Luke L. Vazul et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2019

14018546 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2019)

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.
14/018,546 09/05/2013 Luke L. Vazul 40047-156001 4478
69713 7590 08/21/2019
OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP
50 Congress Street
Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02109
EXAMINER
FRY, PATRICK B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2019 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):
INFO@ORPATENT.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LUKE L. VAZUL, MICHAEL SAMMONS,
SEAN PATRICK WELLS, KRISTI NORDLUND, and
ROGER CALABRESE
____________

Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,5461
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JILL D. HILL, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–9 and 11–21.2 Appellant’s representative
presented oral argument on July 31, 2019. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 KHS GmbH (“Appellant”) is the Applicant and identified as the real party
in interest. 37 C.F.R. § 1.46; Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claim 10 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure “relates to retail-ready packaging, and in
particular, to filling retail-ready packages with pouched products.” Spec. 1,
ll. 3–5.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for placing pouches in retail-ready
cartons, said apparatus comprising a pouch placer comprising an
elevator assembly having paddles for receiving pouches
provided by a first conveyor, and lifting said pouches, and a first
robot arm for retrieving a pouch from a paddle of said elevator
assembly and placing said pouch in a retail-ready carton.
Appeal Br. 70 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5.
2. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite. Final Act. 6.
3. Claims 1, 9, 11, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Goodman (US 4,800,703, issued Jan. 31, 1989) and
Sadamori (US 5,113,992, issued May 19, 1992). Final Act. 7.
4. Claims 2–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Goodman, Sadamori, and Heuer (US 7,514,639 B2, issued Apr. 7,
2009). Final Act. 8.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Goodman, Sadamori, and Anderson (US 5,024,575, issued June 18, 1991).
Final Act. 10.
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

3
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Goodman, Sadamori, Anderson, and Kwon (US 7,654,786 B2, issued Feb. 2,
2010). Final Act. 11.
7. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Goodman, Sadamori, Anderson, and Nicholson (US 4,913,617, issued
Apr. 3, 1990). Final Act. 12.
8. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, and Gottwels (US 3,676,978, issued
July 18, 1972). Final Act. 13.
9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Goodman, Sadamori, and Jacobsen (US 3,643,816, issued Feb. 22,
1972). Final Act. 14.
10. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, and Lingg (US 3,520,396, issued
July 14, 1979). Final Act. 15.
11. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Goodman, Sadamori, and Lachonius (US 4,856,643, issued Aug. 15,
1989). Final Act. 16.
12. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Goodman, Sadamori, and Greenwell (US 5,337,887, issued Aug. 16,
1994). Final Act. 17.
13. Claims 1, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Cote (US 2012/0006651 A1, published Jan. 12, 2012) and
Reger (US 3,698,542, issued Oct. 17, 1972). Final Act. 18.

Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
Claims 18 and 21 as lacking written description
Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and recites that “each paddle is
oriented so as to urge a pouch supported thereon to fall off said paddle.”
Appeal Br. 72 (Claims App.). The Examiner determines that the original
disclosure does not explicitly disclose this limitation. Final Act. 5.
Appellant contests the rejection. Appeal Br. 67. In support,
Appellant references Figures 5 and 7 and the description at page 8, lines 5–
18 and 19–28 of the Specification. Id. Appellant contends that the
Specification specifically refers to the possibility of a pouch falling off a
paddle. Id. (citing Spec. 8, ll. 25–29). Appellant states that “the pouch
never actually falls off the paddle”; however, the claim only requires that the
pouch be urged to fall off. Id. Appellant further contends that the
orientation of the elevators in Figures 5 and 7 causes gravity to urge pouches
to fall off the paddle, and that a lip prevents this falling off, does not negate
this urging. Id.
The test for sufficiency under the written description requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112 “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en
banc). To have “possession,” “the specification must . . . show that the
inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. The passage at page
8, lines 24–28 of the Specification referred to by Appellant pertains to
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

5
Figure 6. This passage states, “[i]n this embodiment, it is preferable to have
a lip 54A, 54B at the end of the paddle 44A, 44B that is furthest from the
first conveyor belt 26 to prevent the pouch 20 from falling off the paddle
44A, 44B altogether.” Spec. 8, ll. 24–28 (emphasis added). Figure 6 shows
a “leaning version” of the elevator shown in Figure 3. Id. at 4, ll. 21–22.
The Specification describes that “the first and second towers 32A, 32B are
tilted to lean away from the first conveyor belt 26. As a result, once a pouch
20 lands on the first and second paddles 44A, 44B, gravity urges the pouch
20 toward a side 52A, 52B of the paddle 44A, 44B furthest from the first
conveyor belt 26.” Id. at 8, ll. 19–24 (emphasis added), Fig. 6. This
description implies that these paddles are oriented such that a supported
pouch is urged by gravity to fall off the paddles, but this is prevented by the
lips at the ends of the paddles. This description is sufficient to show that the
inventors invented the subject matter recited in claim 18. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and recites that “said robot arm is
configured to retrieve at most one pouch from a paddle and to place no more
than one pouch at a time into said retail-ready carton.” Appeal Br. 72
(Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner determines that the recited
limitation is not supported by the original disclosure. Final Act. 5.
Appellant acknowledges that the limitation recited in claim 21 is not
explicitly described in the Specification. Appeal Br. 68. Appellant
contends, however, that the Specification and drawings, viewed as a whole,
disclose a robot arm that retrieves one pouch from a paddle and then places
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

6
that pouch into a carton, but do not disclose a robot arm that retrieves two
pouches from a paddle and then places the pouches into a carton. Id. The
Examiner responds, “‘[t]he mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis
for an exclusion.’” Ans. 38 (citing MPEP § 2173.05(i)). Accordingly, the
Examiner submits that “[t]he absence of disclosing the robot arm retrieving
two pouches does not give basis for the exclusion from the claims.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the actual words in claim 21 are not
required to be described verbatim in the original disclosure to satisfy the
written description requirement. Appeal Br. 68. Nonetheless, we agree with
the Examiner that the claim language is inadequately supported by the
original disclosure. First, Appellant does not identify any specific
description in the original disclosure that supports the claim language. As
noted by the Examiner, the absence of an explicit description that a robot
arm can retrieve more than one pouch from a paddle and then place the
pouches into a carton is not, by itself, an adequate basis to exclude this in
claim 21.
Second, “under proper circumstances, drawings alone may provide a
‘written description’ of an invention as required by § 112.” Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Here, each of Figures 2,
5, and 6 appears to show a robot arm 46 carrying a single pouch 20. We
note, however, that the Specification describes that the pouches can have
different sizes. See Spec. 10, ll. 23–26, 10, l. 27–11, l. 2. Claim 21 does not
positively recite the pouch as an element of the apparatus, or recite any
limitation for the size of the pouch. Appellant does not identify any
disclosure that indicates that the claimed robot arm “is configured to retrieve
at most one pouch from a paddle and to place no more than one pouch at a
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

7
time into said retail-ready carton,” regardless of the size of the pouch.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
as failing to comply with the written description requirement.

Rejection 2
Claim 12 as being indefinite
Claim 12 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites that “said first
tower leans away from a conveyor belt that delivers filled pouches to said
pouch placer.” Appeal Br. 71 (Claims App.). The Examiner notes that, as
recited in claim 1, the first conveyor provides pouches to the paddles, which
are part of the pouch placer. Final Act. 6. The Examiner determines that it
is unclear how a “new conveyor” can be introduced having the same
function as the first conveyor, because the drawings show only one conveyor
that provides pouches to the pouch placer. Id.
Appellant contends it is clear that “a conveyor belt” recited in claim
12 corresponds to “a first conveyor” recited in claim 1, based on claim 12
reciting the phrase “that delivers filled pouches to said pouch placer.”
Appeal Br. 69.
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive. It is unclear whether “a
conveyor belt” in claim 12 (a) is the “first conveyor” in claim 1, as
Appellant seems to contend; (b) is a conveyor belt of the first conveyor (i.e.,
is part of the first conveyor); or (c) is a different element than the first
conveyor. Appellant does not direct us to any disclosure that supports the
position that claim 12 necessarily covers possibility “(a).” Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite.
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

8
Rejection 3
Claims 1, 9, 11, 14, and 21 as unpatentable over Goodman and Sadamori
As for claim 1, the Examiner finds that Goodman discloses an
apparatus for placing pouches (bags 20) in retail-ready cartons (boxes 88),
comprising a pouch placer (packing machine 10) comprising a first robot
arm (guide assembly 16) for retrieving a pouch and placing it in a carton.
Final Act. 7 (citing Goodman, Fig. 2a, col. 2, ll. 52–55, 58–59, col. 5, ll. 14–
36). The Examiner finds that Goodman does not disclose an elevator
assembly having paddles for receiving pouches provided by a first conveyor
and lifting the pouches, as claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds that Sadamori discloses a vertical carrying
apparatus comprising pulleys (pulleys 23) with shelves (shelves 25) that
receive articles from an entrance conveying unit (air bearing conveyor 31)
and has articles removed by a transfer unit (transfer unit 34). Id. The
Examiner determines that “this would be beneficial to incorporate into
apparatus because it would allow the pouches to be elevated while requiring
less work space.” Id. (citing Sadamori, Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 48–54, col. 3, ll.
10–12, 29–33). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Goodman by incorporating the
carrying apparatus taught be Sadamori because “by having the apparatus
require less work space would make the apparatus more compact and
therefore better.” Id.
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner’s proposed
combination does not disclose “a first robot arm for retrieving a pouch from
a paddle of said elevator assembly and placing said pouch in a retail-ready
carton.” Appeal Br. 26 (emphasis added). In support, Appellant provides an
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

9
annotated version of Figure 2a of Goodman, showing Goodman’s feed
conveyor 12 replaced by Sadamori’s carrying apparatus 20. Id. at 27. The
Examiner explains that “[t]he head assembly [of Goodman] is interpreted to
receive the pouch from the paddle via the cross conveyor because the claim
does not state that the first robot arm retrieves the pouch directly from the
paddle.” Final Act. 26 (emphasis added). Appellant agrees that “[t]he
alleged arm (structure 16) [of Goodman] retrieves pouches from a conveyor
belt,” and contends that structure 16 “is far from the alleged paddle,” as
shown, and “the alleged ‘arm’ retrieves the pouch from the conveyor; not
from the alleged ‘paddle.’” Appeal Br. 26–27.
The Examiner responds that Goodman’s head assembly 16 “moves
towards” products 20 “to obtain” the products. Ans. 8. According to the
Examiner, because head assembly 16 conducts an action to obtain the
provided product, the head assembly is therefore interpreted to “retrieve” the
product. Id. The Examiner submits that “[r]elative action between structural
features can also relate to each other either directly or via other structural
features.” Id. at 9. The Examiner concludes that “it is reasonable to
interpret[] the head assembly retrieves the pouch from the paddle via the
cross conveyor.” Id.; see also id. at 10 (“Goodman discloses a head
assembly (16) that retrieves products (20) from the conveyor system (12,
14).” (Emphasis added). The Examiner also states, “[w]hen modifying
Goodman by incorporating a vertical carrying apparatus taught by Sadamori,
it is reasonable to interpret the head assembly retrieves the pouch from the
shelves of the vertical conveyor.” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. Claim 1 requires “a first robot
arm for retrieving a pouch from a paddle.” Appeal Br. 70 (Claims App.)
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

10
(emphasis added). Claim 1 does not recite “indirectly retrieving.”
Appellant’s Specification does not define the term “retrieving,” but does
provide guidance as to the term’s meaning. Particularly, the Specification
describes, “[o]nce the second robot arm 46 picks up the pouch 20, the first
and second paddles 44A, 44B begin to move apart as each one traverses the
upper turnaround section 38A, 38B of its corresponding tower 32A, 32B.”
See Spec. 7, ll. 8–11 (emphasis added). The Specification also describes,
“[w]hen a clamp having such a spatula lifts the pouch 20 off a paddle, the
spatula 62 supports the pouch 20 and assists in guiding the pouch 20 to its
proper position in the retail-ready carton 28.” See id. at 9, ll. 21–24, Fig. 6.
Appellant’s Figure 2 shows that a robot arm 46 “picks up” or “lifts” a pouch
“from” opposed paddles; that is, the pouch is picked up or lifted by robot
arm 46 “directly from” the paddles supporting the pouch. See also Figs. 5,
6. Consistent with this disclosure, we construe the term “retrieving” as
meaning to “pick up” or “lift.”
The Examiner acknowledges that Goodman’s head assembly 16 does
not retrieve pouches 20 directly from the paddle, but rather, retrieves
pouches 20 directly from cross conveyor 14. Ans. 9–10. However, cross
conveyor 14 is a separate conveyor from inclined conveyor 12, which the
Examiner proposes to replace with Sadamori’s carrying apparatus. We
understand that, in the proposed combination, Sadamori’s carrying apparatus
would carry pouches 20 up to cross conveyor 14, and, consequently, head
assembly 16 would retrieve (i.e., “pick up” or “lift”) those pouches directly
from cross conveyor 14, not from any “paddle” of the carrying apparatus.
Id. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner that, in the proposed combination,
“it is reasonable to interpret the head assembly [16] retrieves the pouch from
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

11
the shelves of the vertical conveyor [taught by Sadamori].” Ans. 10
(emphasis added).
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s proposed combination does
not disclose the limitation of “a first robot arm for retrieving a pouch from a
paddle of said elevator assembly and placing said pouch in a retail-ready
carton,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1, or dependent claims 9, 11, 14, and 21, as unpatentable over
Goodman and Sadamori.

Rejections 4–12
Claims 2–8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Goodman,
Sadamori, and one or more of Heuer, Anderson, Kwon, Nicholson,
Gottwels, Jacobsen, Lingg, Lachonius, and Greenwell
For dependent claims 2–8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20, the Examiner
does not apply Heuer, Anderson, Kwon, Nicholson, Gottwels, Jacobsen,
Lingg, Lachonius, or Greenwell in a manner that cures the deficiencies in
the rejection of parent claim 1. Final Act. 8–18. Accordingly, we do not
sustain rejections 4–12 for the same reasons as for claim 1.

Rejection 13
Claims 1, 15, and 18 as unpatentable over Cote and Reger
For claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cote discloses an apparatus for
placing pouches (packages 110) in retail-ready cartons (containers 113),
comprising a pouch placer including a first conveyor (conveyor 115) and a
first robot arm (first arm 100b, second arm 110a) for retrieving a pouch from
the first conveyor and placing it in a retail-ready carton (container 113).
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

12
Final Act. 18 (citing Cote, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 31, 32). The Examiner finds that Cote
does not disclose an elevator assembly having paddles. Id.
The Examiner relies on Reger as disclosing a conveying arrangement
for conveying articles 1 from a lower to a higher level, comprising pawl
units 14 for receiving the articles from a conveying device 7. Final Act. 18
(citing Reger, Fig. 1, Abstract, col. 4, ll. 4–11, 38–42, col. 5, ll. 9–12); see
also Reger, Fig. 2. The Examiner interprets the pawls as paddles because
the pawls “comprise a flat surface for engaging the articles.” Id. The
Examiner finds that Cote also discloses that conveyor 115 can comprise any
conveyor known in the art. Id. at 19 (citing Cote ¶ 31). Therefore, the
Examiner concludes, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Cote by incorporating the conveying arrangement
taught by Reger because that person “would know that . . . situating the
pouches high enough above the ground to allow the robot art [sic] enough
room to receive the pouches while not requiring the first conveyor to be
significantly elevated above the ground would make it easier for users to
load or inspect pouches on the first conveyor.” Id.
Claim 1 recites “an elevator assembly having paddles for receiving
pouches provided by a first conveyor, and lifting said pouches.” Appeal Br.
70 (Claims App.) (emphasis added) (hereinafter, “elevator assembly
limitation”). Appellant contends that Reger’s pawl units do not lift anything,
but only support the article between lift cycles. Appeal Br. 63. The
Examiner responds that, in claim 1, “the paddles are not required to lift the
pouches, only the elevator assembly is required to lift said pouches.” Ans.
33 (emphasis added). The Examiner interprets Reger to meet the elevator
assembly limitation. Id.
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

13
Appellant contends that the Examiner misconstrues the elevator
assembly limitation because “there is no embodiment disclosed in which the
elevator assembly lifts pouches but the paddles do not.” Reply Br. 54.
Thus, Appellant contends, the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 is not
consistent with the Specification.
We agree with Appellant. Claim 1 recites “an elevator assembly
having paddles.” Accordingly, as asserted by Appellant, the paddles are an
element of the elevator assembly. Reply Br. 54. We construe the recitation
“for receiving pouches provided by a first conveyor, and lifting said
pouches” as functional language pertaining to the paddles of the elevator
assembly. This construction is consistent with the claim language itself. It
is also consistent with the Specification. For example, the Specification
describes “[t]he first paddle 44A and the second paddle 44B . . . cooperate to
form a support surface for lifting a pouch 20 upwards.” Spec. 7, ll. 3–6
(emphasis added).
Appellant also contends that, in Reger, the pawls do not participate in
the function of the elevator assembly, that is, lifting, but instead, “the pawls
are part of a ‘resting assembly’ that is separate and distinct from but
cooperates with the elevator assembly.” Reply Br. 54.
We agree with Appellant that Reger does not disclose that pawl units
14 lift the articles. Reger discloses that pawl units 14 are secured to upright
supports 17 and retain (support) the articles at vertically-spaced stations 6,
6a, 6b, and 5. See Reger, col. 5, ll. 1–15, 37–44, col. 6, ll. 20–23 (“an
additional article is supported at each of the stations 6, 6a and 6b on the
respectively associated four pawl units of the same”), Fig. 2. Reger also
discloses that lift means 3 includes upright arms 21 and “[s]ecured to the
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

14
arms 21 at four transfer levels 23, 23a, 23b and 23c are additional pawl units
identical with those on the upright supports 17.” See id. at col. 5, ll. 60–62.
Reger describes the operation of lift means 3 and pawls 14 and 14a as
follows:
At this time the lift means is in its lower position as illustrated
and its lowermost set of pawl members 14a is located just
slightly below the upper surfaces of the support members 15 of
the lower terminal station 4, with the pawls 14a of the other
levels being correspondingly located just slightly below the
pawls 14 of the respectively associated intermediate stations and
upper terminal station. When in this position the piston rod 26
lifts the lift means 3 upwardly . . . each set of pawl members 14a
at the respective transfer level moves into contact with and raises
upwardly the article located until then at the respective station
of the frame 2 below which the set of pawl members 14a had just
been located. In so doing the articles 1 themselves engage and
deflect the pawl members 14 out of the way so that the articles
can move upwardly past these pawl members 14 whereupon the
latter are returned by the constantly acting biasing force to their
original position.
Id. at col. 6, ll. 25–45 (emphasis added), Fig. 2. According to this
description, even if pawl units 14 receive articles provided by conveying
device 7, pawl units 14 do not also lift the received articles. Rather, pawl
members 14a provided on lift means 3 raise the articles upwardly from
respective pawl members 14 supporting the articles. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s proposed combination does not disclose the elevator assembly
limitation recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, or dependent claims 15 and 18, as unpatentable over Cote and
Reger.

Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

15
DECISION
1. We reverse the rejection of claim 18 and affirm the rejection of
claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
2. We affirm the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite.
3. We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 9, 11, 14, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Goodman and Sadamori.
4. We reverse the rejection of claims 2–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, and Heuer.
5. We reverse the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, and Anderson.
6. We reverse the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, Anderson, and Kwon.
7. We reverse the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, Anderson, and Nicholson.
8. We reverse the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, and Gottwels.
9. We reverse the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, and Jacobsen.
10. We reverse the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, and Lingg.
11. We reverse the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, and Lachonius.
12. We reverse the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goodman, Sadamori, and Greenwell.
Appeal 2017-011319
Application 14/018,546

16
13. We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cote and Reger.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART