Navico Holding AS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2021

2020006215 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 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.
14/945,288 11/18/2015 Matthew Laster 48379/09054 1006
27530 7590 05/24/2021
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
IP Department
One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2300
301 South College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2021 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):
ip@nelsonmullins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MATTHEW LASTER
____________

Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 12–17, and 19–23, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
unpatentable over Maguire,2 Brown,3 and Havins.4,5 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Navico Holding AS as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 US 2012/0106300 A1; published May 3, 2012.
3 US 2016/0018516 A1; published January 21, 2016.
4 US 4,982,924; issued January 8, 1991.
5 We consider the omission of claim 4 in the summary of the rejections as
stated in the Final Office Action a typographical error, as the Examiner
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
2
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “Transducer Elements at Different
Tilt Angles.” Spec. Title. Claims 1, 10, and 14 are the independent claims
on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A sonar system for use with a vessel on a body of water,
the sonar system comprising:
a sonar module configured to generate a transmit signal
and receive sonar data;
a transducer array configured to be mounted to the vessel,
wherein the transducer array is in communication with the sonar
module and comprises a plurality of transducer elements
configured to provide sonar data to the sonar module, wherein a
first transducer element of the plurality of transducer elements
comprises an emitting face that is directed outwardly from a side
of the vessel in a first direction and at a first angle with respect
to a surface of the body of water, wherein a second transducer
element of the plurality of transducer elements comprises an
emitting face that is directed outwardly from the same side of the
vessel in a second direction and at a second angle with respect to
the surface of the body of water, wherein the second angle is
different than the first angle, and wherein the first direction is
non-parallel with the second direction so as to form a tilt angle
therebetween such that sonar returns received by the first
transducer element provide a different perspective of a same
volume of the body of water than sonar returns received by the
second transducer element; and
a marine electronics device configured to selectively
receive sonar data from one or the other of the first transducer
element and the second transducer element corresponding to the

provides findings relative to claim 4 in the Final Office Action itself. Final
Act. 1, 7.
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
3
same volume of the body of water, wherein selection of the first
transducer element or the second transducer element enables
toggling between an outward side scan beam and a downward
side scan beam from the same side of the vessel, wherein the
marine electronics device is configured to produce a sonar image
corresponding to received sonar data from the selected one of the
first transducer element or the second transducer element such
that sonar data from the first transducer element would produce
a first sonar image corresponding to the outward side scan beam
and that sonar data from the second transducer element would
produce a separate second sonar image corresponding to the
downward side scan beam.

OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, and
21
Appellant argues claims 1and 10 as a group. Appeal Br. 7–10. We
select claim 1 as representative and claim 10 stands or falls therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Maguire
discloses, inter alia, a transducer array (“#36”) “for mounting to a surface
watercraft,” including “a rectangular first transducer [element] configured to
produce a first beam defining a fan-shape and extending generally in a first
plane” and “a rectangular second transducer [element] configured to produce
a second beam defining a fan-shape and extending generally in a second
plane,” wherein the first and second transducer elements comprise emitting
faces directed outwardly from sides of the vessel at first and second tilt
angles with respect to the body of water.” Final Act. 3 (citing Maguire
Abstract, ¶ 7, Fig. 5); see also Maguire Fig. 8A. Figure 8A is reproduced
below.
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
4

Figure 8A of Maguire depicts
the arrangement of the linear transducer elements 60 [of
transducer array 36 within housing 50 defining] the containment
volume 54. . . , which may include a port side element 62
positioned to scan substantially to the port side of the vessel, a
starboard side element 64 positioned to scan substantially to the
starboard side of the vessel, and a downscan element 66
positioned to scan substantially below the vessel.
Maguire ¶ 62; see also id. ¶ 58.
The Examiner also finds that Maguire discloses, in the “Background
of the Invention” section, conventional transducer arrays with first and
second transducer elements directed outwardly from the same side of the
vessel and also at different angles with respect to the surface of the body of
water. Id. at 3–4 (citing Maguire’s transducer elements 10, as depicted in
Figure 1, and the ceramic sidescan transducer elements disclosed in
Maguire’s paragraph 9).
The Examiner further finds that “Maguire teaches both sidescan
images [(Maguire ¶ 32 (referencing Fig. 11B))] and downscan images [(id.
¶ 33 (referencing Fig. 11C))], as well as one or more of the displays [(id.
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
5
¶ 53)]. Ans. 4 (emphasis added); see also Fig. 5 (depicting transducer array
36 in communication with three displays 38). The Examiner also finds that
Maguire discloses that “image processor 158 may perform a variety of
functions to optimize or customize the display images, including such
features as split screen to show multiple different sonar images or data.”
Final Act. 4 (citing Maguire ¶ 74). Indeed, paragraph 74 of Maguire
discloses, with respect to an embodiment that incorporates linear and
circular downscan transducers 140, 142, that
image processor 158 may perform a variety of functions to
optimize or customize the display images, including such
features as split screen to show multiple different sonar images
or data. . . . Still further examples include composite images that
combine information from one or more . . . sources, such as the
images from the linear downstream and circular downstream
transducers to overlay the images. . . . Still further, one image
may be colorized to distinguish it visibly from data representing
another image. As such, for example, the images may be
combined using image blending or overlay techniques.
Alternatively, individual images may be presented, or different
images, simultaneously on different displays without overlay.
Maguire ¶ 74 (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Brown for disclosing a marine electronics
device configured to selectively receive sonar data from one or the other of
the first and second transducer elements, for example, the transducer
elements of Brown’s transducer arrays 32, 36, and enable toggling between
outward and downward side scan beams, as claimed. Final Act. 4–5 (citing
Brown ¶ 41). The Examiner also finds that Brown teaches, generally, that
“[a]dditional or alternative modes may be employed to generate and display
sonar images in any configuration or orientation with respect to the marine
vessel---e.g., rear, forward, side, down, and/or any other directional
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
6
orientations.” Id. at 5 (citing Brown ¶ 25). The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious “to combine the angled transducers of Maguire,
with the multiplexing circuits of Brown so that ‘[Maguire’s] image
processor 158 may perform a variety of functions to optimize or customize
the display images, including such features as split screen to show multiple
different sonar images or data.’” Id. (citing Maguire ¶ 74).
The Examiner further relies on Havins for disclosing emitting faces of
first and second transducer elements that are directed outwardly in different,
non-parallel directions, such that a tilt angle is formed between the
transducer elements, as claimed. Final Act. 6. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Havins discloses transducer elements 187A, 187B, 187C “pointed
in different, yet adjacent directions” and producing “beams hav[ing] some
overlap,” wherein the transducer elements are “connected to three display
screens having a positional arrangement that corresponds to the
transducers.” Final Act. 6 (citing Havins 10:20–35; Fig. 13). Figures 13 and
14 of Havins are reproduced below.

Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
7
Figures 13 and 14 of Havins depict “three transducers 187A, 187B, 187C . . .
linearly arranged such that there is a center transducer 187A and two lateral
transducers 187B, 187C,” wherein “[t]he transducers are connected to three
display screens having a positional arrangement that corresponds to the
transducers.” Havins 10:14–32.
The Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious to substitute
the fanned out transducers of Maguire with the neighboring and angled
transducers of Havins so that as a target/fish moves across the
left/center/right transducer field of view the movement may be displayed on
separate corresponding screens,” as taught in Havins. Final Act. 6–7 (citing
Havins 10:20–50) (emphasis added). In support of the Examiner’s rationale,
Havins expressly teaches that connecting the transducer elements to different
display screens is advantageous:
With conventional apparatuses, where only one transducer is
utilized, movement of the target off of the single screen often
results in losing the target, because of uncertainty as to the
direction of movement. With the apparatus of the present
invention however, movement of the target off the center scree
229A results in the target showing up on one of the lateral display
screens 229B, 229C, thereby providing directional information.
Havins 10:41–49.
Thus, we understand that the Examiner proposes modifying Maguire’s
sonar system by substituting transducer array #36 including transducer
elements 60 (and specifically, port side element 62, starboard side element
64, and downscan element 66) with Havin’s transducer array including
neighboring, angled left/center/right transducer elements 187A, 187B, 187C
(i.e., at tilt angles ϴ relative to one another), wherein at least first and second
ones of the left/center/right transducer elements have emitting faces that are
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
8
at different angles with respect to the surface of the body of water, as taught
in Maguire,6 and wherein the resulting transducer array of left/center/right
transducer elements are directed outwardly from the same side of the vessel,
as required by claim 1.7
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings with
respect to Maguire’s transducer array 36, Maguire’s conventional transducer
arrays, or Havin’s transducer elements 187A, 187B, 187C, or question how
the Examiner is proposing to modify Maguire, in view of Havins. Appeal
Br. 7–10.
Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s combination of Maguire and
Brown is improper and, thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). In support,
Appellant submits that, in Maguire, each conical element 10 of the array is
needed to create the fan-shaped beam coverage, such that “one of ordinary
skill in the art would appreciate that the goal of the array of FIG. 1 was to
form a single image and, thus, there would be no motivation to adapt the

6 See also Havins 6:26 (disclosing the desirability of adjusting the
orientation of a sonar beam from about parallel to and just below the water’s
surface to a directly downward direction, and every intermediate elevation
therebetween).
7 In view of the Examiner’s reference to “fanned out transducers” in the
Examiner’s reasoning, we are sympathetic to confusion as to whether the
Examiner is modifying the conventional array depicted as prior art in
Maguire’s Figure 1, which is described in Maguire as producing “a
continuous fan shaped beam pattern” (Maguire ¶ 7), or Maguire’s transducer
array 36, referred to in the Abstract as relied on by the Examiner and the
subject of Maguire’s invention, which is described as having first and
second transducers producing first and second beams “defining a fan-shape
and extending generally in first [and second] plane[s].” Id., Abstract.
However, in the context of the rejection, we understand that the Examiner is
modifying Maguire’s transducer array 36.
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
9
teachings as required by the Examiner’s rejection.” Id. (citing Maguire Fig.
7) (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2 (“[t]here is no teaching or
motivation to break up [Maguire’s] beams to form different images”). In
other words, Appellant submits that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would change the principle of operation of Maguire, because
one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the standard
sonar array of Maguire is taught in Maguire to show one
contiguous image from the left to right side of the boat so as to
mimic a fan-shaped beam. Thus, breaking apart the image would
go against the very goal of the standard array to form that fan-
shaped beam.
Appeal Br. 8 (citing Maguire ¶ 7, MPEP § 2143.01(v)).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As set forth supra,
The Examiner refers to Maguire’s Figure 1, which depicts transducer
elements 10 arrayed in an arc to produce a continuous fan shaped beam
pattern (see Maguire ¶ 7), as evidence that it is conventional to position
different transducer elements of a transducer array at different angles with
respect to the surface of a body of water; however, the Examiner does not
rely on Maguire’s Figure 1 for disclosing the first and second transducer
elements themselves. Rather, as set forth supra, the Examiner relies on
Maguire’s disclosure of transducer array 36 with transducer elements 60 that
produce different images (i.e., from port and starboard side elements 62, 64
sonar data), which the Examiner further substitutes with Havin’s transducer
array, wherein transducer elements 187A, 187B, 187C also produce sonar
data for display on three different screens. In other words, the Examiner’s
reliance on the prior art does not involve an embodiment necessitating one
continuous image generated from the left to right side of the boat so as to
mimic a fan-shaped beam as Appellant contends.
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
10
Appellant also argues that “the multiplexer of Brown was taught for
an entirely different sonar system.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Brown ¶¶ 25, 41).
Appellant submits that the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Maguire, in
view of Brown, lacks rationale, because “the stated motivation has nothing
to do with changing the standard array of Maguire and, instead, is about
choosing which available images to display (e.g., downscan image, sidescan
image, etc.) and how to display them (e.g., split screen mode).” Appeal Br.
9.
Again, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner
is not relying on Brown’s sonar system, except for teaching a marine
electronics device configured to toggle between transducer elements. As set
forth supra, the configuration of the transducer elements and resulting sonar
data is derived from the Examiner’s combination of Maguire and Havins.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and independent claim 10 falls therewith. Appellant chose not to
present arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12,
13, and 21 apart from the arguments presented for claims 1 and 10 from
which they depend, and therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 21 for essentially the same reasons as set
forth supra. Appeal Br. 20.
Dependent claims 8 and 22
Claim 8 depends from independent claim 1 and recites, in relevant
part,
wherein the side of the vessel comprises a left side of the vessel
and the plurality of transducer elements comprises a plurality of
left transducer elements, wherein the first transducer element
comprises a first left transducer element and the second
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
11
transducer element comprises a second left transduce element;
and
wherein the transducer array further comprise a plurality
of right transducer elements configured to provide sonar data to
the sonar module, wherein a first right transducer element of the
plurality of right transducer elements comprises an emitting face
that is directed outwardly form a right side of the vessel in a third
direction and at the first angle with respect to the body of water;
and wherein a second right transducer element of the plurality of
right transducer elements comprises an emitting face that is
directed outwardly from the right side of the vessel in a fourth
direction and at the second angle with respect to the body of
water, wherein the third direction is non-parallel with the fourth
direction so as to form the tilt angle therebetween such that sonar
returns received by the first right transducer element provide a
different perspective of a same volume of the body of water off
the right side of the vessel than sonar returns received by the
second right transducer element,
wherein the marine electronics device is configured to
selectively receive sonar data from either of the first left
transducer element and the first right transducer element or the
second left transducer element and the second right transducer
element, wherein selection of the first left transducer element and
the first right transducer element or the second left transducer
element and the second right transducer element enables toggling
between outward side scan beams from both sides of the vessel
and downward side scan beams from the both [sic] sides of the
vessel, wherein the marine electronics device is configured to
produce the sonar image corresponding to received sonar data
from the selected one of the first left transducer element and the
first right transducer element or the second left transducer
element and the second right transducer element such that sonar
data from the first left transducer element and the first right
transducer element would produce the first sonar image such
that first sonar image corresponds to the outward side scan
beams from the both sides of the vessel and that sonar data from
the second left transducer element and the second right
transducer element would produce the separate second sonar
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
12
image such that the second sonar image corresponds to the
downward side scan beams from the both sides of the vessel.
Appeal Br. 22–23 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
As an initial matter, regarding the production of a single first sonar
image and a separate single second image, which are each produced from
sonar data from two (left and right) transducer elements generating sonar
data from right and left sides of the vessel, it is not altogether clear from the
Specification how this is accomplished. In particular, the Specification
merely discloses that “[i]n another implementation, two left elements and
two right elements may be disposed in the same transducer, and the user has
the ability to select views that look further out or further down by selecting a
pair of elements (left and right) set at a particular angle,” wherein “the user
has the ability to toggle by switching between the different views . . . using a
multi-functional display (MFD) device.” Spec. ¶ 51; cf. Maguire ¶ 74;
Brown ¶ 73 (“the processing element 26 may calculate two sets of sonar data
and may generate two sonar images 44 to be shown on the display”), Fig. 13.
The Examiner relies on the findings and reasoning “similar to that of
claim 1,” and further relies on Maguire’s Figure 1 for depicting “seven total
transducers either arranged downward or left/right pointing in different
directions.” Final Act. 8. In view of the Examiner’s findings and reasoning
as set forth supra relative to claim 1, we understand that the Examiner uses
Maguire’s Figure 1 to teach transducer arrays on left and right sides of a
vessel, and thus, that one of Havin’s transducer arrays having first and
second left transducer elements may be arranged on the left side of
Maguire’s vessel, and one of Havin’s transducer arrays having first and
second right transducer elements may be arranged on the right side of
Maguire’s vessel.
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
13
The Examiner also finds that
Brown teaches that switching/multiplexing circuits may be used
to establish desired connections between a first transducer array,
second transducer array, beam transmitter, and beam receiver.
Brown also teaches rear, forward, side, down, and/or any other
direction orientations for sonar display mode views [(citing
¶ 25)], as well as multiple sonar display devices [(citing ¶ 23)],
and multiple display images [(citing ¶ 24)]. Finally, Brown
teaches that images on the left and right side of the display
correspond to those sides of the vessel (port or starboard) [(citing
¶ 60)]. In summary, the art appears to be teaching that multiple
images may be switched to multiple sonar displays (the
switching is achieved by multiplexers which are well known in
the art of electrical engineering).
Ans. 9–10 (findings with respect to similar limitations recited in claim 14).
We understand that the Examiner’s reasoning is that the particular selection
of the pairs of transducer elements to provide outward and side beam scan
images, as recited in claim 8, is within the capability of a person of ordinary
skill in the art, in view of Brown’s broader teaching regarding the ability to
select (or toggle between) different beam scan modes (i.e., a side or outward
beam scan mode and a downward mode) and the configuration of transducer
elements producing side or outward and downward sonar data resulting from
the Examiner’s modification of Maguire, in view of Havins.
Appellant argues that claim 8 requires that “a user can toggle between
(a) using a first pair of elements (the first left and first right transducer
elements) to form a first sidescan image or (b) using a second pair of
elements (the second left and second right transducer elements) to form a
second sidescan image,” and that “[t]here is no cited art in the Final Office
Action to such a claimed feature.” Appeal Br. 18. In particular, Appellant
submits that “[t]here is no such teaching in Maguire to form such paired
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
14
transducers into the claimed optional images created,” and further, “even the
addition of the multiplexer of Brown . . . does not teach or suggest such a
specific transducer set-up.” Id. at 19. In sum, Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s findings relative to Brown still fail to disclose “the specific
structure and positioning of the transducer elements (including in paired
form) to form the claimed images.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s argument addresses each of the references individually,
requiring a disclosure of all of the limitations relative to the claim language
recited by Appellant supra from a single prior art reference.8 As such,
Appellant’s argument does not address the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner, which relies on a combination of the teachings from the
references, as well as the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art,
to arrive at the claimed invention. 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); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
findings or reasoning.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
8, and claim 22 depending therefrom.

8 Notably, Brown does suggest a selection of a pairing of starboard side and
port side sonar elements for the display of the two sets of sonar data on a
single screen, albeit not presented as a single image as suggested in Maguire.
Brown ¶ 73, Fig. 13; Maguire ¶ 74.
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
15
Independent claim 14
Independent claim 14 recites, in relevant part,
[a] sonar system for use with a vessel on a body of water, the
sonar system comprising:
a sonar module configured to generate a transmit signal
and receive sonar data; and
a transducer array configured to be mounted to the vessel,
wherein the transducer array is in communication with the sonar
module and comprises a plurality of right transducer elements
and a plurality of left transducer elements that are each
configured to provide sonar data to the sonar module, wherein
the plurality of left transducer elements comprises a first left
transducer element that comprises an emitting face that is
directed outward and away from a left side of the vessel in a first
direction and at a first angle with respect to a surface of the body
of water, wherein the plurality of left transducer elements
comprises a second left transducer element that comprises an
emitting face that is directed outward and away from the left side
of the vessel in a second direction and at a second angle with
respect to the surface of the body of water, wherein the plurality
of right transducer elements comprises a first right transducer
element that comprises an emitting face that is directed outward
and away from a right side of the vessel in a third direction and
at the first angle with respect to the surface of the body of water,
wherein the plurality of right transducer elements comprises a
second right transducer element that comprises an emitting face
that is directed outward and away from the right side of the vessel
in a fourth direction and at the second angle with respect to the
surface of the body of water, wherein the second angle is
different than the first angle, wherein the first direction is non-
parallel with the second direction so as to form a tilt angle
therebetween such that sonar returns received by the first
transducer element provide a different perspective of a same
volume of the body of water off the left side of the vessel than
sonar returns received by the second transducer element, and
wherein the third direction is non-parallel with the fourth
direction so as to form the tilt angle therebetween such that sonar
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
16
returns received by the first right transducer element provide a
different perspective of a same volume of the body of water off
the right side of the vessel than sonar returns received by the
second right transducer element;
wherein selection between sonar data of either of both the
first left transducer element and the first right transducer
element or both the second left transducer element and the
second right transducer element enables toggling between
outward side scan beams from both sides of the vessel and
downward side scan beams from the both sides of the vessel,
wherein the received sonar data from the selected one of both the
first left transducer element and the first right transducer
element or both the second left transducer element and the
second right transducer element is utilized to provide a sonar
image such that sonar data form both the first left transducer
element and the first right transducer element produces a first
sonar image corresponding to the outward side scan beams from
the both sides of the vessel and that sonar data from both the
second left transducer element and the second right transducer
element produces a separate second sonar image corresponding
to the downward side scan beams from the both sides of the
vessel.
Appeal Br. 24–26 (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning in the
rejection of claim 14 as relied on in the rejection of claims 1 and 8 supra,
and Appellant presents the same arguments with respect to the patentability
of claim 14 as presented for the patentability of claims 1 and 8 supra. Final
Act. 7; Appeal Br. 10–16; Reply Br. 3.
Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons as stated with respect to
claims 1 and 8, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14,
and claims 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 depending therefrom.
Appeal 2020-006215
Application 14/945,288
17
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6–10,
12–17, 19–23
103 Maguire, Brown,
Havins
1, 3, 4, 6–
10, 12–17,
19–23

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