Shachor, Gabriel et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 19, 2020

2019003753 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2020)

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.
14/849,598 09/10/2015 Gabriel Shachor 8688-US 3901
69054 7590 11/19/2020
RECHES PATENTS
HaArba''a Towers
North Tower
TEL AVIV, 6473925
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
BOYLAN, JAMES T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2020 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):
OREN@I-P.CO.IL
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patents@geraghtyipservices.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GABRIEL SHACHOR and SHY COHEN
____________________

Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–14, and 17–26. Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 have
been canceled (see Appeal Br. 16, 18). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the
inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as
provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). According
to Appellant, Sky Sapience, Ltd. the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

2
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention, entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR
CONTROLLING MULTIPLE AERIAL UNITS” (Title), relates to aerial
units (e.g., drones, blimps, satellites, or airplanes) controlled through a
connection to a ground unit (e.g., a vehicle having a display and controller)
for monitoring an area and automatically targeting objects (see Spec. ¶¶ 3–
25; see also Fig. 1). Claims 1, 2, and 13 are illustrative of the invention and
are reproduced below.
1 A system, comprising a ground unit, an aerial unit and a
connecting element that is arranged to connect the ground unit to
the aerial unit;
wherein the ground unit comprises a connecting element
manipulator that is arranged to alter an effective length of the
connecting element; wherein the effective length of the
connecting element defines a distance between the ground unit
and the aerial unit;
wherein at least one out of the ground unit and the aerial
unit comprises a controller; and
[A] wherein the controller is configured to determine a
manner in which the aerial unit operates and is further
configured to assist in a controlling of an aerial monitoring
device by (a) determining automatically and without human
intervention targets to be viewed by the aerial monitoring device,
and (b) sending information about the targets to the other aerial
monitoring device; wherein the aerial monitoring device differs
from the aerial unit.

2 The system according to claim 1 wherein the ground unit
comprises the controller and the aerial unit comprises an
additional controller; [B] wherein each one of the controller and
the additional controller is configured to determine automatically
and without human intervention the targets to be viewed by the
aerial monitoring device.

Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

3
Appeal Br. 16, Claims Appendix (bracketed lettering and emphasis
added).
13 A method for controlling an aerial unit and an aerial
monitoring device, the method comprising:
operating the aerial unit and a ground unit to provide an
image of an area; wherein the aerial unit and the ground unit are
connected to each other by a connecting element; wherein the
ground unit comprises a connecting element manipulator that is
arranged to alter an effective length of the connecting element;
wherein the effective length of the connecting element defines a
distance between the ground unit and the aerial unit;
[C1] selecting, automatically and without human
intervention and by at least one controller that is located in at
least one of the aerial unit and the ground unit, a target to be
viewed by the aerial monitoring device;
sending control information to the aerial monitoring device
to enable a monitoring of a target by the aerial monitoring device;
[C2] receiving monitoring information received from the
aerial monitoring device; and
[C3] displaying the monitoring information.

Appeal Br. 17–18, Claims Appendix (bracketed lettering and
emphasis added).

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.2 Final Act. 3–5.

2 Appellant’s briefs fail to present any separate arguments with regard to the
rejection of claims 1 and 11 under § 112(b) (see Appeal Br. 8). Therefore,
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

4
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 11 under the judicially created
doctrine of non-statutory, obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1
and 11, respectively, of Shachor et al. (US 8,695,919 B2; issued April 15,
2014) (hereinafter, “’919”) and Shachor et al. (US 9,056,687 B2; issued June
16, 2015) (hereinafter, “’687”), respectively, each in view of Ben-Asher et
al. (US 2010/0163621 A1; published July 1, 2010) (hereinafter, “Ben-
Asher”).3 Final Act. 5–15.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5–12, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over (a) the base combination of ’919 and Ben-
Asher (claims 1 and 11), or (b) the base combination taken with various
other references (claims 2, 5–10, 12, 26). Final Act. 16–23, 30–32, 35–36.
This group of rejections includes the following obviousness
rejections:
(a) Claims 1 and 11 over ’919 and Ben-Asher (Final Act. 16–
20);
(b) Claim 2 over ’919, Ben-Asher, and Farmer et al. (US
2006/0114324 A1; published June 1, 2006) (hereinafter,
“Farmer”) (Final Act. 20–21);

3 Appellant’s briefs fail to present any separate arguments with regard to the
rejection of claims 1 and 11 for obviousness-type double patenting (see
Appeal Br. 8). Therefore, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1 and 11 for obviousness-type double patenting. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). And, notably, Appellant’s Terminal Disclaimer
filed May 24, 2018 was not accepted by the Examiner (see Final Act. 2–3).
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

5
(c) Claim 5 over ’919, Ben-Asher, and Wagreich (US 9,533,760
B1; issued Jan. 3, 2017) (Final Act. 21);
(d) Claims 6 and 7 over ’919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth et al.
(US 2010/0277588 A1; published Nov. 4, 2010)
(hereinafter, “Ellsworth”) (Final Act. 22–23);4
(e) Claim 8 over ’919, Ben-Asher, and Olson et al. (US
7,581,702 B2; issued Sept. 1, 2009) (hereinafter, “Olson”)
(Final Act. 30–31);
(f) Claims 9 and 10 over ’919, Ben-Asher, and Collins et al.
(US 2009/0265193 A1; published Oct. 22, 2009)
(hereinafter, “Collins”) (Final Act. 31–32);
(g) Claim 12 over ’919, Ben-Asher, and Nixon (US
2010/0013927 A1; published Jan. 21, 2010) (Final Act. 32);
and
(h) Claim 26 over ’919, Ben-Asher, and Rao (US 6,278,798 B1;
issued Aug. 21, 2001) (Final Act. 35–36).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 13, 14, and 17–25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over ’919 and Ben-Asher in combination with

4 Although the Examiner lists Wagreich in the heading of the statement of
this rejection on page 22, in the body of the rejection, the Examiner applies
Ellsworth instead of Wagreich (see Final Act. 22–23). Appellant recognizes
this error as well, and argues the merits of Ellsworth and not Wagreich (see
Appeal Br. 13–14). In response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal
Brief, the Examiner does not contest that Ellsworth, and not Wagreich was
applied (see Ans. 6). We consider this as harmless error and take the
rejection to be over ’919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth.
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

6
Ellsworth et al. (US 2010/0277588 A1; published Nov. 4, 2010) (hereinafter,
“Ellsworth”) (claim 13), or in combination with various other references
(claims 14, 17–25). Final Act. 23–30, 33–35.
This group of rejections includes the following obviousness
rejections:
(a) Claims 13, 14, and 21–25 over ’919, Ben-Asher, and
Ellsworth (Final Act. 23–30);5
(b) Claim 17 over ’919, Ben-Asher, Ellsworth, and Wagreich
(Final Act. 33);
(c) Claim 18 over ’919, Ben-Asher, Ellsworth, and Olson (Final
Act. 33–34); and
(d) Claims 19 and 20 over ’919, Ben-Asher, Ellsworth, and
Collins (Final Act. 34–35).

ISSUES
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (Appeal Br. 9–14;
Reply Br. 2–5),6 three principal issues are before us on appeal:

5 Although the Examiner lists Wagreich in the heading of the statement of
this rejection on page 22, in the body of the rejection, the Examiner applies
Ellsworth instead of Wagreich (see Final Act. 25–30). Appellant recognizes
this error as well, and argues the merits of Ellsworth and not Wagreich (see
Appeal Br. 13–14). In response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal
Brief, the Examiner does not dispute that Ellsworth, and not Wagreich was
applied (see Ans. 6). We consider this as harmless error and consider the
rejection to be over ‘919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth.
6 Appellant argues claims 1, 5–12, and 26 as a group, relying on the
arguments presented as to claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 2–3).
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

7
(1) Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
base combination of ’919 and Ben-Asher;
(2) Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of ’919,
Ben-Asher, and Farmer; and
(3) Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the base combination of ’919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth?

ANALYSIS
Issue (1): Obviousness of Claim 1 Over ’919 and Ben-Asher
We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not
in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as

(cont.) Independent claims 1 and 11 both recite systems with a ground unit,
aerial unit, and connecting element having commensurate limitations and
scope. We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1 and 11
rejected as being unpatentable over the base combination of ’919 and Ben-
Asher (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)), and decide the outcome of claims 5–
12 and 26 on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 from which claims 5–12 and
26 (also rejected on the same base combination of ’919 and Ben-Asher).
Appellant provides separate arguments for claim 2 (see Appeal Br.
11–13; Reply Br. 4–5), and remaining independent claim 13, relying on the
arguments presented as to claim 13 for the patentability of claims 14 and 17–
25 (see Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 5). We select claim 13 as
representative of the group of claims 13, 14, and 21–25 rejected over the
combination of ’919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)), and decide the outcome of claims 17–20 (also rejected on
the same base combination of ’919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth) on the same
basis as claim 13.
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

8
a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references) (citation omitted).
With regard to representative claim 1, Appellant’s contention (Appeal
Br. 9) that ’919 fails to teach or suggest “determining automatically and
without human intervention targets” as recited in limitation A of
representative claim 1, is not persuasive in light of the Examiner’s
application of a combination of the teachings and suggestions of ’919 and
Ben-Asher. The Examiner relies upon Ben-Asher for limitation A (see Final
Act. 17–18).
Appellant’s contentions that there is not sufficient motivation to
combine ’919 and Ben-Asher (see Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 3) are not
persuasive. The Examiner has provided sufficient motivation for modifying
’919 with Ben-Asher (see Final Act. 18). In addition, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding (see Ans. 5) that both ’919 and Ben-Asher relate to
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (“UAVs”). We also agree with the Examiner’s
determination (see Ans. 5) that the motivation for combining Ben-Asher
with ’919 (e.g., improved communication) is taken from Ben-Asher, and is
not impermissible hindsight.
Appellant’s motivation and teaching away arguments based on Ben-
Asher using specialized flocking algorithms to communicate between aerial
units (see Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 3), are not persuasive inasmuch as
claim 1 does not specify or limit the method of communication in any
particular manner that would exclude Ben-Asher’s communication method.
Claim 1 merely requires target information be sent “to the other aerial
monitoring device” without any specifics as to the manner of
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

9
communication. And, the lack of proper antecedent basis for the term “the
other aerial monitoring device” (which is the basis of the uncontested
indefiniteness rejection of claim 1) makes it unclear whether or not “the
other aerial monitoring device” is part of the “system” recited in the
preamble of claim 1. Finally, the “aerial monitoring device” recited in
limitation A of claim 1 is not described in the Specification. Therefore, it is
unclear whether the aerial monitoring device is a camera or other imaging
device, or the aerial unit itself. In view of the foregoing, the Examiner’s
application of ’919 modified with Ben-Asher is reasonable and has not been
shown to be in error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1, as well as claim 11 grouped therewith. For similar reasons, and
because Appellant relies on the arguments presented for claim 1 for the
patentability of claims 2, 5–10, 12, and 26 (see Appeal Br. 11), we also
sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5–10, 12, and 26 over the
same base combination of ’919 and Ben-Asher taken with various additional
prior art references.
Issue 2: Obviousness of Claim 2 Over ’919, Ben-Asher, and Farmer
Appellant argues that Farmer teaches away from ’919 and the claimed
invention, because Farmer’s UAVs collaborate with each other to better
target an object (see Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 4–5). However, this
argument does not address the fact that the Examiner relies on ’919 for the
system limitations including a ground unit and controllers as set forth in
claim 2, and relies on Farmer for automatic target recognition (see Final Act.
20; Ans. 5–6).

Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

10
Moreover, “‘the question under 35 USC 103 is not merely what the
references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.’” Merck & Co.
v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added); see also
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2123 (9th ed. Rev.
10.2019, June 2020). In this light, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994); see Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Furthermore, it is irrelevant that the
prior art and the present invention allegedly have different purposes. See
Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (“A finding that two inventions were designed to resolve different
problems . . . is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away
from another.”). A prior-art reference that discloses alternatives does not,
simply by preferring some alternatives, “teach away” from the non-preferred
alternatives, In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and a
particular reference’s mere silence about a particular feature does not tend to
teach away from it, especially if it is disclosed elsewhere in the prior art,
Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In other words, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one
alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

11
because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
the solution claimed . . . .” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
In the instant case, the Examiner relies on Farmer for automated
targeting as set forth in claim 2 (see Final Act. 20; Ans. 5–6), and ’919 for
control of the aerial unit with the ground unit controller 203 (see Final Act.
20; see also ’919 col. 6, ll. 51–52; Fig. 1) and aerial unit controller 500 (see
Final Act. 20; see also ’919 col. 9, ll. 10–38; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 7). And, although
we agree with Appellant that Farmer teaches UAV collaboration to provide
targeting data more quickly (see Farmer ¶ 5; see also Appeal Br. 12), Farmer
is merely a preference for one alternative to collecting data, and does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed, or that
taught by ’919 (of using a ground controller and aerial unit controller).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, reading ’919, Ben-Asher, and
Farmer, would not be discouraged from following the path set out in Farmer
of automated target recognition by collecting sensor data from multiple
UAVs, and would not be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by Appellant. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553; Para-Ordnance Mfg.,
Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d at 1090.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant’s arguments that Farmer teaches
away are unpersuasive. In this light, and based on our findings and
conclusions as to claim 1 from which claim 2 depends, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 2 over ’919, Ben-Asher, and
Farmer.
Issue 3: Obviousness of Claim 13 Over ’919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth
As discussed above with regard to claim 1, Appellant’s contention
with regard to representative claim 13 (see Appeal Br. 14) that ’919 fails to
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

12
teach or suggest selecting a target “automatically and without human
intervention targets” as recited in limitation C1 of representative claim 13, is
not persuasive in light of the Examiner’s application of a combination of the
teachings and suggestions of ’919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth. The
Examiner relies upon Ben-Asher for limitation C1 (see Final Act. 24–25).
Similarly, Appellant’s contention with regard to representative claim
13 that “Ben-Asher alone fails to teach or suggest all the features of claim
13” (see Appeal Br. 14), is conclusory and not persuasive in light of the
Examiner’s application of a combination of the teachings and suggestions of
’919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth to the subject matter of claim 13. The
Examiner relies upon Ellsworth as teaching or suggesting the subject matter
of limitations C2 and C3 in claim 13 (see Final Act. 25–26).7
Appellant’s contention that there is not sufficient motivation to
combine ’919 and Ben-Asher because Ben-Asher uses a flocking algorithm,
and not a ground unit, to control the flight of the other aerial units (see
Appeal Br. 14) is not persuasive as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
The Examiner has provided sufficient motivation for modifying ’919 with
Ben-Asher (see Final Act. 25).
Finally, Appellant’s contention with regard to representative claim 13
(see Appeal Br. 14) that ’919 and Ellsworth, “alone or in combination, fail to
teach or suggest all the features of claim 13” (Appeal Br. 14), is conclusory

7 Although not at issue on appeal, it is noteworthy that Wagreich also
teaches limitations C2 and C3 of claim 13, receiving and displaying
monitoring information sent from an aerial monitoring device (see Wagreich
Abstract).
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

13
and unpersuasive in light of the Examiner’s application of a combination of
the teachings and suggestions of ’919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 13, as well as claims 14 and 21–25 grouped therewith. For similar
reasons, and because Appellant relies on the arguments presented for claim
13 for the patentability of claims 17–20 (see Appeal Br. 14), we also sustain
the obviousness rejections of claims 17–20 over the same base combination
of ’919, Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth taken with various additional prior art
references.

The Indefiniteness and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections
With regard to claims 1 and 11, the Examiner found the phrase “the
other aerial monitoring device” lacks antecedent basis and causes the claims
to be indefinite (see Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4). Appellant does not dispute this
conclusion in the briefs (see generally Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2–5).
Therefore, Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in
determining that claims 1 and 11 are indefinite based on the lack of
antecedent basis for the term “the other aerial monitoring device” (see e.g.,
claim 1, limitation A), and we summarily sustain the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection of claims 1 and 11 because Appellant fails to
respond.
Appellant has also not presented any arguments as to the merits of the
non-statutory, obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1 and
11 over claims 1 and 11 of ’919 and/or ’687 taken with Ben-Asher. “If a
ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s
brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

14
Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew
the rejection in the examiner’s answer.” MPEP § 1205.02. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 1 and 11 under the judicially created doctrine of
non-statutory, obviousness-type double patenting is summarily sustained
because Appellant has not presented any arguments as to this rejection or
otherwise shown the rejection to be in error.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
(2) Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
and 11 as being unpatentable based on the doctrine of non-statutory,
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 and 11 of ’919 and/or ’687
taken with Ben-Asher.
(3) Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combination of ’919 and Ben-Asher.
(4) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
2 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of ’919,
Ben-Asher, and Farmer.
(5) Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of ’919,
Ben-Asher, and Ellsworth.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s (i) indefiniteness rejection of claims 1
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); (ii) obviousness-type double patenting
Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

15
rejection of claims 1 and 11; and (iii) obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2,
5–14, and 17–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 11 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 11
1, 11 Nonstatutory Double
Patenting
1, 11
1, 11 103 ’919, Ben-Asher 1, 11
2 103 ’919, Ben-Asher,
Farmer
2
5 103 ’919, Ben-Asher,
Wagreich
5
6, 7, 13, 14,
21–25
103 ’919, Ben-Asher,
Ellsworth
6, 7, 13,
14, 21–25

8 103 ’919, Ben-Asher,
Olson
8
9, 10 103 ’919, Ben-Asher,
Collins
9, 10
12 103 ’919, Ben-Asher,
Nixon
12
17 103 ’919, Ben-Asher,
Ellsworth, Wagreich
17
18 103 ’919, Ben-Asher,
Ellsworth, Olson
18
19, 20 103 ’919, Ben-Asher,
Ellsworth, Collins
19, 20
26 103 ’919, Ben-Asher, Rao 26
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–
14, 17–26

Appeal 2019-003753
Application 14/849,598

16
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