Leverage Information Systems, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 30, 20212020003314 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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. 15/721,647 09/29/2017 Raymond G. Leblond LEVE-1-0007 8570 25315 7590 09/30/2021 LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 3420 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER YANG, JAMES J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2021 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): docketing-patent@lowegrahamjones.com patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAYMOND G. LEBLOND Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 Technology Center 2600 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges. CHAGNON, 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 1–3, 5–10, 16–23, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Leverage Information Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a surveillance system for automatically selecting and presenting surveillance information collected by one or more cameras. Appeal Br.2 12. The system selects a camera to target an event (e.g., alarm activation or particular weather conditions) based on whether the event occurred within the range and viewable area of the camera. Id.; See Spec. ¶ 142 (listing exemplary events). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A detection and response device for automatically selecting and presenting surveillance information collected by one or more capture devices comprising: one or more transceivers configured to receive data indicating that an event has occurred; one or more storage devices configured to store, for each of the one or more capture devices, an associated range and viewable area, wherein the range is represented as a radius around the capture device, and wherein the viewable area is represented as at least one shape that defines an area that can be seen by the capture device; and a response system configured to: select at least one of the one or more capture devices to target the event based on whether the event occurred within the range and viewable area of the one or 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed September 29, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated July 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action dated September 23, 2019 (“Advisory Act.”); Appeal Brief filed December 25, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated January 28, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Appellant’s Reply Brief filed March 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 3 more capture devices, wherein the selected capture device is a mobile camera that is carried by a vehicle; and control the selected capture device to target the event. Appeal Br. 12. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Donovan et al. (“Donovan”) US 7,382,244 B1 June 3, 2008 Fufidio et al. (“Fufidio”) US 2002/0067259 A1 June 6, 2002 Nakazawa et al. (“Nakazawa”) US 2004/0189816 A1 Sept. 30, 2004 Ogawa US 2006/0256195 A1 Nov. 16, 2006 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa, Donovan, and Nakazawa. II. Claims 8–10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa and Nakazawa. III. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa, Nakazawa, and Fufidio. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 4 (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the argued claims in light of each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejections as to claims 1–3, 5–8, 10, 16–18, 20–23, and 27. We are persuaded Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejections as to claims 9 and 19. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 16 Appellant argues these claims together. Appeal Br. 5–9. We discuss claim 1 as illustrative. The Examiner relies primarily on Ogawa in rejecting the independent claims, and Appellant’s arguments are focused on the disclosure and teachings thereof. Final Act. 3–13; Appeal Br. 5–9. Ogawa teaches: [A] monitoring system 10 according an embodiment of the invention. The monitoring system 10 is a system having a plurality of areas-under-monitoring 100 (100a, 100b) to be monitored such as homes, offices, factories, transport facilities, amusement parks and the like, a network 160 such as WAN and LAN and one or a plurality of monitoring apparatuses 150 (150a, 150b) and monitoring the area-under-monitoring 100 by displaying images captured by image capturing apparatuses 120 set within each area-under-monitoring 100 on the monitoring apparatus 150. Ogawa ¶ 40; Fig. 1. In Ogawa, “[e]ach one of the areas-under-monitoring 100a and 100b has a set of a plurality of sensors 110 (110a and 110b), one or a plurality of image capturing apparatuses 120 (120a, 120b), a control apparatus 130 and a communication network 135.” Ogawa ¶ 41. “[T]he image capturing Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 5 apparatus 120a is set in correspondence to the plurality of sensors 110a and the image capturing apparatus 120b is set in correspondence to the plurality of sensors [110b].” Ogawa ¶ 43. Ogawa further teaches: The control apparatus 130 is connected with the plurality of sensors 110 and the communication network 135 and controls an image capturing direction, magnification and the like of the image capturing apparatuses 120a and 120b based on the environmental values representing the external environment received from the respective one of the plurality of sensors 110. Still more, when it is required to monitor from the monitoring apparatus 150 because the environment value received from the plurality of sensors 110 represents an abnormal value for example, the control apparatus 130 informs the monitoring apparatus 150 of the image capturing apparatus 120 to be monitored by the monitoring apparatus 150. Ogawa ¶ 44. According to Ogawa, [W]hen the control apparatus 130 receives an environment value representing that an abnormality has occurred in the external environment from at least one of the plurality of sensors 110, the control apparatus 130 directs the image capturing apparatus 120 in the image capturing direction so that it can capture an image of such abnormality and informs the monitoring apparatus 150 that the image capturing apparatus 120 should be monitored. Ogawa ¶ 48. Further still, in Ogawa, The sensor correlated information storage section 230 stores sensor identifying information for identifying each one of the plurality of sensors 110 by correlating with image capturing apparatus identifying information for identifying the image capturing apparatus 120 that should transmit captured images to the monitoring apparatus 150 among the plurality of image Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 6 capturing apparatuses 120 when the environment value inputted from the sensor 110 meets with a preset condition. Ogawa ¶ 52. The Examiner’s Findings We discuss the Examiner’s findings as they are relevant to Appellant’s arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075. The Examiner finds that “[e]ach control apparatus 130 of each area-under monitoring 100 receives data from sensors 110 that may indicate an abnormality, i.e., an event.” Final Act. 3 (citing Ogawa ¶ 48). The Examiner finds that “[t]he control apparatus 130 informs the monitoring apparatus 150 of which capturing apparatus 120 to be monitored based on environmental values received from one of the plurality of sensors 110.” Final Act. 4 (citing Ogawa ¶ 44). The Examiner finds that “[t]he range is established as the level of magnification allowed by the image capturing apparatus 120.” Final Act. 3 (citing Ogawa ¶ 121); see also Ans. 4 (finding that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a radius represents the maximum distance from the location of the camera to its subject with which the camera can capture.”). The Examiner determines also that “[t]he range and viewable area is related to the area associated with and covering each of a set of sensors, e.g., 110a, 110b.” Final Act. 4 (citing Ogawa, Fig. 1). “Thus, [according to the Examiner,] when selecting a camera based on sensor data, the system effectively selects the camera based on its range and viewable area.” Ans. 5. Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 7 According to the Examiner, “[t]he range and viewable area of the capturing apparatus 120 is interpreted as synonymous because the range at which a capturing apparatus 120 can capture an image or video includes the area with which the capturing apparatus 120 can view.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4 (finding that “the range is also representative of its viewable area, because the camera cannot capture video or images beyond its range”). The Examiner determines that “the viewable area of a particular camera includes everything within range of the camera that is captured by the camera.” Ans. 4–5. The Examiner also finds that “[t]he control apparatus 130 may change the direction and/or magnification of the capturing apparatus 120, which is equivalent to targeting the event.” Final Act. 4 (citing Ogawa ¶ 46). The Examiner admits that “Ogawa does not specifically teach” that “the range is represented as a radius around the capture device, and the viewable area is represented as at least one shape,” but determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the image capturing apparatus 120 to have a range, defined by the sensors assigned to the image capturing apparatus 120, and a viewable area represented as one shape. As per the range, the image capturing apparatus 120 is limited in range to the magnification set by the magnification control section 850 in response to a message received by the image capturing apparatus 120 (see Ogawa, Paragraph [0121]). As per the viewable area, the image capturing apparatus 120 may turn horizontally and/or vertically, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the viewable area would be a 3-dimensional sphere or close to a 3-dimensional sphere (see Ogawa, Paragraph [0120]). Final Act. 4–5. Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 8 In the Advisory Action, the Examiner reiterates: The system of Ogawa teaches the ability to control the magnification of the capture devices, i.e. the range, based on stored values (see Ogawa, Paragraph [0121]) and additionally selecting the image capturing apparatus based on information stored regarding a corresponding sensor (see Ogawa, Paragraph [0052] and Fig. 1), which represents a viewable area of the image capturing apparatus because the area that is captured by the image capturing apparatus is related to the location of the sensor that senses a condition. The claims, in light of the specification, do not explicitly or inherently define a range or viewable area away from this interpretation. Advisory Act. 1. Appellant’s Arguments and Our Analysis Appellant argues that the cited references “do not teach or suggest selecting a camera (claim 1) or capture device (claims 8 and 16) based on range and viewable area of the device, where the range is a radius about the device and the viewable area is a shape.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant also argues that neither of these values — range and viewable area — are stored. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. As to the claimed range, Appellant argues that Ogawa’s level of magnification is not the same thing as the claimed “range.” A range defines a region between an upper and lower limit, whereas a level is merely a magnitude. Ogawa stores a magnification magnitude (e.g., “zoom value”) but it nowhere discusses storing a range of magnification magnitudes or zoom values. Appeal Br. 7 (citing Ogawa ¶ 121). This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a radius represents the Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 9 maximum distance from the location of the camera to its subject with which the camera can capture.” Ans. 4. Appellant seems to recognize this as well. See Appeal Br. 7 (“While it may be true that Ogawa’s capturing apparatus 120 has a range in the sense that it cannot view objects at every distance . . .”). Further, Appellant’s Specification describes “the camera range may [be] a radius around the camera.” Spec. ¶ 209, Fig. 14A (exemplary camera range 1404). “In one or more embodiments, the distance may be based on the camera’s capabilities, such as its focusing or zooming capabilities.” Spec. ¶ 209. This is consistent with the magnification described in Ogawa, where the magnification may be set “by changing a value of zoom for example.” Ogawa ¶ 121. With respect to storing the range, Appellant admits that “Ogawa does describe storing information about magnification levels.” Ans. 2. To the extent Ogawa does not expressly teach storing the value of the magnification level corresponding to the “radius [that] represents the maximum distance from the location of the camera to its subject with which the camera can capture” (Ans. 4), one of skill in the art would understand that the system of Ogawa would need this information in order to prevent selecting an unavailable value for the zoom when setting the magnification. See Final Act. 4 (recognizing that “the image capturing apparatus 120 is limited in range to the magnification set”); Advisory Act. 1 (finding that “Ogawa teaches the ability to control the magnification of the capture devices, i.e. the range, based on stored values”). Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 10 As to the claimed viewable area, Appellant argues Ogawa’s image capturing apparatus 120 are situated so that they can view areas about one or more sensors 110. The fact of this co-location relationship between capturing apparatus 120 and sensors 110 appears to be stored by Ogawa (para. 51), but this is not the same thing as storing an area that is “represented as an area that can be seen by the capturing device,” as required by the claims. An “area” is some extent of space, which is not the same thing as Ogawa’s co-location of capturing apparatus 120 and sensor 110. Indeed, it would be possible for Ogawa’s capturing apparatus to see an area far beyond the location of a given sensor. Thus, Ogawa’s co-location of capturing apparatus and sensor cannot be equated with the claimed viewable area “represented as an area that can be seen by the capturing device.” Appeal Br. 7–8. This argument is not persuasive. Appellant’s Specification describes the viewable area [14083] comprises a shape that maps out or defines the area or areas that can be seen by the camera 812. Though shown as a contiguous shape, it is noted that viewable area 1408 may comprise one or more separate areas. In addition, the viewable area 1408 may have a variety of shapes including various lines, angles, and curves. Spec. ¶ 211 (emphases added), Fig. 14B. We, thus, construe viewable area, consistent with the Specification, as an area or areas that can be seen by the camera/capture device. See Spec. ¶ 211. Claim 1 further recites that “the viewable area is represented as at least one shape that defines an area that can be seen by the capture device.” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded that this portion of the claim is limited to the embodiment described with respect to Figure 14B, 3 The Specification includes 1404 here, but we assume this to be a clerical error. Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 11 in which the shape of the viewable area is defined by various obstructions 912 within the range of the camera.4 Spec. ¶¶ 210–211; see Appeal Br. 2. This determination is supported by the further recitation of the claim that “the selected capture device is a mobile camera that is carried by a vehicle.” Appeal Br. 12. The obstructions within a range of a mobile camera carried by a vehicle would change as the vehicle moves. Thus, the “at least one shape that defines an area,” as claimed, must be construed more broadly than merely as being defined by the obstructions within the range of the camera. We agree with the Examiner’s determination that, in Ogawa, the “viewable area is related to the area associated with and covering each of a set of sensors.” Final Act. 4. This area can be seen by the corresponding camera. Ogawa ¶¶ 41, 43. The area associated with and covering each of a set of sensors also is “some extent of space” and has a shape. Appeal Br. 7 (arguing that “[a]n ‘area’ is some extent of space”); Spec. ¶ 211 (discussing that the shape may be continuous or not, and may include various lines, angles, and curves). Appellant further contends that “just because a given camera in Ogawa may naturally have a viewable area, this does not mean that Ogawa stores a viewable area that is ‘represented as at least one shape that defines an area that can be seen by the capture device,’ as required by the claim.” 4 The claims neither require nor preclude an instance where the range and the viewable area are coextensive. For example, if there are no obstructions within the range of the camera, the stored viewable area may be the entirety of the camera’s range. Alternatively, even if the view is not blocked by obstructions, restrictions to the stored-viewable-area settings may result in a stored viewable area having a shape that is smaller than the entirety of the camera’s range. Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 12 Ans. 2. In Ogawa, however, a sensor correlated information storage section 230 stores information correlating the plurality of sensors 110 with the plurality of image capturing apparatuses 120. Ogawa ¶ 52. Thus, Ogawa stores information defining a “viewable area [that] is represented as at least one shape that defines an area that can be seen by the capture device,” as claimed. Appellant also contends that “Ogawa does not teach or suggest ‘select at least one of the one or more cameras to target the event based on whether the event occurred within the range and viewable area of the one or more cameras,’ as recited by claim 8, or similarly by claims 1 and 16.” Appeal Br. 8. In particular, according to Appellant, Ogawa does not describe the claimed selection process at least because Ogawa never targets an event based on “whether the event occurred within the range and viewable area” of a camera. Instead, Ogawa selects an image capturing apparatus based on the stored relationship between sensor and image capturing apparatus. As discussed above, Ogawa’s stored relationship is not the same thing as the claimed “area,” and thus Ogawa cannot possibly teach or suggest camera selection based on area. And even if Ogawa’s stored relationship can be mapped to the claimed “area,” Ogawa still does not select a camera based on “range.” To select a camera based on the claimed “range,” Ogawa would have to select a camera based on magnification level, which it does not do. Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, “if the cited references do not store ranges and viewable areas as claimed, they cannot possibly select cameras or capture devices based upon that information.” Ans. 3. As discussed above, we determine that Ogawa does store information defining a range (i.e., magnification levels) and a viewable area (i.e., the Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 13 correlation of the camera with the set of sensors, which, in turn, defines an area having a shape). Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the claim does not recite selecting a camera based on the range and the viewable area. Rather, the claim recites selecting a camera “based on whether the event occurred within the range and viewable area.” In Ogawa, the camera is selected based on the specific sensor that detected the event. Ogawa ¶ 52. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, based on the disclosure of Ogawa, that the sensors correlated with a particular camera would be within the range and viewable area of that camera. See Ans. 4 (“[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to select a camera that is located remotely from the detected value, as the camera would not provide relevant images/video to the detected environmental value.”). We, therefore, are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that “when selecting a camera based on sensor data, the system effectively selects the camera based on its range and viewable area.” Ans. 5. Appellant also argues “[t]here is no need in Ogawa to use a radius and/or shape to perform camera selection. Ogawa already uses a mechanism for camera selection that is based on stored co-location relationships.” Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, “Ogawa describes cameras that are co-located with various sensors (e.g., smoke detectors). Information about the co-location is used, when a particular sensor is activated, to activate the corresponding camera. Ogawa essentially hard-wires relationships between cameras and sensors.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that “[t]he Examiner’s modifications to Ogawa are counter to its principle of operation, and would require substantial Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 14 reconstruction and design of Ogawa’s system.” Appeal Br. 9; see also id. at 8 (“Representing range as radius and viewable area as shape would be redundant in the context of Ogawa.”); Reply Br. 4 (“Such modifications alter the core principle of operation of Ogawa and would thus not be naturally made by one of ordinary skill in the art.”). As discussed above, we determine that Ogawa’s selection of a camera based on sensor data teaches or suggests the claimed camera-selection process. Therefore, no modification of Ogawa is necessary in order to meet the claim language. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error. The Examiner relies on Donovan and Nakazawa as teaching a “normalization engine configured to receive data indicating that an event occurred” (claim 1) and the “selected capture device is a mobile camera that is carried by a vehicle” (claims 1, 8, 16), respectively. Final Act. 5. Appellant does not present arguments regarding the teachings of Donovan or Nakazawa, or regarding the combination of references. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br. For the reasons discussed, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determinations that claim 1 is rendered obvious by Ogawa, Donovan, and Nakazawa, and that claims 8 and 16 are rendered obvious by Ogawa and Nakazawa. We, therefore, sustain the rejections of the independent claims. Dependent Claims 9 and 19 Dependent claim 9 further recites, inter alia, select[ing] one of the one or more cameras to target the event based on the camera range and the viewable area of each of the one or more cameras, wherein the event is not within the Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 15 viewable area of the selected camera, wherein the event is within the range of the selected camera. Appeal Br. 14. Claim 19 includes similar limitations. Id. at 15. The Examiner finds The image capturing apparatus 120 may be turned and magnification may be increased/decreased. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an image capturing apparatus may not be within the viewable area of the event, but may be turned and/or zoomed out such that the event is within the viewable area. Final Act. 10–11. In other words, the Examiner determines that “prior to turning the cameras and modifying the camera magnification, the subject of the cameras was not previously in the camera’s viewable area, otherwise the cameras would not be moved or changed in any way.” Ans. 5. Appellant argues the Examiner mapped “viewable area” to Ogawa’s stored relationship between a sensor and co-located image capture apparatus. This means that when Ogawa selects an image capture apparatus (due to a sensor signal), the event is by definition within the “viewable area” of the apparatus. Ogawa will never select an image capture apparatus where the event is not within the viewable area of the apparatus, because there is no stored co-location relationship between that apparatus and the event sensor that detected the event. Appeal Br. 10. We agree with Appellant. As discussed above, in rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds that, in Ogawa, the “viewable area is related to the area associated with and covering each of a set of sensors.” Final Act. 4. This stored viewable area is not only the area that the camera is currently viewing, but the entire area associated with the sensors (i.e., that the camera can view, even if not currently viewing). Thus, even when a Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 16 camera is not currently pointed at a particular one of the sensors, that sensor is still within the stored viewable area of the camera. The rejection of claims 9 and 19 is reversed. Dependent Claim 23 Dependent claim 23 recites “storing a mapping between zoom levels of a camera and viewable locations provided by the zoom levels; and using the mapping to target the camera to provide a view of the event.” Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner finds [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the magnification control section 850 to include a limit to the magnification of the camera such that the magnification control section 850 is capable of controlling the magnification of the image capturing device when commanded to do so. Final Act. 14–15. Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner’s proposed limit does not qualify as the claimed mapping because it nowhere represents viewable locations.” Appeal Br. 10–11. The Examiner responds The magnification control section 850 of Ogawa, in combination with the camera section 800, controls the magnification of the camera in order to capture a particular event, based on image capturing direction information that represents the direction in which the camera section 800 should capture images when the event is detected (see Ogawa, Paragraph [0121]). Thus, at the very least, the system is capable of determining where the event has occurred, which direction to point the camera, and at what magnification to set the camera to in order to capture images of Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 17 the event. Thus, adjusting the camera accordingly also targets the camera to provide a view of the event. Ans. 6. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s position. Ogawa selects a camera based on sensor information. As the Examiner notes, “[t]he magnification control section 850 of Ogawa . . . controls the magnification of the camera in order to capture a particular event” (Ans. 6), for example, at a particular sensor 110. Ogawa ¶ 121. One of skill in the art would understand the system of Ogawa stores a mapping between zoom levels (i.e., magnification) of a camera and viewable locations (i.e., sensors 110) in order to be able to control the magnification to capture the event identified by the sensor. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 is sustained. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 10, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 27 Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 2, 3, 5–7, 10, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 27. See Appeal Br. 11. The rejections of these claims are sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 5–8, 10, 16–18, 20–23, and 27 are affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 19 is reversed. Appeal 2020-003314 Application 15/721,647 18 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–7, 18 103 Ogawa, Donovan, Nakazawa 1–3, 5–7, 18 8–10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27 103 Ogawa, Nakazawa 8, 10, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 27 9, 19 21 103 Ogawa, Nakazawa, Fufidio 21 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–8, 10, 16–18, 20–23, 27 9, 19 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation