Ex Parte Boghani et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 14, 201611302255 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111302,255 12/14/2005 23413 7590 03/16/2016 CANTOR COLBURN LLP 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Navroz Boghani 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. CDS0246US2 2400 EXAMINER SHOMER, ISAAC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2016 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NA VROZ BOGHANI, JOSEPH M. BUNKERS, JAMES A. DUGGAN, GEORGE A. BARRERA, BHARAT JANI, and PETROS GEBRESELASSIE Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 Technology Center 1600 Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and JACQUELINE T. HARLOW Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This appeal involves claims directed a method of manufacturing a delivery system comprising at least one active component. The Examiner has finally rejected the claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner's rejections are affirmed. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 26- 31, 38--46, 49, 51, 52, 54--56, and 58---65. The application in this appeal is related to co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 11/769,909, which claims priority to the same provisional Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 application as the present application. The final rejection of the pending claims in U.S. Patent Application No. 11/769,909 has been appealed and has been concurrently decided. See Appeal 2013-007527. The claims stand rejected by the Examiner as follows: 1. Claims 26-31, 39--45, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58---61, 63, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of van Lengerich1 and Giles. 2 2. Claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of van Lengerich, Giles, and Kolossow. 3 3. Claims 46, 54, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of van Lengerich, Giles, and Copper. 4 There are three rejected independent claims, claims 26, 61, and 62. The remaining claims depend from them. The independent claims were not argued separately. Consequently, we have chosen claim 26 as representative. Claim 26 reads as follows: 26. A method of manufacturing a delivery system comprising at least one active component encapsulated in an encapsulating material, the method compnsmg feeding the encapsulating material and the at least one active component into a continuous mixer; wherein the continuous mixer containing one or more mixing elements comprises at least a first and a second conveying region and a mixing region between the at least a first and second conveying regions, wherein the first conveying region is upstream from the second conveying region in the continuous mixer, and wherein at least a portion of the encapsulating material is fed into a first conveying region and at least a portion of the at least one active component is fed at or 1 Van Lengerich, US 6,190,591 Bl, issued Feb. 20, 2001. 2 Giles, Jr. et al., EXTRUSION: THE DEFINITIVE PROCESSING GUIDE AND HANDBOOK, PDL handbook series 129 (2004) (hereinafter "Giles"). 3 Kolossow, US 6,074,084, issued June 13, 2000. 4 Copper, US 5,229,148, issued July 20, 1993. 2 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 upstream of the mixing region but downstream of where the at least a portion of the encapsulating material is fed into the continuous mixer, mixing the encapsulating material and at least one active component in the mixing region; conveying the encapsulating material and the at least one active component through the second conveying region to produce a delivery system, wherein the conveying elements in the first conveying region distal to the mixing region comprise a pitch that is less than the conveying elements proximal to the mixing region, wherein the conveying elements in the second conveying region proximal to the mixing region comprise a pitch that is greater than the conveying elements distal to the mixing region; and providing a predetermined controlled release of the at least one active component by the combination of (1) adding a predetermined amount of at least one tensile strength modifying agent into the first conveying region and (2) employing an encapsulating material having a predetermined hydrophobicity, thereby obtaining an overall tensile strength of the delivery system that corresponds to the predetermined controlled release of the at least one active component. Claims 61 and 62 have substantially the same pitch and controlled release requirements as recited in claim 26. REJECTION 1. VAN LENGERICH AND GILES "Pitch" limitation of the rejected claims All the rejected claims require, in the following order: (1) a first conveying region, (2) a mixing region, and (3) a second conveying region. The first conveying region is required by the claims to have "conveying elements ... distal to the mixing region" which comprise "a pitch that is less than the conveying elements proximal to the mixing region." In other words, the distance between the threads in the region furthest ("distal") from the mixing region is smaller than the distance 3 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 between the threads in the region closest ("proximal") to the mixing region. In shorthand, the region before the mixing region has low pitch (smaller distance between threads) conveying elements followed by high pitch (larger distance between threads) conveying elements. In the second conveying region, "the conveying elements ... proximal to the mixing region comprise a pitch that is greater than the conveying elements distal to the mixing region." Thus, in the second conveying region, the distance between the threads in the region closest to ("proximal") the mixing region is larger than the distance between the threads in the region furthest ("distal") to the mixing region. In sum, the region after the mixing region has high pitch conveying elements followed by low pitch conveying elements. The following diagram was constructed by the Examiner to depict the claimed configuration of conveying elements: Uostrearn ,.__ __ __...,. Dov-."nstrearn l~~ t0n\:e}"'ing ~eg~·~t', Mbdng region :z:, .. i ·:onve.ytng region The diagram reproduced above shows the pitch in the first and second conveying regions as required by the claims. Rejection The Examiner found that van Lengerich does not describe conveying elements with the pitch in the configuration required by the claim. Final 4 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 Rej. 4. However, with respect to the first conveying region, the Examiner found that the pitch limitations are met by Giles who teaches conveying elements with a low pitch (small distance between threads) followed by a high pitch (larger distance between threads), where the low pitch prevents the feed from flowing back to the screw seals. Id. With respect to the pitch of the conveying elements in the second conveying region, the Examiner found that Giles teaches a pumping region of high pitch elements followed by low pitch elements where the temperature and pressure is reduced. Id. The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified van Lengerich with the pitch described in Giles "to prevent back flow of the feed in the first conveying region and to decrease the temperature of the encapsulation in the second conveying region, while producing pressure [with low pitch conveying elements] to extrude the mixture through the die plate." Id. at 5. The Examiner further found that the "decrease in temperature would assist in preventing deleterious effects or decomposition of the encapsulant or matrix as required by van Lengerich." Id. Appellants' arguments Appellants found that van Lengerich describes the opposite of the pitch widths which are claimed, namely, van Lengerich describes low to high pitch in first conveying region and high to low pitch in second conveying region, which "thus teaches away from the present claim limitations." Br. 9. With respect to the first conveying region, Appellants contend that the small pitch elements in Giles are used to prevent feed from flowing toward 5 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 the screw seals, which is not a problem in van Lengerich's extrusion apparatus. Id. at 11. Appellants also argue that Giles does not provide "any suggestion that this small-pitch followed by high-pitch conveying arrangement may be used immediately before a mixing zone that contains mixing elements." Id. For the second conveying region, Appellants contend that van Lengerich only teaches low pitch conveying elements before a die plate, but not the "use of high-pitch conveying elements followed by low-pitch conveying elements after a mixing zone that contains mixing elements." Id. at 10-11, 12. Appellants also contend that there is no "clear basis" in van Lengerich or Giles ("the secondary reference") for simultaneously making changes to the pitch configuration on both sides of the mixing zone to have met the claimed limitations. Id. at 13-14 (emphasis omitted). van Lengerich Both the Examiner's and Appellants' discussion of pitch focuses on Fig. 2 of van Lengerich. An annotated version of Fig. 2 of van Lengerich is reproduced below. 6 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 !" ............. .. I Starch and/or PVP or other matrix ! materials FIG. 2 .. O.p;~·-Ba;~~I f~~ .......... ] Water evaporation I ~------·_J ! and optional l ingredients option~liipiciacidition II,... A-d-d-it-io_n_o_f_E_n_c_ap_s_u_lants I ------, ,-_:~::"'..'·-~~:~:·: i-----"----f---=-·! I 1--·····-·-- - 9 I Watercooling ! Barrel Temp.cc) .. ] Heating Zone 1 Heating, Cooling Cooling Zone 2 *'= Screwelements are 90 degree staggered _____ v_s~previous and subsequent ~-'-~rD.~Q!__ _________ _ Fig. 2 shows "an extrusion process, an exemplary extruder barrel configuration, and screw configuration." van Lengerich, col. 19, 11. 21-23. The Examiner found that barrel 7 corresponds to the first conveying region, region 8 corresponds to the mixing region, and barrel 9 corresponds to the second conveying region (annotated herein in grey). Although the first conveying region 7 is drawn with high to low pitch conveying elements (opposite of what is claimed), the text in van Lengerich does not clearly describe this configuration. The following disclosures in van Lengerich are pertinent: FPL Low pitch conveying elements that are staggered increase degree of fill to enhance heat transfer from product to barrel in barrels 6 and 7. Id. at col. 20, 11. 31-34 (emphasis added). FF2. Barrel 7 was held open for the addition of the encapsulant and was kept at a temperature of 15 degrees C. The product temperature at this barrel was 25° C. The screw elements were high pitch elements to allow sufficient intake of the material. 7 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 Id. at col. 23, 11. 30-34 (emphasis added). In Finding of Fact 2, it is clear that barrel 7 contains high pitch elements where encapsulant is added, consistent with the drawing in Fig. 2. From Finding of Fact 1, it appears that barrel 7 contains low pitch elements, as well, but it is not clear if they precede or follow the high pitch elements. However, Appellants state that Fig. 2 is drawn to scale and that the pitch drawn in Fig. 2 corresponds to the actual pitch, where low pitch elements are followed by high pitch elements. Conveying region 9, which follows mixing region 8, is shown in Fig. 2 as having low pitch to high pitch, opposite of which is claimed. Van Lengerich does not characterize the pitch of region 9 other than what is shown in the figure. FF3. In addition to FFl and FF2, van Lengerich teaches: The admixing of the added active ingredients or encapsulants inside the extruder may be accomplished by using an appropriate extrusion screw configuration for achieving low shear mixing. For example, a combination of alternating small pitch conveying elements with distributive mixing elements, that are staggered at an angle to each other for providing axially oriented leakage flow inside the extruder barrel may be employed. Id. at col. 16, 11. 36-44 (emphasis added). FF4. The at least substantially homogeneous mixture of matrix material and added active ingredient or encapsulant is then conveyed towards an extruder die plate. The conveying may be achieved by the use of low pitch extruder screw conveying elements which build up sufficient pressure prior to extruding the mix so that it can be forced through the apertures in the die plate. 8 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 Id. at col. 16, 11. 58-64 (emphasis added). FF5. Another function of the low pitch elements is that they increase the degree of fill inside the last extruder barrel section. The increased degree of fill enables control of the temperature profile of the mix inside the extruder barrel for achieving optimum viscosity adjustment and extrusion through the subsequent die openings. Id. at col. 16, 1. 65 to col. 7, 1. 3 (emphasis added). FF6. Screw elements with large pitch convey the dry blend into barrel 2. Elements with less pitch than in Barrel 1 increases the degree of fill in barrel 2. Id. at col. 19, 11. 36-38. FF7. In barrel 4, mixing elements alternate with medium pitch conveying elements and ensure sufficient material exchange and a high degree of fill. Id. at col. 19, 11. 54--56. FF8. After this element, high pitch conveying elements follow [in barrel 5], that decrease the degree of fill by their function of higher conveying capacity. Id. at col. 20, 11. 10-12. FF9. Residence time is affected by the rpm of the screw, pitch of the screw elements, and available open area for water evaporation, which may vary from one, two or more vent ports. Id. at col. 20, 11. 20-23. 9 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 Giles FFlO. Giles also describes pitch in a screw extruder. Giles teaches: The first screw element is normally a low-pitch short element. This element prevents feed from flowing backward toward the screw seals. Giles, 12.1 (first column). FFl 1. Immediately following the low-pitch element is a high-pitch element, a single flighted element, or a high-pitch element with an undercut that provides open space for pellets, powder, flake, etc. to enter the extruder. Id. at 12.1 (col. 1---col. 2). Discussion The issue is whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made an extrusion apparatus with the pitch widths as claimed, namely, low to high pitch in the conveying region before the mixing region, and high to low pitch in the conveying region after the mixmg reg10n. To begin with, we first address the obviousness of varying pitch width in an extrusion apparatus. It evident from the both van Lengerich and Giles that one of ordinary skill in the art routinely varied pitch of the conveying elements in extrusion devices to achieve a desired purpose. For example, as established by Findings of Fact 1-11, low or small pitch conveying elements increase degree of fill (FFl, FF5, FF6), build up pressure to extrude product through die plates (FF4), increase degree of fill to control temperature profile (FF5), and prevent feed from flowing back toward seals (FFlO). 10 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 High pitch elements, on the other hand, allow sufficient intake of material (FF2), convey material (FF6), decrease degree of fill (FF8), and provide space for materials to enter extruder (FF 11 ). Van Lengerich also teaches the resident time in a barrel is affected by specific factors, including "pitch of the screw elements." FF9. Based on these findings, there is sufficient evidence that a skilled worker knew to choose pitch size to achieve a desired fill, pressure, temperature, and residence time. Appellants acknowledge that van Lengerich describes a single barrel with two pitches. Giles also teaches a single barrel with two pitch sizes. FF 11. The Examiner identified a reason to have used Giles low-pitch to high-pitch configuration in van Lengerich, namely, to prevent backwards flow and to provide space to add materials as described in Giles (FF 11 ). Final Rej. 4. Consistent with the Examiner's determination, barrel 7 of van Lengerich has an opening to add encapsulant so it is reasonable to utilize a high pitch here as described by Giles (Fl 1) and van Lengerich (FF2, FF6) to allow space for intake of materials. It is also reasonable to precede it with low pitch to prevent back flow (FFlO). Appellants argue that Giles addresses a different problem because the screw seals in van Lengerich are located at the front of the multi-barrel extrude apparatus. Br. 11. However, as found by the Examiner, the skilled worker would have understood that using low pitch elements in barrel 7 in front of the high pitch elements, where encapsulant is added, would prevent the material from flowing backwards in the reverse direction. Answer 1 7. Appellants do not identify a flaw in this reasoning, but rather argue that if it were obvious to have implemented such a configuration, then why 11 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 is there no suggestion in Lengerich to have done it. Br. 11. We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. Simply because van Lengerich did not address the claimed pitch configuration does not negate the express teaching in Giles that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted it in van Lengerich's extruder and thereby improve it. There is a "normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329--1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Appellants also states "Giles ... do not provide any suggestion that this small-pitch followed by high-pitch conveying arrangement may be used immediately before a mixing zone that contains mixing elements." Br. 11. The rejection is based on the combination of van Lengerich and Giles. Giles provides the reason to have used a barrel with the low-pitch, high-pitch configuration before the mixing region 8. Because van Lengerich teaches intake of encapsulant before the mixing region (see Fig. 2 in barrel 7), as explained already, it would have been obvious to have placed a high-pitch conveying element in this region. For the region after the mixing region 8, the Examiner found the low pitch in barrel 9 would reduce temperature and build pressure to force product through the die. Final Rej. 7-8. Appellants argue this reasoning is faulty because the cited passages in van Lengerich do "not teach or suggest the use of high-pitch conveying elements followed by low-pitch conveying elements after a mixing zone that contains mixing elements." Br. 10-11. Appellants' argument does not persuade that the Examiner erred. The Examiner explains: 12 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 The pumping, i.e. conveying, region [after the mixing region] is comprised of a high pitch element followed by a low pitch element where the temperature and pressure is reduced. The small pitch conveying element at the screw end increases the pressure to the die (page 129, 2nd column, 1st full paragraph and Figure 12.35). Final Rej. 4--5. The Examiner's explanation is supported by the weight of the evidence. Van Lengerich teaches that high-pitch conveying elements allow for sufficient intake of material (FF2) and convey material (FF6). Thus, the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to have used high pitch elements after the mixing region to convey material is factually supported. In addition to the disclosure in van Lengerich about low pitch being used to control temperature and increase pressure (FF4, FF5), the Examiner further cites to Giles's disclosure in Section 12.9 that "small-pitch conveying elements at the screw end increase the melt pressure." The Examiner stated the skilled worker have had reason to use the small pitch to prevent deleterious effects and decomposition of the product being conveyed. Answer 8. Appellants have not identified a flaw in the Examiner's fact-finding nor reasoning. "providing a predetermined controlled release of the at least one active component" Claim 26 recites "providing a predetermined controlled release of the at least one active component by the combination of': "( 1) adding a predetermined amount of at least one tensile strength modifying agent into the first conveying region" and 13 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 "(2) employing an encapsulating material having a predetermined hydrophobicity, thereby obtaining an overall tensile strength of the delivery system that corresponds to the predetermined controlled release of the at least one active component." The Examiner found that van Lengerich "discloses [the] addition of substantially the same components to adjust the hydrophobicity of matrix materials as those designated in the instant application as 'tensile strength modifiers."' Final Rej. 8-9. The Examiner also found that van Lengerich describes the addition of encapsulating materials. Id. at 6. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to optimize the release of active which simultaneously optimizes the tensile strength of the delivery system, through routine experimentation by varying the choice and amount of encapsulating component and additional ingredient in the encapsulating coating with the amounts of van Lengerich as references." Id. While the Examiner acknowledged that van Lengerich doesn't expressly teach modifying the tensile strength along with the hydrophobicity of the encapsulating material to achieve controlled release of the active component, the Examiner found that van Lengerich discloses the effect of hydrophobicity of the matrix material on the release of active product which would have achieved the same result. Id. at 8. Appellants contend that van Lengerich does not teach or suggest: the importance of obtaining a desired or predetermined overall tensile strength of the delivery system by adding tensile strength modifiers to the encapsulating materials (i.e., the matrix or film-forming material) to control the release of the active component, let alone, teach or suggest the presently claimed simultaneous use of adding tensile strength modifiers 14 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 along with employing a predetermined hydrophobicity of the encapsulating material so as to achieve a desired or predetermined overall tensile strength of the delivery system that correlates with to the desired controlled release of the at least one active component. Br. 15. Appellants' main argument is that van Lengerich does not teach that ( 1) the tensile strength of the delivery system determines the desired controlled release of the active component; and does not teach that (2) tensile strength is changed by the hydrophobicity of the encapsulated material. "By predetermining the overall tensile strength of the delivery system in this fashion, one can achieve the desired controlled release of the active." Id. at 16. Appellants did not challenge the Examiner's determination that van Lengerich describes addition of both tensile strength modifiers and encapsulating materials as claimed. The Examiner identified a specific teaching in van Lengerich that hydrophobic agents slow down the release rate of the active component. Answer 20; van Lengerich, col. 8, 11. 37--40 ("The additional ingredients which may be used to control the release properties of the final product may be a hydrophobic agent for slowing down the rate of release of the encapsulant. ") Furthermore, the Examiner found that the van Lengerich describes the addition of release agents which are the same as the claimed tensile strength modifiers, and that such agents are hydrophobic and thus also would have been expected to control release rate. Answer 20: 1--4; Final Rej. 8-9 (identifying the tensile strength modifiers5 of 5 "At least one additional ingredient or component may be used to control the release properties of the final product, such as a fat, oil, fatty acid, mono- glyceride emulsifiers, polyvinyl acetate, polyethylene, gelatin and 15 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 the application which are the same as the additional components described in van Lengerich). While it is true that van Lengerich does not teach the claimed relationship between hydrophobicity, tensile strength, and release rate, van Lengerich teaches controlling the release rate of the active component by adjusting the hydrophobicity (see above) which would be the same result achieved by the claimed subject matter- albeit absent the recognition that "an overall tensile strength of the delivery system that corresponds to the predetermined controlled release of the at least one active component" had been obtained. However, the Examiner rightly found that it is a well-established legal principle that discovering an inherent property of a known process, and recognizing in it something that was not known before, is insufficient to render the known process patentable. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301F.3d1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 483 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellants contend that van Lengerich does not describe "predetermined hydrophobicity" and "predetermined controlled release." Br. 16. However, as argued by the Examiner, the materials would have been selected for their known hydrophobicity as taught by Lengerich and thus would have been "predetermined" when utilized to make manufacture the claimed delivery system. Final Rej. 9--10. The controlled release characteristics would also have been "predetermined" because the materials in van Lengerich were selected to achieve a desired controlled release (e.g., see van Lengerich, col. 5, 11. 30-45). hydrocolloid gums (column 5, lines 31-55 and column 8, lines 37-45)." Final Rej. 3. Compare to instant application at paragraph 58. 16 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 Claims 3 9 and 40 Appellants provide separate arguments for claims 39, 40, 43, and 44. Claims 39 and 40 are directed to the method of claim 26, where the delivery system produced has a tensile strength of at least 6,000 psi and 10,000 psi, respectively. The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to have optimized the amounts of the encapsulating material and tensile strength modifiers in van Lengerich to achieve the desire release of active component and strength of coating "which simultaneously optimizes the tensile strength of the delivery system." Final Rej. 6. The Examiner found that performing this routine optimization would have resulted in the claimed tensile strength. Answer 21. Claims 43 and 44 are directed to the method of claim 26, where the encapsulating material is present in an amount of "from about 30% to 99%" and "from about 60% to 90%," respectively, by weight based on the total weight of the delivery system. The Examiner found such amounts would have been obtained by routine optimization to achieve a desired release rate and coating strength, particular in view of van Lengerich's disclosure of at least 40% matrix components and up to 70% additional ingredients. Final Rej. 6. Appellants argue that "[ n ]either reference mentions tensile strength of the delivery system in its disclosure, let alone suggests a correlation of tensile strength of the delivery system to the release rate of the active component." Br. 13. Appellants' argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. The Examiner reasoned that routinely adjusting the amounts of materials to 17 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 achieve the desired properties would have resulted in tensile strength and encapsulated materials which fall within the claimed range. Because the materials utilized in van Lengerich are the same as those claimed, and the desired result of achieving a product with optimal controlled release characteristics are also the same, Appellants have the burden of showing that such routine optimization would not have result in a product with the broad ranges recited in the claims. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Appellants did not provide persuasive evidence or arguments to rebut the Examiner's reasonable findings. Consequently, we affirm the rejection of claims 39, 40, 43, and 44. Summary We affirm the rejection of claim 26 as obvious in view of van Lengerich and Giles for the reasons discussed above. Claims 27-31, 41, 42, 45, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, and 58---61 fall with claim 26 because separate arguments for their patentability were not provided. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii). The rejections of claims 39, 40, 43, and 44 as obvious in view of van Lengerich and Giles for the reasons discussed above is affirmed for the reasons set forth above. REJECTIONS 2 AND 3 Appellants did not provide separate arguments for Rejections 2 and 3, but rather addressed them together with Rejection 1 over van Lengerich and Giles. We therefore affirm the rejections of claims 3 8, 46, 54, and 62 for the reasons set forth the Examiner. Final Rej. 10-13. TIME PERIOD 18 Appeal2013-008151 Application 11/302,255 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 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation