Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2018

14385393 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/385,393 09/15/2014 Yu Wang
152435 7590 10/24/2018
Sage Patent Group/Zacco
PO BOX 30789
RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1009-1098 / P40188 US2 4571
EXAMINER
BUTT, W ALLI Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2018 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):
zaccoinstructions@sagepat.com
outsourcing@zacco.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU WANG
and
MATTIAS BERGSTROM 1
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 57-112, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "the handling of connections to
multiple radio access technologies in ... [wireless] devices" (Spec. 1 :7-9).
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
Independent claim 57, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
57. A method, in a mobile terminal, for handling
connections to two radio access technologies, the method
compnsmg:
while connected to a first radio access network and in an
idle state with respect to a second radio access network,
determining that a first trigger condition has been satisfied; and,
responsive to said first trigger condition, automatically
establishing or reestablishing a connection to the second radio
access network.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 57-64 and 87-92 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the teachings of Rados (US 2013/0003652 Al;
published Jan. 3, 2013) and Pica (US 2014/0133304 Al; published May 15,
2014). 2
The Examiner rejected claims 65-73 and 93-101 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the teachings of Rados, Pica, and Rydnell (US
2011/0188425 Al; published Aug. 4, 2011).
The Examiner rejected claims 74--77, 81, 84, 85, 102-104, 108, and
111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the teachings of Rados and Rydnell.
2 Although the effective filing date of this case is after March 16, 2013, the
Examiner's rejections, incorrectly, refer to pre-America Invents Act ("pre-
AIA") § I03(a) instead of AIA § 103. As we are aware ofno prejudice to
Appellants or the Examiner resulting from this error, we view this as
harmless error.
2
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
The Examiner rejected claims 78-80, 82, 83, 86, 105-107, 109, 110,
and 112 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the teachings of Rados, Rydnell,
and Pica.
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 57 and 87. and
Dependent claims 58. 61-64. 67-71. 73. 88. 90-92. 95-99. and 101
The Examiner finds Rados teaches and suggests all of Appellants'
independent claims 57 and 87 limitations (Final Act. 3--4, 9-12) except for
the claimed "idle state," finding Pica teaches and suggests this limitation
(Final Act. 12-13). Particularly, the Examiner finds Rados' paragraph 13
teaches a mobile terminal for handling connections to two radio access
technologies, as claimed (Final Act. 10 (citing Rados ,r 13, Fig. 1); Ans. 3).
The Examiner further finds Rados' Figures 6 and 7 teach the claimed
determining that a first trigger condition has been satisfied, while connected
to a first radio access network (Final Act. 10-11 ( citing Rados ,r,r 44--4 7,
Fig. 6); Ans. 4---6 (citing Rados ,r 50, Fig. 7)). The Examiner also finds
Rados' "determining if the requesting party [a mobile terminal] has WiFi
active" teaches "a first trigger condition" as claimed (Final Act. 11 ( citing
Rados 46-47); Ans. 4--5). Further, Rados' "session description message
[that] may identify a minimum required bit rate" teaches an alternative "first
trigger condition" (Final Act. 11 ). Additionally, Rados' mobile terminal
automatically establishes or reestablishes a connection to a second radio
access network responsive to the first trigger condition, as required by
claims 57 and 87 (Final Act. 11-12 (citing Rados ,r 47)).
3
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding Rados teaches or
suggests a mobile terminal carries out the claimed method; rather "Rados'
process is carried out by a network server" and "does not disclose or suggest
a mobile device that performs all of the steps of claim 57'' (App. Br. 6-7;
Reply Br. 3). Appellants also contend Rados does not teach or suggest a
mobile terminal determining that a first trigger condition has been satisfied,
as claimed (App. Br. 8-10), and Rados does not teach or suggest the claimed
establishing or reestablishing a connection to a second network responsive to
a first trigger condition being satisfied, because "Rados' Figure 7 always
uses the second network, regardless of the supposed trigger condition" (App.
Br. 9-11 ). Further, Appellants contend, Pica does not teach or suggest the
claimed mobile terminal "connected to a first radio access network and in an
idle state with respect to a second radio access network" as "Pica only
describes idle mode with respect to the WW AN and in establishing a first
call"-not a "simultaneous connection with any other radio access network"
(App. Br. 11). We do not agree with Appellants.
We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and
conclusions for these claims in the Final Office Action and Answer.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term "trigger condition" includes "a determination
of connectivity," and a connection condition such as bit rate required for
establishing a bearer channel ( e.g., for a requested cellular service) (Ans. 5;
Final Act. 11). Appellants' Specification does not provide an explicit and
exclusive definition of the claimed term "trigger condition"; rather, the
Specification merely provides discussion of non-limiting examples of the
term (Ans. 5). For example, Appellants' Specification provides that a
4
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
"trigger condition" may include channel conditions, load conditions,
quality-of-service conditions, "a need for sending new data," and a
combination of conditions (see Spec. 13:19--14:8, 15:20-34, 16:26-27
( emphases added)).
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Rados' "determining
whether WiFi is active corresponds to ... [the claimed] determination of
whether 'a first trigger condition has been satisfied"' (Ans. 4, 5 (citing
Rados ,r,r 44, 50, Figs. 6-7) ). We also agree with the Examiner that Rados'
"identify[ing] a minimum required bit rate" teaches the claimed
determination of whether "a first trigger condition has been satisfied,"
because a minimum required bit rate is a quality-of-service metric (Final
Act. 11 ( citing Rados ,r 46) ).
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that Rados teaches a
mobile terminal carries out the claimed method as required by claim 57
(Ans. 4---6). Rados' disclosure of a mobile device (mobile terminal) seeking
to initiate an IMS (IP multimedia session)/telephone call "determin[es]
whether WiFi is active at ... [the] mobile device" (see Rados ,r,r 49-50, Fig.
7). Thus, Rados' mobile device determines whether it is connected to a
WiFi access network (Ans. 5).
Additionally, Rados' mobile device (mobile terminal) also determines
the audio call's minimum required bit rate is met (claimed "determining that
a first trigger condition has been satisfied") (see Rados ,r,r 46-47, 49, 52-53;
Final Act. 11 ). That is, Rados' block 730 (Fig. 7), similarly to block 640
(Fig. 6), shows the signaling [SIP messages] for the service may be
exchanged with the mobile device of the requesting party over the WiFi
access network, thus identifying a minimum required bit rate.
5
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that Rados does
not teach "responsive to said first trigger condition, automatically
establishing or reestablishing [by the mobile terminal] a connection to the
second radio access network" as claimed (App. Br. 9--10; Reply Br. 4---6).
As the Examiner finds, responsive to the trigger conditions discussed above,
"communication circuitry [in the mobile terminal] is woken up for
establishing bearer channel at steps 740 and 750 [in Rados' Figure 7],"
thereby "establish[ing] a connection to the second network, responsive to the
trigger condition" (Ans. 6). Additionally, Rados discloses, "the bearer
channel for the call may be established by mobile device 110 over 4G access
network" (second radio access network) that was identified and selected via
WiFi-based SIP messaging (see Rados ,r,r 53-54 (emphasis added)). Claim
57 also does not preclude using both the first and second radio access
networks for "automatically establishing or reestablishing a connection to
the second radio access network" "responsive to said first trigger condition,"
contrary to Appellants' argument (see Reply Br. 6). Therefore, "a person of
ordinary skill would indeed understand that the communication circuitry [in
Rados' mobile device] is automatically woken up to establish a connection
to the second network, responsive to the trigger condition" (Ans. 6).
With respect to the "idle state" limitation in claim 57, Appellants
contend Pica's paragraphs 29-30 only describe an "idle mode with respect to
the WW AN [(Wireless Wide Area Network)] and in establishing a first call"
(App. Br. 11 ). Thus, Appellants assert, "Pica does not discuss a
simultaneous connection with any other radio access network" (id.). We are
unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments.
6
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
As the Examiner explains, Pica teaches a mobile terminal handling
connections to two or more access networks (PSTN 26, WLAN access node
30, and WW AN access node 18) "while connected to a first radio access
network and in an idle state with respect to a second radio access network"
(Ans. 7 ( citing Pica ,r,r 30, 35, Fig. 1 ); see also Pica ,r,r 28, 31, 52; Final Act.
11-13). Appellants provide mere attorney argument, stating Pica does not
teach the "idle state" limitation, without explanation as to how the Examiner
erred. Thus, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their claimed
invention over the prior art on which the Examiner relies.
As Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 57 and 87 (argued together), we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Appellants do not
separately argue dependent claims 58, 61---64, 67-71, 73, 88, 90-92, 95-99,
and 101 (App. Br. 13, 17). Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's
rejections of these claims.
Dependent claims 59. 60. and 89
With respect to dependent claims 59 and 89, Appellants assert Pica
does not teach or suggest the claim limitation "receiving from the second
radio access network, after said establishing or reestablishing of the
connection, an instruction to disconnect from the first radio access network''
(emphasis added) (App. Br. 11-12). We agree.
The Examiner relies on Pica's paragraphs 53-55, for disclosing user
equipment 12 is configured to obtain load information and determine
whether the load information meets a threshold (App. Br. 11-12; see Pica
,r 53). If so, then a call is established with a determined access node; that is,
a call is automatically established or reestablished, as claimed in
7
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
independent claim 57 (App. Br. 12). The Examiner also relies on Pica's
paragraphs 30-31, for disclosing a mobile terminal (UE) that determines
whether to switch a call to a second network ( e.g., a WLAN), based on the
factors listed in Pica's paragraph 30 (see Pica ,r,r 30-31; App. Br. 12).
However, we find nothing in the cited passages of Pica teaching the claimed
disconnection instruction coming from the second radio access network,
after establishing or reestablishing the connection to the second radio access
network, as required by claims 59 and 89 (see App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6-7).
Therefore, based on the evidence in this record, we are constrained to
reverse the rejection of dependent claims 59 and 89, and claim 60 dependent
from claim 59.
Dependent claims 65 and 93
Appellants contend the combination of Rados, Pica, and Rydnell does
not teach or suggest "that the trigger condition includes a determination of
whether 'data traffic to and/or from the first radio access network is inactive
for a predetermined period of time"' as recited in claim 65 (App. Br. 14--15).
The Examiner finds the combination of Rados, Pica, and Rydnell
teaches or suggests at least one of the criteria for satisfying the trigger
condition as recited in claims 65 and 93 (Ans. 9--11 ). Particularly, although
the Examiner finds the combination of Rados and Pica does not specifically
teach or suggest the claim limitation "for a predetermined period of time,"
(Final Act. 27), the Examiner finds Rydnell's paragraph 96 teaches this
limitation, as Rydnell discloses "the dual mode terminal may enter a power
save mode in which the WLAN network interface card is set to sleep after a
suitable period of inactivity" (id.). Thus, the Examiner asserts, it would
have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of Appellants'
8
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
invention to combine the teachings of Rydnell with Rados and Pica to
configure trigger conditions for an inactivity timer for allowing "a dual
mode terminal to always be reachable when connecting between a WLAN
radio access and a GSM/3G network" (Final Act. 27-28; see Rydnell ,r 86).
Further, the combination of Rydnell with Rados and Pica "makes sense
because after a period of inactivity of data to or from the WLAN access
node (i.e. as taught by Rydnell), the mobile device is configured to establish
a connection with the GSM/3G radio network (i.e. WW AN access node as
taught by Rados in view ofRydnell)" (Ans. 10-11). Therefore, a person
having ordinary skill in the art would "find a reason to make such a
modification: to make a call using a second access node when a
predetermined period of inactivity is detected with respect to a first access
node, thereby providing integration of WLAN and GSM/3G network nodes
(Rydnell, paragraph 6)" (Ans. 11 ). Appellants do not challenge these
findings.
Additionally, the Examiner finds, claim 65 merely requires at least
one of the listed criteria for satisfying the first trigger condition, and the
combination of references also teaches the claimed criteria of "a quality of
service metric ... [being] above or below a predetermined threshold" as
noted above with respect to Rados' minimum required bit rate (Ans. 9-10;
Final Act. 11, 26-27; see Rados ,r 46). Given that bit rate is a quality of
service metric, Rados' minimum required bit rate teaches "a quality of
service metric ... [being] above or below a predetermined threshold" that
determines "satisfaction of the first trigger condition," as recited in claim 65.
9
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 65 and claim 93. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 65 and 93.
Dependent claims 66 and 94
Claim 66 depends from claim 57 and further recites "responsive to
said first trigger condition, automatically and autonomously disconnecting
from the first radio access network." Appellants assert it makes no sense to
combine Rydnell's paragraph 96 teaching of a mobile terminal entering "a
power save mode in which the WLAN network interface card is set to sleep
after a suitable period of inactivity" with Rados' Figure 6 (App. Br. 15-16).
The Examiner finds the combination of Rados, Pica, and Rydnell
teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 66. Particularly, the Examiner
finds the combination of Rados and Pica teaches claim 57's "responsive to
said first trigger condition, [the mobile terminal] automatically establishing
or reestablishing a connection to the second radio access network," and
Rydnell teaches a mobile terminal "may enter a power save mode in which
the WLAN network interface card [of the mobile terminal] is set to sleep
after a suitable period of inactivity" (Ans. 11 (citing Rydnell ,r 96)). Rydnell
also teaches the sleep mode occurs when the mobile terminal is "within
coverage of the predetermined home AP [(access point)]" of the WLAN, but
the mobile terminal is not active on the WLAN (see Rydnell ,r,r 26, 96).
Thus, Rydnell teaches an automatic and autonomous disconnection of the
mobile terminal from a specified radio access network (Rydnell's WLAN)
when Rydnell's mobile terminal enters the power save mode after the
predetermined inactivity period on that network (Ans. 11 ).
10
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
The Examiner finds the skilled artisan would have combined
Rydnell's power save mode with the modified invention of Rados and Pica
(which establish a connection to the second network as recited in claim 57),
to "automatically and autonomously enter a power save mode [as taught by
Rydnell] with respect to the first radio access network [not being used by the
mobile terminal] when the second radio access network is being used [by the
mobile terminal] for a call" in Rados (Ans. 11 ( emphases added)). The
Examiner asserts the combination of references would provide the power
saving advantages taught by Rydnell to Rados' mobile terminal while the
terminal is inactive in the first radio network (Ans. 11-12 (citing Rydnell
,r,r 86, 91, 96)).
Appellants' argument that the Examiner's combination "makes no
sense" because the combination "disconnects [the mobile terminal]/rom Wi-
Fi responsive to a determination [in Rados] that the mobile terminal is
connected to Wi-Fi" and "the mobile terminal would not then be able to set
up the IMS [(Internet protocol multimedia session)] signaling over Wi-Fi, as
Rados teaches," is unpersuasive (Reply Br. 8-9 ( emphases added); App. Br.
15-16). Neither claim 66, nor Appellants' Specification require the first
network ( claim 66) to "automatically and autonomously" disconnect before
"automatically establishing or reestablishing a connection to the second
radio access network" ( claim 57). Rather, the claimed "automatically and
autonomously disconnecting" ( claim 66) may occur after the claimed
"automatically establishing or reestablishing a connection to the second
radio access network" (claim 57) (see Spec. 16:10--13). 3 Thus, we agree
3 Appellants' Specification provides "the mobile terminal may be
configured to autonomously disconnect from the first radio access network,
11
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
with the Examiner the claimed "automatically and autonomously
disconnecting" from the first network occurs (i) after connection to the
second network (taught by Rados) and (ii) after a period of inactivity on the
first network (Ans. 11 ("enter a power save mode with respect to the first
radio access network when the second radio access network is being used for
a call" taught by Rydnell)).
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 66 and claim 94 argued
therewith (App. Br. 16). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 66 and 94.
Dependent Claims 72. 79. 100. and 107
Claim 72 depends from claims 71, 70, and 66, and further recites the
third radio access network (to which the mobile terminal subsequently
connects) has an identity that meets one or more of the requirements of
(i) being part of the same Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) as the first
radio access network and (ii) having the same service set identification,
SSID, as the first radio access network. The Examiner finds Pica's
paragraph 32 discloses a target WiFi access point (AP) "includes an SSID,"
and Pica's paragraphs 3 and 36 disclose "a specified access network as a
public switched telephone network, i.e. PLMN" (Final Act. 32; Ans. 12).
Appellants argue Pica merely establishes a public switched telephone
network (PSTN) (see Pica, 36) and network names (SSIDs) exist, but "the
combination of references does not disclose that a connection to a third radio
upon fulfillment of one or more conditions, without respect to whether it is
connected to the second radio access network at the time" (see Spec.
16:10---13).
12
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
access network is conditioned on a match between PLMNs or SSIDs" of the
third and first networks as claimed (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 10). We have
reviewed the portions of the references cited by the Examiner, and we agree
with Appellants.
The Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support a
subsequent connection to a third access network being conditioned on the
third and first access networks being part of the same PLMN or having the
same SSID. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
72 and 100, and claims 79 and 107, which include limitations similar to
those of claim 72 and which Appellants argue for the same reasons (App. Br.
20).
Independent claims 74 and 102. and
Dependent claims 76-78. 80-85. 104-106. and 108-111
Independent claims 7 4 and 102 recite, "while connected to a first
radio access network, determining [in a mobile terminal] that a trigger
condition has been satisfied," and "responsive to said trigger condition,
automatically and autonomously disconnecting from the first radio access
network."
The Examiner finds the combination of Rados and Rydnell teaches the
limitations of independent claims 74 and 102 (Final Act. 41--43; Ans. 13-
14). Specifically, the Examiner finds Rydnell's paragraph 96 teaches the
claim limitation "responsive to said trigger condition, automatically and
autonomously disconnecting from the first radio access network" (Final Act.
43; Ans. 13-14).
Appellants argue the Examiner's combination "makes no sense"
because "[ m ]odifying Rados' processes to put a WLAN [ ( wireless local area
13
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
network)] interface card to sleep" (as taught by Rydnell) ''prevents the new
connection of Rados from even being established'' (Reply Br. 12 ( emphasis
added); App. Br. 18). Appellants contend the Examiner's asserted
combination of Rados and Rydnell "would fundamentally alter the operation
of Rados' processes, which are to determine whether Wi-Fi is connected so
that signaling for an IMS [(Internet protocol multimedia session)] service
can be completed in an appropriate manner" (Reply Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, which do not address
the rejection put forth by the Examiner. The Examiner's rejection is not
substituting Rydnell's "'period of inactivity' in place of ... [Rados'] trigger
condition of determining Wi-Fi connectivity" as Appellants assert (see
Reply Br. 12). Rather, similar to claim 66, the rejection incorporates
Rydnell's sleep mode for the mobile terminal's WLAN interface (claimed
"automatically and autonomously disconnecting from the first radio access
network") after connection to the second network (taught by Rados) and
after the terminal's inactivity on the first network (Ans. 13-14 ("after
determining that the mobile device has WiFi activity (Rados[)] ... signaling
is performed for service over the WiFi (Rados[)]," and "after a suitable
period of inactivity" measured by Rydnell's "inactivity timer for the WiFi
service," set the mobile terminal's Wi-Fi network interface card to sleep)).
We agree with the Examiner's reasonable findings. As discussed above with
respect to claim 66, Appellants' claimed "automatically and autonomously
disconnecting from the first radio access network" is not required to occur
before the first network has negotiated the mobile terminal's connection to
another network (e.g., Rados' 4G network, see ,r 46). Thus, Rydnell's sleep
mode for the mobile terminal's WLAN interface (claimed "automatically
14
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
and autonomously disconnecting from the first radio access network")
occurs responsive to a trigger condition moving the terminal from the first
network to another network, as taught by Rados (Ans. 13-14).
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 74 and 102. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 7 4 and 102 and
dependent claims 76-78, 80-85, 104--106, and 108-111, for which no
arguments have been provided (App. Br. 19-20).
Dependent Claims 7 5 and 103
Dependent claims 7 5 and 103 depend from independent claims 7 4 and
102 and recite the "idle state" limitation found in claims 57 and 87 (App. Br.
19). Appellants argue "[t]he rejections of claims 75 and 103 should be
reversed for at least the reasons given ... for independent claims 7 4 and
102" and "for the additional reasons discussed ... for claims 57 and 87"
(App. Br. 19). As discussed above with respect to claims 57, 74, 87, and
102, we are not persuaded the collective teachings of Rados, Rydnell, and
Pica do not teach the features of claims 57, 74, 87, and 102. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 75 and 103.
Dependent Claims 86 and 112
Appellants argue claims 86 and 112 "are patentable at least based on
their dependencies from patentable independent claims 74 and 102" (see
App. Br. 20). Appellants contend because claims 86 and 112 are "similar"
to claim 79, the rejection should be reversed for reasons presented above
with respect to claim 79. Claims 86 and 112, however, are not similar to
claim 79. Rather, claims 86 and 112 recite limitations similar to those of
claim 65. As discussed above, we affirmed the rejection of claim 65 over
15
Appeal2017-010528
Application 14/385,393
the combination of Rados, Pica, and Rydnell. Similarly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 86 and 112.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 57, 58, 61-71, 73-78,
80-88, 90-99, 101-106, and 108-112 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 59, 60, 72, 79, 89, 100, and
107 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16