶¶ 107, 133). Appellant argues, as follows: [Although] Watson discloses a server that provides suggestions of resources that the client may request, . . . nowhere does Watson disclose or suggest transferring a request message to an Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 15 upper layer application or determining, according to an invocation situation of the predetermined interface, whether the target object has one or more associated objects, as recited in claim 2. Appeal Br. 24. Appellant further argues “Watson is silent regarding an upper layer application and an invocation situation of the predetermined interface, as recited in claim 2.” Id. The Examiner responds, explaining as follows: While the claim limitation does not identify an upper layer application by name, it appears that the reference is to an optimizing layer such as SPDY which operates as an upper layer application. SPDY is also the protocol that would identify other objects related to the target object (Server Hint method as noted before). Watson in Par. [0107] describes an upper layer application like SPDY inserting a multiplexing feature for the HTTP request (target object request) so that multiple transactions can take place in parallel with assigned priorities over a single TCP connection; note that setting up multiple streams (if there are one or more associated objects related to the target object) in a single connection is equivalent invoking a predetermined interface and the implementation described must be viewed in the context of the server method described as before in Par. [0133]. Ans. 12–13. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible error because it fails to address the Examiner’s findings. Appellant’s argument is essentially a general denial that the applied reference teaches or suggests the disputed claim element without sufficient explanation or supporting evidence. For example, Appellant fails to explain why the Examiner errs in finding Google’s SPDY communication protocol for transporting web content operates as an upper layer application and identifies objects related to a Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 16 target object. In contrast, we find the Examiner’s findings to be reasonable and supported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Watson, Ruellan, and Beard. Rejection of Dependent Claims 3 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim 3 reads as follows: 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: querying, according to the identifier information of the target object, for an association table used to store information of associated objects of the target object, and determining, according to the query result, whether the target object has one or more associated objects. Supp. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Shmulevich’s disclosure of a “repository that is used to track objects incorporated into web pages” and “use of an association table that shows all objects and their URLs that are incorporated into a parent web page” teaches or suggests the additional subject matter recited by claims 3 and 22. Final Act. 20–22. Appellant contends the rejection is improper because, although “Shmulevich discloses that in the event [an] object [incorporated into a web page] is changed, the table is used to automatically update the web page with the new object content,” Shmulevich nonetheless fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 3. Appeal Br. 26–27. The Examiner responds, finding Appellant’s argument is an improper attack on Shmulevich individually when the rejection is based on the combination with Watson, explaining as follows: Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 17 [While] Watson’s server provides suggested resources to the client in addition to the requested resource . . . and implicit in that feature is querying/retrieving stored information (such as a table in a database) about other resources related to the main resource requested by the client. As made clear in the Final rejection, Shmulevich reference is solely used to indicate the use of an association table to query and find associated objects of the target object. Figure 1 shows the system used in Shmulevich reference, in particular the repository that is used to track objects incorporated into web pages and Col. 2, lines 37–51 describe the use of an association table that shows all objects and their URLs that are incorporated into a parent web page. Ans. 12–13. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible error because it fails to address the Examiner’s findings that the subject matter of claim 3 is taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Watson and Shmulevich, not Shmulevich individually as argued. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Watson, Ruellan, Beard and Shmulevich. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 7, 19, 22–24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 19, 23, 24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings Watson, Ruellan, and Beard. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings Watson, Ruellan, Beard and Shmulevich. Appeal 2020-002160 Application 14/106,499 18 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 7, 19, 22–24, 27 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–4, 6, 7, 19, 22– 24, 27 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 19, 23, 24, 27 103 Watson, Ruellan, Beard 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 19, 23, 24, 27 3, 22 103 Watson, Ruellan, Beard, Shmulevich 3, 22 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 7, 19, 22–24, 27 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation