LaValley Industries, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2021

2020003473 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021)

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.
15/605,324 05/25/2017 Jason LaValley 20300.0049USU1 6578
52835 7590 06/02/2021
HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
45 South Seventh Street
Suite 2700
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683
EXAMINER
YAO, THEODORE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2021 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):
PTOMail@hsml.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON LAVALLEY, JESSE J. KILDE, DANIEL L. LARSON,
and BILL BRANDT
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, 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 1–18. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LaValley Industries,
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to a horizontal directional drilling rig
operation method in which components are monitored electronically to
identify specific individual components that are performing in a substandard
manner or have reached a predetermined number of cycles. See Spec.
¶¶ 3–5. Claims 1, 6, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A horizontal directional drilling rig operation method, the
horizontal directional drilling rig includes traverse carrier drive
components disposed on a traverse carrier and drill pipe
rotation components disposed on the traverse carrier, the
method comprising:
electronically monitoring the performance and/or life
cycle of one or more of the following:
the traverse carrier drive components;
the drill pipe rotation components;
power control components that supply power to the
traverse carrier drive components and the drill pipe rotation
components;
based on the electronic monitoring, identifying a specific
one of the traverse carrier drive components, a specific one of
the drill pipe rotation components, or a specific one of the
power control components as having substandard performance
and/or being at the end of its life cycle; and
at least one of the following:
i) adjusting the performance of at least one of the other
traverse carrier drive components if one of the traverse carrier
drive components is identified as having substandard
performance, or adjusting the performance of at least one of the
other drill pipe rotation components if one of the drill pipe
rotation components is identified as having substandard
performance, or adjusting the performance of at least one of the
other power control components if one of the power control
components is identified as having substandard performance;
and
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

3
ii) replacing the specific traverse carrier drive component
identified as having substandard performance and/or at the end
of its life cycle, or replacing the specific drill pipe rotation
component identified as having substandard performance and/or
at the end of its life cycle, or replacing the specific power
control component identified as having substandard
performance and/or at the end of its life cycle.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jones US 2006/0081399 A1 Apr. 20, 2006
Riel US 2006/0243490 A1 Nov. 2, 2006
Osara US 2013/0056271 A1 Mar. 7, 2013
Kuittinen US 2013/0214928 A1 Aug. 22, 2013
Kirkhope US 2015/0226013 A1 Aug. 13, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Kuittinen.
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 11, 12, and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Riel and Kirkhope.
Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Riel, Kirkhope, and Jones.
Claims 10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Riel, Kirkhope, and Osara.
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

4
OPINION
Claim 18
Independent claim 18 recites “[a] horizontal directional drilling rig
operation method.” Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.). Appellant argues that
“Kuittinen does not disclose a horizontal directional drilling rig operation
method.” Appeal Br. 8. The disposition of the appeal of the rejection of
claim 18 hinges in pertinent part on the proper construction of “horizontal
directional drilling rig operation method.” See Ans. 3–4 (setting forth the
Examiner’s construction of “horizontal directional drilling” operations);
Appeal Br. 8–9 (setting forth Appellant’s asserted construction of
“horizontal directional drilling” operations).
Appellant’s Specification does not set forth an express definition of
“horizontal directional drilling,” but, rather, states that “[m]any examples of
horizontal directional drilling rigs are known.” See Spec. ¶ 2 (citing several
US patents, a published patent application, and a rig that is commercially
available).
US Patent 6,554,082 issued to Bischel et al. (hereinafter “Bischel”),
cited by Appellant as an example of horizontal directional drilling rigs
(Spec. ¶ 2), describes a process of laying underground utilities by boring an
underground hole in which a boring system is positioned on the ground
surface and drills a hole into the ground at an oblique angle with respect to
the ground surface until it reaches a desired depth, at which point the boring
tool is directed along a substantially horizontal path to create a horizontal
borehole for a desired length and then directed upwards to break through the
surface. Bischel 1:21–53. This process overcomes problems, such as
disturbing structures or roadways, damaging previously buried utilities, and
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

5
presenting potential danger to workers and passersby, associated with
trenching to run underground utilities. Id. at 1:21–33.
US Patent 7,413,031 to Koch et al. (hereinafter “Koch”), which is
another of the patents cited by Appellant in paragraph 2 of the Specification,
describes “horizontal directional drilling” as being “used to install
underground utilities or other objects” in a manner that “minimizes ground
surface disruption and the likelihood of damaging already-buried objects.”
Koch 1:23–27. According to Koch, “[h]orizontal directional drilling
operations generally consist of using the drilling machine to advance a drill
string through the subterranean earth along a preselected path” that is
“ordinarily selected so as to avoid already-buried objects such as buried
utilities.” Id. at 1:27–32. Koch describes a process very much like the
process that Bischel describes for drilling the borehole. See id. at 1:36–55;
Bischel 1:34–53.
Further, Appellant directs our attention to several online sources that
illustrate the established meaning of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) in
the art. Appeal Br. 9. For example, Appellant cites to ScienceDirect.com,
which contains excerpts of several books for purchase, each of which
discusses horizontal directional drilling. Id. (citing
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/horizontal-directional-
drilling). The excerpts from the books on ScienceDirect.com describe and
illustrate horizontal directional drilling techniques fully consistent with the
techniques described by Bischel and Koch.
The patents cited in paragraph 2 of Appellant’s Specification and the
sources cited on page 9 of Appellant’s Appeal Brief demonstrate that
horizontal directional drilling, and horizontal directional drilling rigs used
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

6
for horizontal directional drilling, have well established meanings in the art.
Horizontal directional drilling involves more than simply drilling in an
underground location. Horizontal directional drilling is a trenchless drilling
process in which a drill string is initially directed, from the ground surface,
at an oblique angle into the ground and then re-directed to a horizontal
direction to drill a substantially horizontal underground borehole beneath the
ground surface in a manner to avoid damage to structures and roadways on
the ground surface.
In contrast, Kuittinen discloses rock drilling rigs for drilling boreholes
at planned drilling sites, such as in underground mines or drilling fan-like
boreholes in a ceiling and/or walls of a rock cavern. Kuittinen ¶¶ 4, 35.
Kuittinen discloses that once the drilling of the boreholes is completed, the
mining vehicle can be moved to a next drilling site. Id. ¶ 4. Kuittinen does
not disclose “[a] horizontal directional drilling rig operation method” as
recited in claim 18 and as understood in the art. Thus, Kuittinen does not
anticipate the subject matter of claim 18. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 18 as anticipated by Kuittinen.2
Claims 1–5
The Examiner finds that Riel discloses a horizontal drilling rig
operation method, with a horizontal directional drilling rig having all of the

2 Our decision reversing the rejection of claim 18 as anticipated by Kuittinen
should in no way be construed as an indication that the subject matter of
claim 18 is patentable. As the Board’s function is primarily one of review,
we make no determination as to whether one of the other prior art references
of record, which disclose horizontal directional drilling operations, might,
either alone or in combination with Kuittinen or other prior art of record,
render claim 18 unpatentable.
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

7
components recited in claim 1, but that Riel is silent regarding electronically
monitoring as called for in claim 1. Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner finds that
Kirkhope teaches a wellbore component life monitoring system and
determines it would have been obvious to use such a component life
monitoring system to monitor the components of Riel’s rig because this
entails applying a known technique (a component monitoring system in a
wellbore drilling rig) to a known method (a horizontal drilling rig operation
method) to yield predictable results (identifying potential failures and
allowing for pre-emptive or preventive action). Id. at 8–9 (noting that Riel’s
assembly “is largely mechanical and subject to failure over time”).
Appellant argues that “Kirkhope is not analogous to the claimed
invention.” Appeal Br. 14 (underlining omitted). The established precedent
of our reviewing court sets up a two-fold test for determining whether art is
analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In
re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Appellant contends that “horizontal directional drilling rigs and
vertical wellbore drills are different and distinct systems, and a vertical
wellbore drill as disclosed by Kirkhope is not from the same field of
endeavor as a horizontal directional drilling rig.” Id. at 15. Further,
Appellant contends that Kirkhope is concerned with “monitoring the drill bit
that is located in the drilled hole” while, in contrast, Appellant’s invention
addresses the problem of performance of components on the drilling rig
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

8
outside of the drilled hole, as well as identifying specific individual
components, from among a plurality of other similar components, “that are
not functioning properly, and either replacing the individual component or
adjusting the performance of the other similar components to make up for
the improperly performing component.” Id. According to Appellant,
“Kirkhope monitors the single element, i.e.[,] the drill bit, in the drilled
hole” and, thus, “is not relevant to monitoring different ones of the same
component, and identifying one of the components as improperly
functioning.” Id.
The “field of endeavor” test asks if the structure and function of the
prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in
the art because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed
invention as disclosed in the application. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325–27.
Applying this test, the Examiner finds that Kirkhope is in the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention because both Kirkhope and Appellant’s
system “have essentially the same function of operating to form a wellbore
using a rig and necessary downhole components[,] e.g.[,] a boring
implement, drill string, etc.” Ans. 8 (citing Kirkhope, Fig. 1; ¶¶ 1, 8, 14;
Appellant’s Spec. ¶ 2 (citing Koch patent, discussed above)). Further, the
Examiner directs our attention to published patent applications that describe
horizontal directional drilling systems and techniques as “‘similar’ to
conventional drilling systems used in the oil and gas industry.” Id. at 8–9;
Final Act. 2–3.
The Examiner’s determination that Kirkhope is in the same field of
endeavor as Appellant’s invention, pursuant to the Bigio test, is well-
reasoned and factually supported in the record. Further, Appellant does not
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

9
persuasively refute the Examiner’s analysis. See Appeal Br. 16 (merely
reiterating that “Kirkhope does not disclose a directional drilling process”).
Moreover, even if Kirkhope is not considered to be within Appellant’s
field of endeavor, the Examiner finds that Kirkhope is reasonably pertinent
to the problem faced by Appellant—namely, performance of components on
the drilling rig outside of the drilled hole. Ans. 9. The Examiner points to
Kirkhope’s discussion of “components, for example, drilling components,
used in wellbores” (¶ 1) and knowing the load applied to a component in
order to monitor fatigue on the component and a life of the component (¶ 2).
Id. Further, the Examiner directs our attention to Kirkhope’s disclosure
regarding a component that is “not being operated in the wellbore” as
indicative of monitoring of the life of a component other than just the drill
bit, including a component operated outside of the wellbore. Id. (citing
Kirkhope ¶ 29). The Examiner also highlights Kirkhope’s reference to
“monitoring lives of components” as “mak[ing] clear that a plurality of
components are monitored in this wellbore monitoring system.” Id. at 9–10
(quoting, with emphasis, Kirkhope ¶ 8).
Appellant questions whether Kirkhope’s reference in paragraph 29 to
a component that “is not being operated in the wellbore” is a reference “to
the drill bit when it is not in the drilled hole, or some other unknown
component of the drilling system.” Appeal Br. 15. In our view, this is not
material or dispositive as to the issue of whether or not Kirkhope is
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Appellant. See Final Act. 4
(finding that, even if Kirkhope does not explicitly discuss applicability of the
monitoring system outside of the wellbore, Kirkhope’s teachings are still
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Appellant). Kirkhope is
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

10
concerned with, and discloses a monitoring system to address, monitoring
the lives of components (plural) used in drilling operations, identifying a
component that has exceeded its fatigue threshold (i.e., exceeded its
expected life), and replacing the identified component. See, e.g., Kirkhope
¶¶ 2, 8, 15–17, 34. Thus, Kirkhope is reasonably pertinent to the problem
addressed by Appellant (i.e., monitoring the life of drilling rig components,
identifying a component that is at the end of its life cycle, and replacing the
identified component), regardless of whether Kirkhope expressly teaches
monitoring the lives of components of the drilling rig that are operated
outside the wellbore.
Appellant contends that, even if Riel and Kirkhope were combined as
proposed by the Examiner, the result would not be the invention of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 16–17. In particular, Appellant argues that “Riel does not
disclose any monitoring of any components on the HDD rig,” and Kirkhope
teaches monitoring a single element within a wellbore, not monitoring
multiple ones of the same type of component and identifying a specific one
as having substandard performance or being at the end of its life cycle. Id.
Thus, according to Appellant, “applying the teachings of Kirkhope to Riel, a
single element of Riel would be monitored.” Id. at 17.
We agree with the Examiner that this line of argument attacks the
references individually. See Ans. 11. “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., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981)).
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

11
Additionally, Appellant’s contention that Kirkhope teaches
monitoring a single component is inaccurate. As discussed above, Kirkhope
expressly teaches that its “disclosure relates to monitoring lives of
components” (i.e., plural components). Kirkhope ¶ 8 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not contest, that Riel’s
horizontal directional drilling rig includes traverse carrier drive components
and drill pipe rotation components. Final Act. 7; see, e.g., Riel ¶ 50 (cited
by the Examiner). Further, as the Examiner points out, the components of
Riel’s rig, including the traverse carrier drive and drill pipe rotation
components, are “largely mechanical and subject to failure over time.” Final
Act. 9. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have readily
appreciated the applicability of Kirkhope’s teachings regarding monitoring
the life of drilling rig components subject to failure under load to Riel’s
traverse carrier drive components and drill pipe rotation components.
Applying a life cycle monitoring technique as taught by Kirkhope to Riel’s
rig would entail monitoring the life of each of these components, identifying
a specific component that has exceeded its fatigue threshold (i.e., reached
the end of its expected life), and ceasing operations to replace the component
(see Kirkhope ¶ 34).
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that the combined teachings of Riel and Kirkhope
render obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Riel and Kirkhope. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5, for which Appellant does not
present any separate arguments and which thus fall with claim 1, as
unpatentable over Riel and Kirkhope. See Appeal Br. 6 (stating that
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

12
“[d]ependent claims 2–5 stand or fall with claim 1”). Additionally, because
Appellant does not present any arguments specifically contesting the
rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Riel, Kirkhope, and Jones (see id.),
we also sustain the rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Riel, Kirkhope,
and Jones, for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 6–17
Independent claim 6 recites “[a] horizontal directional drilling rig
system” comprising, in pertinent part, “a health monitoring system that
electronically monitors the performance and/or life cycle of one or more of:
the traverse carrier drive components, the drill pipe rotation components,
and the power control components” and “can identify a specific one of the
traverse carrier drive components, a specific one of the drill pipe rotation
components, or a specific one of the power control components as having
substandard performance and based on such identification,” adjust the
performance of at least one of the other components of the component
grouping (i.e., traverse carrier drive, drill pipe rotation, or power control) if
one of the components of that component grouping is identified as having
substandard performance. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). Unlike claim 1,
which can be satisfied either by adjusting performance of at least one of the
other components of the component grouping or replacing the specific
component identified as having substandard performance and/or being at the
end of its life cycle, claim 6 expressly requires that the health monitoring
system be able to identify a specific one of the components as having
substandard performance and adjust the performance of at least one of the
other components of the component grouping in which a component has
been identified as having substandard performance.
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

13
The Examiner’s findings and reasoning in combining the teachings of
Riel and Kirkhope in addressing claim 6 are substantially similar to those
discussed above in regard to claim 1. See Final Act. 11–13. Citing
paragraphs 34 and 36 of Kirkhope, the Examiner states that the resulting
combination would satisfy the identifying and adjusting functions of claim 6.
Id. at 13–14.
Appellant repeats the arguments that Kirkhope is not analogous art
and that the combination does not teach monitoring multiple ones of the
same component grouping, or monitoring components outside the drill hole.
Appeal Br. 18–19. For the reasons discussed above, these arguments fail to
apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1 and, likewise, fail to apprise us
of error in the rejection of claim 6.
In addition, Appellant argues that “Riel and Kirkhope do not teach or
suggest adjusting the performance of one of the other components in
common with the component found to have substandard performance.”
Appeal Br. 19. Appellant also argues that Kirkhope does not teach
identifying a component having substandard performance. Id. Appellant
submits that it is possible that a component could exceed the threshold
fatigue as described in paragraph 34 of Kirkhope and yet still perform
properly, and, thus, “exceeding threshold fatigue is not equivalent to
identifying substandard performance.” Id. Appellant contends, therefore,
that Kirkhope’s paragraph 34 “does not disclose a health monitoring system
that identifies any component as having substandard performance.” Id. at
19–20.
The Examiner considers Appellant’s asserted construction of
“substandard performance” as “performing improperly” to be unduly
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

14
narrow. Ans. 12. The Examiner appears to construe “substandard
performance” as falling below whatever the system sets as a performance
standard. See id. In the case of Kirkhope, the Examiner finds that “the
system sets a performance standard in the form of meeting or failing to meet
a ‘threshold fatigue[.]’” Id.
We understand the Examiner’s position to be that, based on this
construction of “substandard performance,” Kirkhope’s determination that a
component has exceeded the threshold fatigue constitutes identifying a
specific component as having “substandard performance.” Further, the
Examiner finds that ceasing operations if the system determines that a
component has exceeded the threshold fatigue, as Kirkhope teaches in
paragraph 34, necessarily “changes the performance of the components from
an operational state to an inoperative state, even if just temporarily, as
permitted by the claims.” Ans. 12.
Appellant argues that “[a]djusting performance as claimed is different
than, and does not include, ceasing operations.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant
contends that, in light of the disclosure in Appellant’s Specification of
modifying or adjusting operation of other, properly functioning similar
components in paragraphs 4 and 63, for example, a person having ordinary
skill in the art would understand “adjust the performance” as recited in
claim 6 to mean that the operation of at least one other, properly functioning
similar component of the rig is modified, “while continuing to operate, to
account for the improperly performing component.” Reply Br. 3.
According to Appellant, “[i]nterpreting ‘adjust the performance’ as claimed
as including shutting down operation is simply not reasonable in light of the
[S]pecification.” Id.
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

15
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. The language “adjust the
performance” implies a performance after the adjustment. In other words,
one would infer that the component with the adjusted performance is still
performing, that is, operating in a modified/adjusted manner. Further, the
description of adjusting the operation of one or more other components, such
as adjusting the operation of one or more of the motors by means of its
adjustable speed drive, to account for the component identified as not
performing properly is consistent with this understanding. See, e.g., Spec.
¶¶ 60, 61, 63. Thus, the Examiner’s construction of “adjust the
performance” as including “ceas[ing] operations to replace the component,”
as taught in paragraph 34 of Kirkhope, is unreasonable.
The Examiner additionally points out that “‘[t]he monitoring system
102 can provide the decreased loads, longer times, and the decreased rate to
the operator’ . . . to further adjust the performance of the components in the
system.” Ans. 12–13 (citing Kirkhope ¶ 36); see also Final Act. 14 (alluding
to “alternative load applicable to the component based on its threshold
fatigue level/substandard performance”). Kirkhope teaches determining
alternative load conditions, such as decreased loads applied for longer times,
applicable to a component identified as approaching, but not yet reaching,
the end of its expected life—that is, being within a predetermined number
(i.e., threshold difference) of the maximum number of cycles that defines its
expected life—to decrease the rate at which a used life of the component
reaches a maximum life. Kirkhope ¶¶ 35, 36. Thus, Kirkhope teaches
determining alternative loading conditions to be applied to the component
before the component reaches the “threshold fatigue,” which Kirkhope
defines as the maximum number of cycles that a component would be
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

16
expected to be able to endure. See id. ¶ 33. Further, the alternative loading
conditions discussed in paragraph 36 of Kirkhope are applicable to the
identified component, not necessarily to other similar components.
Accordingly, even if we apply the Examiner’s construction of “substandard
performance” as falling below whatever the system sets as a performance
standard, and the Examiner’s interpretation, in the case of Kirkhope, that
“the system sets a performance standard in the form of meeting or failing to
meet a ‘threshold fatigue’” (Ans. 12), as discussed above, it is not apparent,
and the Examiner does not adequately explain, how this teaching of
determining alternative loading conditions in paragraph 36 of Kirkhope
corresponds to, or suggests, adjusting the performance of one of the other
components if one of the components is identified as having substandard
performance.
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has
not established a sustainable case that the subject matter of claim 6 would
have been obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6,
or of its dependent claims 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15–17, as unpatentable over Riel
and Kirkhope.
The Examiner’s application of Jones and Osara in rejecting claims 9,
10, 13, and 14, which depend from claim 6, does not make up for the
deficiencies in the combination of Riel and Kirkhope vis-à-vis claim 6. See
Final Act. 18–20. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 as
unpatentable over Riel, Kirkhope, and Jones, or the rejection of claims 10,
13, and 14 as unpatentable over Riel, Kirkhope, and Osara.
Appeal 2020-003473
Application 15/605,324

17
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED as to claims 1–5 and
REVERSED as to claims 6–18.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
18 102(a)(1) Kuittinen 18
1–3, 5–8,
11, 12, 15–
17
103 Riel, Kirkhope 1–3, 5 6–8, 11,
12, 15–
17
4, 9 103 Riel, Kirkhope,
Jones
4 9
10, 13, 14 103 Riel, Kirkhope,
Osara
10, 13,
14
Overall
Outcome
1–5 6–18

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 IN PART