Leonard Drey

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2022

2020003552 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 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. 14/524,694 10/27/2014 Leonard L. Drey LLDPT06 8770 49691 7590 01/04/2022 IP Strategies P.O. Box 6446 Asheville, NC 28816 EXAMINER SCHALLHORN, TYLER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2022 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): thomas.champagne@ipstrategiespc.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LEONARD L. DREY ____________ Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JAMES HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 47-91 which constitute all the pending claims in application no. 14/524,694 (“the ’694 application”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Leonard L. Drey as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to content presentation including creating a document file including content presented to a user in sequential units on a display device. Abstract. A current version of the content is presented in which fewer than all units are viewable. Id. After a user performs a predetermined action, a subsequent version of the content is presented. Id. Unviewable units of content in the current version are viewable in a subsequent version. Id. Alternatively, a delimiter is inserted in the document file and after passing the delimiter while viewing content, the subsequent version is presented. Id. Independent claim 47, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 47. A method of governing presentation of content to a user, comprising: creating a document file, wherein the document file is a computer- readable file that includes content, wherein the content is divided into fixed strings, wherein each said string constitutes a single unit of the content, and wherein the units of content are arranged in sequence; presenting the content to the user, one said unit at a time in sequence, via an electronic display device, wherein the unit of content that is presented to the user at any time is a current unit of content corresponding to a current string of content; performing, by the user, one of a first predetermined action and a second predetermined action; in response to each performance of the first predetermined action, presenting a subsequent sequential unit of the content to the user in place of the current unit of the content such that the subsequent unit becomes the current unit; determining a string condition of the current string of content in the sequence, based on a string number of the current string; and in response to performance of the second predetermined action: Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 3 presenting a redirected sequential unit of the content to the user in place of the current unit of the content if the string condition has a redirect value, and continuing to present the current unit of the content to the user if the string condition does not have a redirect value, wherein the redirected unit of the content is a unit of content that is any unit of content in the document file designated by the redirect value regardless of the sequence. App. Br. 155 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Stoner US 2012/0200573 Al Aug. 9, 2012 Lorch US 2013/0185198 Al July 18, 2013 Hunter US 2014/0259043 Al Sept. 11, 2014 Newell US 2013/0209981 Al Aug. 15, 2013 Goodman, “The Complete HyperCard Handbook,” Second Edition. The Unicode Standard, Version 6.1, Chapter 2: General Structure. (pp 1−875)(1988). . THE REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: 1. Claims 47 and 91 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 96 of copending application no. 14/965,855 (“the ’855 application”). 2. Claims 47-91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because there is lack of support for the terms “string number,” “string condition,” “redirect value,” or “fixed string.” 3. Claims 47-91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 4 4. Claims 47-64, 66-77, and 91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stoner in view of Lorch, further in view of Goodman. 5. Claim 65 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stoner in view of Lorch, Goodman, and further in view of Hunter. 6. Claims 78-90 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stoner in view of Lorch, Goodman, and further in view of Newell. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). 1. Double Patenting Rejection of claims 47 and 91 The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 47 and 91 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 96 of the ’855 application because although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite essentially the same invention, using different wording (“redirecting” in response to the user having reached a certain “string number” versus Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 5 “presenting a second version” in response to a user’s viewing a certain number of units of content). Final Act. 5-6. Appellant argues that claim 47 is a method of governing presentation to a user including the action of determining a string condition of the current string of content in the sequence, based on a string number of the current string. Appeal Br. 15. In the method of claim 47, in response to performance of the second predetermined action, a redirected sequential unit of the content is presented to the user in place of the current unit of the content if the string condition has a redirect value, and presentation of the content unit of the content to the user is continued if the string condition does not have a redirect value. Id. The redirected unit of the content is a unit of content that is any unit of content in the document file designated by the redirect value regardless of the sequence. Id. In contrast, Appellant argues that claim 96 of the ’855 application depends from claim 92, which recites a method of governing content presentation. Id. According to the method of claim 92 of the ’855 application, a first version of a plurality of versions of content is presented to a user in a sequence of units. Id. In response to performance of a first predetermined action, a subsequent sequential unit of the content is presented to the user. Id. In response to performance of a second predetermined action, a second version of the content is presented in place of the first version of the content. Id. Thus, instead of redirecting presentation of the content from a current unit to a different unit in the same version as recited in claim 47 in the current application, claims 92 and 96 of the ’855 application recite replacing the first version of the content with a second version of the content. Id. Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 6 Appellant repeats the same argument with respect to claim 91. See Appeal Br. 18-20. The Examiner finds that the current Specification of the ’694 application as it relates to claim 47, describes that a document may have multiple versions in the form of “interleaves” (or “units of content”), such that the difference between presenting a first version and a second version depends on which interleaves, if any, are displayed. Ans. 3 (citing Spec. 10- 12). The Examiner finds that the second version may be accessed by performing a predetermined action (i.e., pressing a key) after a particular author-defined point has been reached (Spec. 10:1-15)2; the second version may have a number of additional “strings” or pages in a row (Spec. 11:10- 15). The Examiner finds that claim 47 of the ’694 application recites “presenting a redirected sequential unit of the content to the user in place of the current unit of the content if the string condition has a redirect value.” Ans. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner notes that neither the term “string condition” nor “redirect value” appear in the Specification of the ’694 application, and are currently subject to a § 112(b) rejection for being indefinite. Id. The Examiner finds that the most likely interpretation, in light of the Specification, is that these terms are directed to the feature of requiring the user to have reached a certain point (certain number of “strings” or “units of content” viewed) before the second version may be viewed. Id. The Examiner finds that the “redirected sequential unit of 2 The Examiner cites to Specification page 11, but this is an inadvertent error as the relevant content appears in page 10. Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 7 content” is an interleaf of the second version, being presented “in place of the current unit,” which is the first version. Id. According to the Examiner, claim 47 of the instant application recites essentially the same subject matter in different words, and thus is anticipated by reference claim 96 of the ’855 application. Id. Rather than a “redirected unit” and “current unit,” the claims use the terms “second version” and “first version.” Id. Claim 92 of the ’855 application further recites that the second version may be composed of units that are identical to the first version (“wherein the recurring units are identical to corresponding ones of the first number of the units”) or duplicates of the first version (“added units are at least one of . . . duplicates of the first number of the Units”) such that the claim encompasses embodiments where the first and second versions vary only by a single unit, or not at all. Id. The Examiner finds that this is contrary to Appellant’s assertion that the claims require “replacing all units,” the claim only requires that a second number of units is “presented in place” of the first number of units, but the two sets of units may not even be different units at all. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner further finds that claim 96 of the ’855 application adds the limitation where the user must view a predetermined number of units of content before the second version will be displayed in response to the second predetermined action, and this is equivalent to the “string condition” and “redirect value” portion of claim 47 of the instant application. Id. The Examiner finds that claim 91 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 47, but as a “device” rather than a “method,” and therefore is likewise anticipated by claim 96 of the ’855 application. Ans. 5. Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 8 We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Nonstatutory double patenting includes rejections based on anticipation, a one-way determination of “obviousness,” or a two-way determination of “obviousness.” See MPEP § 1504.06. Double Patenting rejections are based on a comparison of claims. In double patenting rejections, the disclosure of the patent or application may be relied upon only to define the claim. Id. At issue is whether the claim 47 limitation of “presenting a redirected sequential unit of the content to the user in place of the current unit of the content if the string condition has a redirect value” is anticipated or obvious over the claim 91 limitation reciting “in response to performance of the second predetermined action, presenting a second version of the content in place of the first version of the content.” See claims 47, 91. We agree with the Examiner’s finding because in both claim 47 and claim 91 content is replaced (i.e., “in place of” recited in both claims) and this is done in response to a predetermined action. We further agree with Examiner that the “predetermined action” is equivalent to the “string condition” and “redirect value” portion of claim 47 of the instant application. See Ans. 4-5. The end result of redirection is the substitution of content. Nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s argument regarding the version types as a distinction because, claim 91 recite two alternative versions, either identical or different by stating: wherein the second number of the units of content include at least one of recurring units and added units, wherein the recurring units are identical to corresponding ones of the first number of the units of the content, and wherein the added units are at least one of different from any of the first number of the units of the content, and duplicates of the first number of the units of the content. Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 9 Claim 91 (emphases added). Thus, we do not agree with Appellant’s argument that instead of redirecting presentation of the content from a current unit to a different unit in the same version as recited in claim 47, claims 92 and 96 of the ’855 application recite replacing the first version of the content with a second version of the content. See Appeal Br. 18-20. Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s rejection under provisionally rejected claims 47 and 91 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 96 of copending application no. 14/965,855. 2. Written Description Requirement Rejection of 47-91 Appellant argues that the terms “string number,” “string condition,” and “redirect value” are not terms of art, nor do they have technical meaning with respect to understanding the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 22. Instead, they are terms of convenience used in the claims to explain the technical steps. Id. Appellant argues that they do not define technical elements of the invention but instead are used to describe in interrelations of the technical elements so that the process can be recited. Id. Appellant argues that if the condition of the string is determined, the result is a string condition. Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. To comply with the “written description” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 10 The invention is, for purposes of the “written description” inquiry, whatever is now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The invention claimed does not have to be described in ipsis verbis in order to satisfy the written description requirement. Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2000). However, one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must be able to immediately discern the limitations now claimed. See Waldemar Link v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 558 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Examiner finds, and we agree that although the Specification describes some functions at a high level, such as tracking the number of units (strings) of content passed or redirecting presentation, it does not describe any particular way of performing the functions. See Ans. 6. For example, it is not clear whether a “string number” is e.g., a number of a particular string, a total number of strings encountered, or something else. Id. The Examiner finds that the Specification does not provide support for any particular interpretation. Id. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that Appellant has not pointed out which portion(s) of the Specification allegedly provide support for these terms. Id. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of written description requirement of claims 47-91. 3. Indefiniteness of claims 47-91 The Examiner rejected claims 47 and 91 and their dependent claims 48-90, because the recited the terms “fixed string,” “string number,” “string condition,” and “redirect value” do not appear in the Specification. Final Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 11 Act. 8. The Examiner finds that where Appellant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. See id. (citing Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The Examiner finds that because the term “string” is being used contrary to its ordinary meaning in the art, these related terms do not have a clear definition in the Specification, they are indefinite. Id. Appellant argues that the term “string” and “fixed string” are well known to those of skill in the art. Appeal Br. 29-30. Appellant argues that as noted throughout the Specification, content is presented to a user in a sequence of discrete units, and these units may be strings. Appeal Br. 30. The terms, as used in the written description and claims, carry their ordinary meaning and are not indefinite. Id. Appellant argues that the terms “string number,” “string condition,” and “redirect value” are not terms of art, nor do they have technical meaning with respect to understanding the claimed invention. Id. Instead, they are terms of convenience used in the claims to explain the technical steps. Id. Appellant argues that they do not define technical elements of the invention but instead are used to describe in interrelations of the technical elements so that the process can be recited. Id. Appellant argues that if the condition of the string is determined, the result is a string condition. Id. The Examiner finds that “string” is a term commonly used in the computer-related arts, however the precise definition varies because different programming languages implement strings in different ways. Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 12 Ans. 7. The Examiner provides the technical definition of “string” as “string: A data structure composed of a sequence of characters usually representing human-readable text.” Ans. 7 (citing Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th edition). The Examiner explains that, for example, in Java, strings are immutable, having both fixed length and fixed content, whereas other languages allow strings to be modified after creation. Id. The Examiner notes that “string” does not usually refer to data in a file, but rather to a data structure in memory during execution of a program. Id. The Examiner further notes that in the response filed 27 September 2018, Appellant amended the claims to recite “fixed strings” instead of simply “strings” and this term does not appear in any technical dictionary and search results show widely varying usage. Id. The Examiner finds that based on a review of the accompanying arguments (remarks, p. 17), it appeared to be an attempt to overcome the Stoner reference, which uses variable pagination, such that the content that appears on each page may change depending on factors such as user-configurable font size. Id. However, the Examiner states that a person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret “fixed string” otherwise because it is unclear what aspect of the string is fixed, i.e., a fixed length, fixed content, both, or something else. Id. The Examiner finds that regarding the terms “string number,” “string condition,” and “redirect value,” these terms do not appear in the Specification. Ans. 8. Appellant admits they are not terms of art and it is unclear what any of these three things would be, and Appellant has not pointed to any specific disclosure in the Specification describing them. Id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that these terms are indefinite. Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 13 In its Reply Appellant argues that the technical definitions provided by the Examiner regarding “string” and a string that is immutable being a “fixed string” as reasonable definitions but does not address the remaining terms other than repeat that they are not terms of arts. We note that Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that “string” does not usually refer to data in a file, but rather to a data structure in memory during execution of a program. See Reply Br. While Appellant agrees with the technical terms of the definitions “string” and “fixed string,” Appellant interprets these terms differently in the art rejections and states that “[t]he content is divided into fixed strings. Each string constitutes a single unit of the content.” Appeal Br. 39. This interpretation of data content contradicts data structure in memory. Thus, it is unclear what is meant by the term “string.” Where, as here, a claim is “amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the [Examiner] is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-12 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (it “is the [A]pplicants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 47 and 91 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 47-91 for the terms “string number,” “string condition,” “redirect value,” “string,” and “fixed string.” Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 14 4. Rejection of claims 47-64, 66-77, and 91 under 35 USC §l03(a) Appellant argues that Stoner does not teach or suggest that content is presented to a user in fixed discrete units, in sequence, one at a time, and that the user performs a first predetermined action to move the sequence of content along and a second predetermined action to direct the content out of sequence, if a condition is met, as required by claim 47. Appeal Br. 40. In particular, Appellant argues that Stoner makes available a document in which content can be locked or unlocked for presentation, and in which the locked content is arranged without regard to discrete units (pages or strings) of the presentation. Appeal Br. 42. The locked content is unlockable for viewing by the user, with no regard for discrete units of the content. Id. Pages are determined on the fly prior to presentation, not as fixed strings. Id. Appellant argues that Goodman teaches a handbook to HyperCard. Appeal Br. 43. In the handbook, Goodman teaches, for example, information regarding HyperCard stacks, as noted by the Examiner. Id. A HyperCard stack is a homogenous collection of information organized as a separate Macintosh disk file. Id. (citing Goodman pg. 20). A HyperCard will appear as having a particular size, depending on the size of the monitor used to view the HyperCard. Id. (citing Goodman pgs. 92-93). Only one HyperCard, which may extend beyond the visible dimensions of the display, may be viewed at a time. Id. (citing Goodman pg. 348). A keyboard can be used to navigate through a stack of HyperCards, either sequentially or out of sequence to a specific card. Id. A menu bar can be used to hide screen objects from view. Id. Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 15 Appellant argues that Goodman teaches the basics of navigating from the early days (1988) of hypermedia including aspects of navigating information provided on disks, but the handbook has little to do with the aspects of the invention as recited in claim 47. Id. Appellant argues that Goodman does not teach or suggest that content is presented to a user in fixed discrete units, in sequence, one at a time, and that the user performs a first predetermined action to move the sequence of content along and a second predetermined action to direct the content out of sequence, if a condition is met, as recited in claim 47. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The 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 [those] references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425. The Examiner finds that Stoner teaches that a book may be displayed one page at a time (Stoner, para. 51) and that effects can apply to an entire page (Stoner, para. 55). Ans. 9. Stoner teaches electronic books may be read in the conventional manner (page by page, “in sequence”), but also teaches that a page may be displayed multiple ways or that a book may be displayed with additional content, i.e. content that is presented out of sequence. Id. (citing Stoner, paras. 54, 59, 60, FIG. 6). The content may be unlocked or selected by performing various actions (i.e., “predetermined actions”), such as reaching a point in the book (Stoner, para. 53), Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 16 touching/clicking links (Stoner, para. 54), or completing tasks (Stoner, Para. 57). Id. The Examiner finds that Stoner expressly states that content may not be shown the first time a user views the book (Stoner, para. 53) and that a user may be redirected to other portions of the book (Stoner, para. 57). Id. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Stoner teaches an electronic book in the form of a mark-up language document (Stoner, para. 17) which is a “string” or “strings” insofar as it is a collection of text characters. Id. 9-10. The Examiner further finds, in an alternative interpretation of the term string, and in particular “fixed string,” that Stoner further teaches that fixed pagination, such that each page has a pre-set amount of content, was known in the art. Id. at 10 (citing Stoner, para. 8). The Examiner clarifies that Lorch was relied upon for the teaching of measuring a user’s progress through content based on a number of pages (Lorch, para. 73) as opposed to the more broad teaching of Stoner, where progress is measured by a number of tags (Stoner, para. 53). Id. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that Goodman teaches that the claimed “fixed strings” or “units of content” that are displayed “one said unit at a time” were known. Ans. 10. Goodman teaches the HyperCard, which is an early type of hypermedia document wherein collections of cards called “stacks” (Goodman, pg. 20) are browsed one card at a time (Goodman, pgs. 24-26). Id. The cards may be navigated in order, or cards may link to other cards arbitrarily (Goodman, pg. 185 et seq.). Id. The Examiner finds that although Stoner teaches that presenting fixed pages was known in the art (Stoner, para. 8), Goodman is relied upon for teaching in detail the presentation of fixed units of content (cards) having author-configurable Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 17 navigation (one card “replacing” the display of another when going from card to card). Id. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Stoner and Goodman teach or suggest that content is presented to a user in fixed discrete units, in sequence, one at a time, and that the user performs a first predetermined action to move the sequence of content along and a second predetermined action to direct the content out of sequence, if a condition is met, as required by claim 47. Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 48-64 and 66-76, and 91, but rather, relies on the same arguments presented for claim 47. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 47 and for the same reasons the rejection of claims 48-64, 66-76, and 91. See Appeal Br. 44- 75. Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). With respect to claim 77, Appellant relies on the same arguments as those presented for claim 47, and additionally argues that Lorch teaches that content can be purchased at a Web-based store, but does not disclose or suggest that content can be read by a user via a network interface that is a Web browser. Appeal Br. 74. Appellant argues that purchasing the content via an on-line transaction and accessing content for consumption via a Web browser are not equivalent just because both actions are performed using a network. Appeal Br. 75. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Lorch teaches electronic books may be web pages (Lorch, Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 18 para. 24), electronic books may be provided using web servers, web sites, and web portals (Lorch, paras. 34-35), and downloading books using the web (Lorch, para. 127), all of which are known to involve use of a web browser. Ans. 18. Thus, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 77. 5. Rejection of claims 65 and 78-90 under 35 USC §l03(a) Regarding claims 65 and 78-90 Appellant relies on the same arguments as those presented for claim 47. See Appeal Br. 76-100. Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 65 and 78-90 for the same reasons as stated supra. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Appeal 2020-003552 Application 14/524,694 19 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 47, 91 Nonstatutory Double Patent 47, 91 47-91 112(a) Written Description 47-91 47-91 112(b) Indefiniteness 47-91 47-64, 66- 77, 91 103 Stoner, Lorch, Goodman 47-64, 66- 77, 91 65 103 Stoner, Lorch, Goodman, Hunter 65 78-90 103 Lorch, Goodman, Newell 78-90 Overall Outcome 47-91 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED