Nicira, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2021

2019005973 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/386,214 12/21/2016 Kaushal Bansal N320.02 (NCRA.P0570) 9731
109858 7590 03/18/2021
ADELI LLP
P.O. Box 516
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
EXAMINER
TRAN, ELLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2021 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):
ipadmin@vmware.com
mail@adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KAUSHAL BANSAL, UDAY MASUREKAR, SHADAB SHAH,
JAMES JOSEPH STABILE, and STEVEN PETERS
___________

Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26, all of the pending claims.
Final Act. 2.2 Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are cancelled. Id. We have

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real parties-in-interest as VMware, Inc., and Nicira,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
March 22, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 6, 2019); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 23, 2018) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 6, 2019); and the Specification
(“Spec.,” filed December 21, 2016). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s
findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these
documents.
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

2

jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed methods and machine readable media relate to
“distributing firewall configuration in a datacenter comprising multiple host
machines.” Spec., Abstract.
As noted above, claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26 are pending. Claims 1
and 13 are independent. Appeal Br. 39 (claim 1), 41–42 (claim 13) (Claims
App.). Claims 4–10 and 22–26 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1,
and claims 16–21 depend directly or indirectly from claim 13. Id. at 39–44.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
1. A method for distributing firewall rules in a
datacenter comprising a plurality of host machines, the method
comprising:
at a network manager executing on a computer of the
datacenter,
in a firewall rule that is associated with a first version
number, identifying a particular group identifier that represents
a set of at least one enforcement node;
to translate the particular group identifier, retrieving from
a translation storage, which stores previous translation results
for a plurality of group identifiers, a previous translation result
of the particular group identifier that has one of the first version
number and a subsequent version number;
using a set of at least one enforcement node identifier that
is part of the retrieved translation result to modify the firewall
rule by replacing the particular group identifier with at least one
retrieved enforcement node identifier; and
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

3

distributing the modified firewall rule to a host machine
associated with an enforcement node identified in the modified
firewall rule,
wherein the host machine uses the modified firewall rule
to process packets for the enforcement node in accordance with
a firewall action specified by the modified firewall rule.
Id. at 39 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS3
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name4 Reference Issued/Publ’d Filed
Litvin US 2009/0249472 A1 Oct. 1, 2009 Jan. 5, 2009
Lotem US 8,621,552 B1 Dec. 31, 2013 May 21, 2008
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as lacking an enabling disclosure. Final Act. 12–13. The Examiner
also rejects claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite. Id. at 13. Further, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–10, 13, and
16–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Litvin and Lotem. Id. at 14–19.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Although Appellant challenges the obviousness rejection of

3 The Examiner withdraws rejections of claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter, without
significantly more, and as lacking patentable utility. Ans. 11; see Final
Act. 6–12.
4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

4

certain dependent claims separately, for the most part, the Examiner and
Appellant focus their findings and contentions on claim 1; so do we. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 17, 27–28; Ans. 12, 17, 23. We address the rejections
below.
ANALYSIS
A. Lack of Enablement
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26
as lacking an enabling disclosure. Final Act. 3–5, 12–13. For the reasons
given below, we do not sustain the rejection for lack of enablement.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) requires that
The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it,
in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is
most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set
forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint
inventor of carrying out the invention.
(Emphasis added.)
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26 for lack of
enablement because “[t]he claims appear to be directed to writing a software
program (i.e. a firewall) and distributing firewall rules, however the
language utilized in the claims with numerous grammatical errors make it
impossible to understand and utilize the claimed invention, therefore the
claims lack enablement.” Final Act. 12–13; see Ans. 12–15. This, however,
is insufficient to show a lack of enablement.
The Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) states:
Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by
the disclosure in an application requires a determination of
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

5

whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient
information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to
enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed
invention. The standard for determining whether the
specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the
Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde,
242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the
experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or
unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In
re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 . . . (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly,
even though the statute does not use the term “undue
experimentation,” it has been interpreted to require that the
claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art
can make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
[Id.]
MPEP5 § 2164.01 (“Test of Enablement”; emphasis added).
Nevertheless, the Examiner, who bears the initial burden, fails to
explain adequately why the disclosure, as filed, is not sufficiently complete
to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention of
claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26 without undue experimentation. See In re
Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561–62 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Marzocchi,
439 F.2d 220, 223–24 (CCPA 1971)) (The Office bears the “initial burden”
when rejecting claims for lack of enablement.). The rejection before us does
not include adequate discussion of the Wands factors to provide the
Appellant or the Board with an indication as to why one would have to
engage in undue experimentation to practice the claimed invention. See
Wands, 858 F.2d at 736–37 (“Enablement is not precluded by the necessity
for some experimentation . . . . However, experimentation needed to

5 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019
(Last Revised June 2020).
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

6

practice the invention must not be undue experimentation. The key word is
‘undue,’ not ‘experimentation.’”). Although the Examiner is not required to
provide a discussion of every Wands factor, the Examiner’s rejection does
not make evident that any of these factors has been considered or that the
Examiner relies on evidence sufficient to support the conclusion of lack of
enablement. Id. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that the
claims at issue are not enabled, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s lack of
enablement rejection of claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26.
B. Indefiniteness
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) requires that “[t]he specification shall conclude
with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
invention.” (Emphasis added.) The Examiner finds:
As explained above [with respect to the lack of enablement
rejection], the claims appear to be directed to writing a software
program (i.e. a firewall) and distributing firewall rules, however
the language utilized is riddled with grammatical errors
mak[ing] it impossible to understand and utilize the claimed
invention, therefore the claims are indefinite.
Final Act. 13 (emphasis added); see Ans. 15–17. Moreover, the Examiner
asserts, “the amendment of the claim filed 23 April 201[8] the Applicant’s
representative has gone to extreme lengths to confuse the Examiner and the
record with the numerous deletions and addition in the claims” (Ans. 16),
and “the Applicant’s representative did not schedule any interviews or file
any after final amendments with this application and went straight to appeal”
(id. at 17). The Examiner proposes a rewritten version of claim 1 for
Appellant to adopt. Id. at 16.
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

7

Appellant responds:
The Office Action, however, fails to identify any specific
grammatical errors or any specific term or phrase that is
indefinite and why the metes and bounds are unclear. The Office
Action asserts that the claims appear to be directed to writing a
software program which (i) is not a remotely accurate
characterization of the claims as described above in Subsection
I.A and (ii) does not address the actual language of the claims.
Accordingly, the Office Action fails to provide enough
information for the applicant to prepare a meaningful response.
Appellant respectfully submits that the rejection based on 35
U.S.C. §112(b) is therefore improper.
Appeal Br. 18; see Reply Br. 5–6. We agree with Appellant.
Initially, we agree with Appellant that although the Examiner asserts
the claims contain numerous grammatical errors, the Examiner makes
almost no attempt to identify those alleged errors. At most, the Examiner
alleges it is not clear what is meant by “a computer of the datacenter, in a
firewall rule.” Ans. 13 (discussing claim 1 in the context of the lack of
enablement rejection). However, this challenged language is a combination
of the last few words of the first limitation of claim 1 with the first few
words of its second limitation. See Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.)
(reproduced above). This takes both sets of words out of context, and it is
not surprising that taken out of context the combination makes no sense.
As Appellant notes,
The Office action must set forth the specific term or phrase that
is indefinite and why the metes and bounds are unclear. Since a
rejection requires the applicant to respond by explaining why
claim language would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill
in the art as definite or by amending the claim, the Office action
should provide enough information for the applicant to prepare a
meaningful response.
Appeal Br. 17–18 (quoting MPEP § 2173.02(III)(B) (“Determining Whether
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

8

Claim Language is Definite”); emphasis added)). Here, we are persuaded
the Examiner fails to explain what terms are found indefinite and why.
The Examiner’s rewriting of claim 1 does not substitute for the
necessary findings. In rewriting the claim, the Examiner still fails to identify
“the specific term or phrase that is indefinite and why the metes and bounds
are unclear.” Although we do not disagree that Appellant could rewrite
claims 1 and 13 to achieve improved clarity and ease of understanding, that
is not the test for indefiniteness. Moreover, “[i]t is the applicants’ burden to
precisely define the invention, not the [Office’s].” In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On this record, no conclusions can be drawn
from Appellant’s decision not to adopt the Examiner’s choice of claim
language, not to file its own further claim amendments, or not to seek an
interview. Reply Br. 6; see Ans. 16–17. Further, we do not draw adverse
inferences from the timing of Appellant’s decision to appeal. Reply Br. 6;
see Ans. 17.
On this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner shows that
Appellant’s claim 1 or claim 13, which recites limitations corresponding to
those recited in claim 1, is indefinite. For the reasons given above, we do
not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of claims 1 and 13, or of claims 4–10
and 16–26, which depend therefrom.
C. Obviousness Over Litvin and Lotem
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26
as obvious over the combined teachings of Litvin and Lotem. Final Act. 14–
19. Appellant contests the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–12. For the
reasons given below, we are persuaded the Examiner errs, and we do not
sustain this rejection.
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

9

With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Litvin teaches or
suggests “in a firewall rule that is associated with a first version number,
identifying a particular group identifier that represents a set of at least one
enforcement node.” Final Act. 14 (citing Litvin ¶¶ 15, 24, 77, Fig. 4);
Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Further, the Examiner finds
that Lotem teaches or suggests:
to translate the particular group identifier, retrieving from
a translation storage, which stores previous translation results
for a plurality of group identifiers, a previous translation result
of the particular group identifier that has one of the first version
number and a subsequent version number; [and]
using a set of at least one enforcement node identifier that
is part of the retrieved translation result to modify the firewall
rule by replacing the particular group identifier with at least one
retrieved enforcement node identifier.
Final Act. 15 (citing Lotem, Abstract, 1:53–2:31); Appeal Br. 39 (Claims
App.) (emphases added).
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

10

Litvin’s Figure 4 is reproduced below.

Figure 4 depicts firewall coordinator 400 connected to multiple host
nodes 410, 412, 414, each of which has its own virtual network firewall 420,
422, 424. Litvin ¶¶ 29, 77. Each host node includes various virtual
machines (VMs). Id. “The virtual machines are controlled by control
program 165 on control server 120.” Id. ¶ 77.
Litvin explains that firewall policies relating to a given virtual
machine are needed on the host node hosting that machine. Id. ¶ 15. The
firewall coordinator keeps track of the location of the virtual machines and
makes sure that the necessary firewall policy is supplied to the host node
hosting a particular machine. Id.; see id. ¶ 24. Further, “[t]he virtual
machine policy updater 1224 also receives notice (e.g., identifiers of virtual
machines and the host nodes on which they are running) from the virtual
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

11

machine tracker 1208 when policies for a running virtual machine are
updated.” Id. ¶ 128 (emphases added); see Final Act. 14–15.
Lotem discloses:
A method for evaluating a deployment of a network access
change request, the method includes: (a) formatting a network
access change request to provide a formatted network access
change request; wherein the formatted network access change
request includes multiple formatted request items; wherein the
multiple formatted request items includes a requested access
type, an address of an access source, an address of an access
destination; (b) determining multiple relationships between the
multiple formatted request items and corresponding items of at
least one entity out of a network model and a current network
policy; and ( c) responding to the network access change request
in response to the multiple determined relationships.
Lotem, Abstract (emphasis added), 1:53–65; see id. at 12:48–13:3
(describing content of a network access change request); 28:57–61
(describing use of recorded configurations). Lotem further discloses that for
each new configuration version of the firewall, the Access Change
Assurance (ACA) – that is, a method for assuring access change requests –
creates a configuration record, including details of the configuration, such as
ID and date, and references to the current and previous configurations. Id. at
31:45–50; see Ans. 18; see also Lotem, 31:63–65 (“The ACA environment
can produce a daily report that presents the configuration changes performed
for firewalls in the organization, their content, and verification results.”).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs for two reasons. Appeal
Br. 18–19. Specifically, Appellant contends:
First, the Office Action failed to cite references that
disclose or suggest replacing a group identifier in a firewall rule
with at least one enforcement node identifier retrieved from a
translation storage storing previous translation results for
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

12

multiple group identifiers. Second, the Office Action failed to
cite references that disclose or suggest identifying a particular
group identifier in a firewall rule associated with a first version
number, and retrieving from a translation storage, which stores
previous translation results for multiple group identifiers, a
previous translation result of the particular group identifier that
has one of the first version number and a subsequent version
number. Instead, the references are directed to (1) to
implementing a firewall in a system with multiple host nodes
executing multiple virtual machines (Litvin) and (2) using
network models to generate a formatted firewall access change
request from an unformatted network access change request
(Lotem).
Id. (emphases added).
In response to Appellant’s first reason, the Examiner finds the
combination of Litvin’s and Lotem’s teachings teach or suggest “replacing a
group identifier in a firewall rule with at least one enforcement node
identifier retrieved from a translation storage storing previous translation
results for multiple group identifiers.” Ans. 17; see Appeal Br. 18. In
particular, the Examiner finds Litvin discloses, “how connection data is
stored in a firewall connection table, which data include virtual machine
identifier that is the connection’s source or destination.” Ans. 17. Litvin
further discloses a single connection table on each host node may include the
connection data for each of the virtual machines on that host node. Id. In
addition, Litvin discloses utilizing a firewall coordinator, which may be
software stored on particular virtual machine or stored in a computer
readable medium, that coordinates firewall updates according to policies
received which involves transferring the connection table data to the host, on
which the particular virtual machine is running. Id. Because “Lotem
teaches modifying firewall rules using change requests which indicates
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

13

identifiers of host nodes as well as virtual machines in the update requests,”
the Examiner finds that the combed teachings of these references teach or
suggest the disputed limitation. Id. at 17–18.
Appellant contends that the Examiner fails to show where Litvin or
Lotem, alone or in combination, teach(es) or suggest(s) “in a firewall rule
that is associated with a first version number, identifying a particular group
identifier that represents a set of at least one enforcement node.” Reply
Br. 7; Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.) (emphasis added); see Appeal Br. 23–24.
Specifically, Appellant contends:
Litvin does not actually describe group identifiers in firewalls
rules that represent enforcement nodes. In a later use of Litvin
regarding distribution of the modified firewall rule to a host
machine, the [Examiner] cites to ¶¶115-117 of Litvin, which
describes identifiers for VMs in firewall rules. Office Action,
pg. 14-15. However, these identifiers represent the sources and
destinations of packets to which the firewall rule is applied, not
the enforcement nodes. The points of enforcement in Litvin are
virtual network firewalls, and the firewall rules of Litvin very
clearly do not contain group identifiers that represent the virtual
network firewalls. Litvin, Figures 4-6 and 14B. Nowhere does
Litvin disclose or suggest any such enforcement node identifier
or group identifiers representing enforcement node identifiers in
a firewall rule.
Appeal Br. 23 (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 8 (“The reference to Litvin
includes yet more discussion regarding IP addresses, which as indicated
repeatedly do not logically correspond to either the group identifiers or the
enforcement node identifiers.”). Similarly, Appellant contends the Examiner
“refers to portions of Lotem regarding the [access change request (ACR)]
being formatted to include source and destination IP addresses in place of
abstract source and destination identifiers, but that (as in Litvin) these refer
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

14

to sources and destinations of packets rather than enforcement nodes.”
Reply Br. 7 (emphasis added); see Appeal Br. 24. We agree with Appellant.
In response to Appellant’s second reason, the Examiner finds the
combination of Litvin’s and Lotem’s teachings teach or suggest “updating
firewall rules (which includes version number) as well identifying which
node the firewall operates on see Litvin paragraphs 15 and 24 note the
‘minimum required version number’ is interpreted equivalent to ‘security
policy’, ‘firewall policy’ [,] ‘firewall update’ etc[.] . . . .”6 Ans. 18. The
Examiner finds:
In addition see Lotem col. 28, lines 57-61, “Each time a new
version of the firewall model is created the model is conveniently
recorded in a configurations repository (stage 7140).[”] The
recorded configurations can be used as a reference for identifying
and examining future changes in the configuration of firewalls
and col. 31, lines 44-50 “Creating Configuration Change
Records (Stage 7100). For each new configuration version of a
firewall, ACA creates a configuration change record. . . . ”
Id. The further Examiner finds,
Litvin clearly teaches a firewall coordinator that tracks the
locations of virtual machine, when a virtual machine is moved to
a new or different host node the firewall operating on the host
node is updated for the virtual machine. This updating would
change destination addresses located in a firewall connection
table to include the identifier of the new or different host node.
see Lotem col. 1, line 53 through col. 2, line 31.
Ans. 21 (emphasis added). Therefore, we understand the Examiner finds
that Lotem’s teaching of configuration change records, together with

6 Appellant correctly notes that claim 1 does not recite a “minimum required
version number.” Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner cites no support from the
Specification for this interpretation. But see Spec., Abstract (“The firewall
rule is associated with a minimum required version number.”)
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

15

Litvin’s teachings of tracking virtual machine locations in hot nodes, teaches
or suggests “a translation storage” and the configuration updates stored in
the configuration change records include a first version or a subsequent
version of the configurations. See Ans. 21–23.
Nevertheless, although the Examiner concedes that Litvin does not
teach or suggest translating the group identifier or retrieving a previous
translation result (see Final Act. 15), the Examiner finds the applied
references together teach retrieving a previous translation result (Ans. 22).
Appellant contends, however, that because allowing a packet to
communicate does not translate anything, the Examiner fails to explain how
information about allowed packets corresponds to “previous translation
results for a plurality of group identifiers.” Reply Br. 10; Appeal Br. 39
(Claims App.). Further, claim 1 recites, “previous translation results for
group identifiers,” and Appellant asserts, “the packets are not group
identifiers (i.e., they do not represent sets of enforcement nodes), nor are the
source and destination addresses.” Reply Br. 10; Appeal Br. 39 (Claims
App.) (emphasis added).
Similarly, with respect to Lotem, Appellant contends,
the network and firewall models are not previous translation
results of a group identifier, and a saved network or firewall
model retrieved for topology analysis for translation of a network
ACR cannot possibly have a same Change Request ID as the
ACR (or subsequent Change Request ID for that matter) as any
model retrieved from the configuration storage of Lotem must be
based upon a previous ACR. In addition, the Change Request
IDs are not version numbers because they are not numbers
associated with or representing a version.
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

16

Reply Br. 10; see Appeal Br. 27 (“The Change Request IDs are merely
alphanumeric identifiers assigned to change requests.”; citing Lotem, 12:50–
67). We agree with Appellant.
On this record, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that
independent claim 1 is rendered obvious over the combined teachings of
Litvin and Lotem, and we do not sustain that rejection. Because Appellant
relies solely on its contentions with respect to claim 1 to overcome the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 13, we also do not sustain the
rejection of that claim. Because, like their base claims, the Examiner also
rejects the dependent claims only on the combined teachings of Litvin and
Lotem, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of those claims.7
Appeal Br. 27–28.
DECISION
1. The Examiner errs in rejecting:
a. claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
lacking enablement;
b. claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite; and
c. claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Litvin and Lotem.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–26 are not
unpatentable.

7 Although Appellant separately challenges the rejection of dependent
claims 4–10, 16–20, 24, and 25, because reversal of the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 13 is dispositive, we do not reach those separate
challenges. See Appeal Br. 28–37; Reply Br. 11–19.
Appeal 2019-005973
Application 15/386,214

17

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4–10, 13, and 16–
26.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–10,
13, 16–26
112(a) Lack of
Enablement
1, 4–10,
13, 16–26
1, 4–10,
13, 16–26
112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 4–10,
13, 16–26
1, 4–10,
13, 16–26
103 Litvin, Lotem 1, 4–10,
13, 16–26
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–10,
13, 16–26

REVERSED