Zoetis Services LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 20, 20212021000783 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/282,702 05/20/2014 Cassius McAllister Tucker PC33517B 8762 110408 7590 10/20/2021 Zoetis 10 Sylvan Way Parsippany, NJ 07054 EXAMINER JACKSON-TONGUE, LAKIA J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/20/2021 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): AnimalHealthDocketing@zoetis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _________________ Ex parte CASSIUS MCALLISTER TUCKER and JOHN DAVID HAWORTH _________________ Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 Technology Center 1600 _________________ Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and DAVID COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges. KATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review2, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–14 and 16–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Zoetis Services LLC. (Appeal Br. 3.) 2 We consider the Non-Final Office Action issued on June 19, 2019 (Non- Final Act.”), the Final Office Action issued December 5, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 14, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer issued on April 7, 2020 (“Ans.”), the Reply Brief filed Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 2 The Examiner rejects Appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Frantz3 and Lauterslager.4 (See Non-Final Act. 3–10.) The Examiner also rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description. (See Final Act. 12–13.) Appellant’s Specification is directed to canine vaccines. (Spec. 1.) Appellant’s claim 1 recites5: A method of treating a dog for canine diseases comprising administering to the dog therapeutically effective amounts of vaccine, wherein the vaccine comprises a viral antigen, and, optionally, a bacterin, and wherein the vaccine is administered orally in a first dose and orally in a second dose, said second dose being administered about 7 days to about 35 days following administration of said first dose, and wherein said viral antigen is canine distemper (CD) virus, and one or more of canine adenovirus type 2 (CAV-2), canine parainfluenza (CPI) virus, canine parvovirus (CPV), and canine coronavirus (CCV), and wherein said optional bacterin is selected from the group consisting of Leptospira canicola, L. grippotyphosa, L. icterohaemorrhagiae, L. pomona, L. bratislava, and Bordetella bronchiseptica. (Appeal Br. 19.) Claim 1 is not limited by any specific efficacy other than being a method of “treating” and administering a “therapeutically effective” May 29, 2020 (“Reply Br.”) and the oral argument held on October 7, 2021 (“Transcript”), in reaching our decision. 3 Frantz et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0089533 Al, published April 28, 2005. 4 Lauterslager et al., “Improvement of the systemic prime/oral boost strategy for systemic and local responses,” VACCINE, 21:1391-1399 (2003). 5 Claim 1 has been modified by adding indentations to separate elements of the claimed method. Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 3 amount of vaccine. Thus, claim 1 broadly recites administering viral vaccine orally in two doses separated by a recited interval. Appellant presents separate arguments for the non-obviousness of claim 23, but otherwise does not distinguish between the rejected claims. Accordingly, we focus on claims 1 and 23 in our review of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Findings of Fact 1. Frantz teaches combination vaccines and methods for protecting dogs against diseases caused by canine pathogens, including canine distemper caused by canine distemper (CD) virus, respiratory disease caused by canine adenovirus type 2 (CAV-2), canine parvovirus (CPV), and canine coronavirus (CCV). (See Frantz Abstr.; see Ans. 4–5.) 2. Frantz also teaches combination vaccines and methods for protecting dogs against diseases caused by bacteria including Bordetella bronchiseptica (targeting the p68 antigen) and others recited in Appellant’s claim 1. (See Frantz Abstr. ¶ 2; see Ans. 5–6.) 3. Frantz teaches several different types of combination vaccines against viruses and bacteria. (See Frantz ¶¶ 18, 23–26, 29; see Ans. 6.) 4. Frantz teaches that p68 vaccine can be administered to a dog by any known route, including oral, intranasal, mucosal, topical, transdermal, and parenteral, including intravenous, intraperitoneal, intradermal, subcutaneous, or intramuscular. (See Frantz, ¶ 71; see Ans. 6–7.) 5. Frantz teaches that “[a]dministration can be achieved using a combination of routes,” as exemplified by a first administration using a parental route and subsequent administration using a mucosal route. (See Frantz ¶ 71; see Ans. 6–7.) Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 4 6. Frantz claims 9 and 10 recite methods of protecting dogs against L. Bratislava with a vaccine administered intravenously, intranasally, orally, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously and administered two or three times with an interval of about 2–4 weeks between the administrations. (See Frantz 39.) 7. Frantz teaches administration of two doses of a p68 vaccine to dogs with an interval of about 2–4 weeks, preferably about 3 weeks, between the two administrations. (Frantz ¶ 73, claim 11; see Ans. 7.) 8. Frantz does not expressly teach administering two oral doses of vaccine. (See Ans. 9.) 9. Lauterslager teaches that mice can be primed by a number of routes, including “orally,” with and without adjuvant, followed by a boost immunization given orally. (Lauterslager Abstr; see Ans. 9.) 10. Lauterslager teaches that “[a]ll oral immunisations (primed orally (PO)) were preceded by overnight fasting of mice (water was provided ad libitum) and administered by intragastric intubation of 0.4 or 0.5 ml vaccine.” (Lauterslager 1392.) 11. Lauterslager teaches that titres of serum IgA were significantly higher in mice boosted orally when the animals had been primed subcutaneously, intraperitoneally, or intranasally compared to if they had been primed orally. (See Lauterslager Abstr; see Ans. 9.) 12. Lauterslager teaches that systemic priming/oral boosting is a strategy that has been known for several years. (See Lauterslager 1399; see Ans. 10.) Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 5 Analysis The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to administer the claimed vaccine orally in both the first and second doses because Frantz teaches vaccine can be administered to a dog by any known routes, including the oral, mucosal, and parenteral (e.g., intravenous, intraperitoneal, intradermal, subcutaneous or intramuscular) routes. (See Ans. 6–7, citing Frantz ¶¶ 71, 73.) The Examiner finds further that Frantz teaches using a combination of routes, giving the example of both a parenteral route and subsequent mucosal route. (See id.) Although Frantz suggests any combination of vaccine routes, it does not expressly teach or exemplify an oral priming vaccine followed by an oral boosting vaccine, as Appellant argues. (See Appeal Br. 6–7.) That is, Frantz would be insufficient as the only basis for an anticipation rejection of claim 1. The rejection before us is for obviousness, not anticipation. The Examiner finds that Frantz would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to use two dose oral vaccine methods against CDV and other infectious agents because Frantz presents claims drawn to protecting dogs by administering therapeutically effective amounts of vaccine by an oral route multiple times within an interval of 2–4 weeks. (See Ans. 7, citing Frantz 39, claims 10 and 11.) The Examiner cites to Lauterslager to support the obviousness rejection based on Frantz, finding that Lauterslager teaches that mice primed “orally,” as well as by other routes, and then boosted “orally” provided some level of immunity, if not as much as mice primed by another route. (See Lauterslager Abstr, 1393–96.) According to the Examiner, Lauterslager Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 6 demonstrates that those in the art would have known that vaccination with an oral prime and an oral boost can be effective, maintaining a steady level of antibody. (See Ans. 10, citing Lauterslager 1398.) Appellant argues that Lauterslager does not teach oral administration of vaccine within the scope of claim 1. Lauterslager teaches oral immunization through an intragastric tube, which Appellant argues would by-pass the oral mucosa. (See Appeal Br. 9, citing Second Declaration of Dr. Keith Ameiss, submitted September 17, 2019 (“Ameiss Decl.”), ¶ 9.) Appellant’s Specification limits the term “oral” to “the introduction of a substance, such as a vaccine, into a subject’s body through or by way of the mouth and involves swallowing or transport through the oral mucosa (e.g., sublingual or buccal absorption) or both.” (Spec. 5.) In light of the Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “orally” in Appellant’s claims excludes administration of a vaccine that does not involve swallowing or transport through the oral mucosa. Thus, we agree with Appellant that vaccine administered through gastric intubation, as taught in the experiments of Lauterslager, is not “administered orally” as recited in claim 1. Nevertheless, we disagree that Lauterslager fails to provide any support for the obviousness of Appellant’s claim 1 over the teachings of Frantz. Although Lauterslager presents experiments using gastric intubation, it explains that the “results are discussed in the light of the development of edible vaccines.” (Lauterslager Abstr.) Furthermore, in addition to the experimental data reported, Lauterslager discusses the background of the field, wherein: Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 7 Oral vaccination is an attractive but not very efficient way to induce immunity. Despite considerable effort, only few alive oral vaccines are commercially available at this moment. Several studies demonstrated that oral vaccination requires multiple administrations of high doses of antigen, which increases the production costs. (Lauterslager 1391.) The meaning of the term “oral” in this part of Lauterslager is not explained, but it is highly unlikely that the “attractive” oral vaccinations discussed are administered through a gastric tube. Instead, we find that the passage refers to edible vaccines the authors seek for delivery to the gastro-intestinal tract. This background indicates that oral vaccines, as recited in Appellant’s claims were known in the art and were found to work, even if they required multiple administrations at high dose. Such vaccines are within the scope of Appellant’s claim 1 because claim 1 is not limited to any level of efficacy or dosage, other than being “therapeutically effective.” We are persuaded that Lauterslager supports the teachings of Frantz by showing that those of ordinary skill in the art would have known that oral vaccines had been made and used to treat animals. Appellant argues that oral vaccination is not an art-recognized equivalent of a parenteral prime vaccination and that a response to a parental prime vaccine administration cannot be used to reasonably predict the response to an oral prime vaccine administration. (See Appeal Br. 6–7.) Appellant characterizes the Examiner’s rejection as improperly replacing the parenteral prime/oral boost of Frantz with the oral prime/oral boost regimen of Lauterslager, as merely a less preferred alternative. (See Appeal Br. 7–8.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because the Examiner’s rejection is not based on a substitution, but rather on the Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 8 suggestion in Frantz of an oral immunization with two doses at an interval of about 2–4 weeks. (See Frantz ¶¶ 71, 73.) The Examiner cited Lauterslager to show that oral priming and boosting was not unknown in the art. (See Ans. 9–10.) Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly picks and chooses words from Lauterslager and omits words that are contrary to it. (See Appeal Br. 8.) Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner highlights only the mention in Lauterslager of non-adjuvanted oral vaccine in support of the finding that Lauterslager teaches priming orally with or without adjuvant and subsequent oral booster. (See id.) According to Appellant, Lauterslager only teaches non-adjuvanted oral vaccine as a booster following parenteral prime vaccines. (See id.) The contested portion of Lauterslager states: This paper describes oral boost immunisations of primed animals as an alternative oral vaccination strategy. Mice were primed orally (PO), intranasally (IN), subcutaneously (SC), or intraperitoneally (IP) with ovalbumin (OVA) with or without adjuvant. Boost immunisations were given orally with or without cholera toxin (CT) as adjuvant. Prime immunisations induced variable IgA and IgG1 titres in serum depending on the route. A subsequent oral boost increased these titres. Use of an adjuvant in the priming significantly increased serum IgA and, to a lesser extend, IgG1. Oral boost immunisation induced significantly higher serum IgA titres in animals primed via the SC, IP and the IN route compared to the PO route. (Lauterslaper Abstr. (emphasis added).) Thus, “oral” priming with or without adjuvant is presented as an option, along with others. We disagree that “the Examiner picks the words that support her argument and omits the words that are contrary to it” (Appeal Br. 8), because the overall approach of Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 9 Lauterslager is to investigate different combinations of vaccine administration routes in the presence or absence of adjuvant to find optimal oral vaccination strategies (see Lauterslager Abstr.). We are not persuaded that any “picking and choosing” required in the Examiner’s rejection is improper because both Frantz teaches oral administration of vaccines in a two dose scheme separated by several weeks. (See Frantz ¶¶ 71, 73.) Appellant argues that Lauterslager fails to demonstrate that administration of an antigen to the oral mucosa elicits a sufficient immune response. (See Appeal Br. 10.) Relying on a declaration by Dr. Ameiss, Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have known that there are immunological differences between the oral and nasal mucosa and, thus, that there would be differences between the oral and gastric mucosa. (See id., citing Declaration of Dr. Keith Ameiss, executed September 27, 2018 (“First Ameiss Declaration”), Exhibit 2 (Allam et al., “Comparative analysis of nasal and oral mucosa dendritic cells,” ALLERGY 61:166–72 (2006) (“Allam”)).) Appellant concludes that in regard to CDV, one of ordinary skill would not have considered there to be an equivalence between oral and gastric mucosas. (See Appeal Br. 10.) Appellant argues further that Lauterslager suggests that an oral boost vaccination is unlikely to improve antibodies titers elicited by oral prime vaccination, thus failing to provide a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to use both an oral prime and an oral boost. (See Appeal Br. 11–12.) Appellant refers to Dr. Ameiss’s testimony, but does not cite to a specific portion of either of his declarations. We are not persuaded by these arguments because Appellant’s claim 1 does not require any specific level of immunity or improved immunity after Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 10 an oral boost. Claim 1 is broadly drawn to methods of treating a dog with the recited viral antigens and bacterins by administering vaccine in therapeutically effective amounts as two doses spaced apart temporally. (See Appeal Br. 19.) Frantz and Lauterslager demonstrate that two doses of oral vaccine against the recited pathogens had been contemplated in the art before Appellant’s filing date. At oral argument, counsel asserted that Claim 1 requires “protective immunity,” wherein a “protective titer is 1 to 32.” (See Transcript 8:1–7.) Counsel continue to assert that a “regulatory requirement” is for “100 percent,” “but clearly patent does not have to comply with the requirements of regulatory bodies. So I would say it clearly has to be at least 50 percent to say that it works at least in terms of patent law rather than in terms of regulatory law and . . . .” (Id. at 8:9–14.) Counsel seemed to assert that claim 1 encompasses titers less than those that provide “protective immunity.” We note that Appellant does not provide an argument regarding claim interpretation wherein the method of treating a dog must achieve a 1:32 titer or any other specific titer in the briefs filed on appeal. Although the examples in Appellant’s Specification and Dr. Ameiss refer to a “protective titer” of 1:32 (see Spec. 14, 15; see First Ameiss Decl, ¶ 24), it is unclear from counsel’s arguments on brief and at oral argument on what basis Appellant contends that its claims are properly interpreted broadly as limited to this level of immunity. Appellant’s claims do not recite a limitation on a “titer,” providing only that a “therapeutically effective amount” of vaccine must be administered. Appellant does not direct us to evidence that “protective immunity” is the only therapeutically effective treatment. Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 11 Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Claim 1 requires a specific titer or level of immunity. We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments that there would not have been a reasonable expectation of success because Lauterslager teaches that antibody titers were not increased by an oral boost when animals were primed through the oral route. (See Appeal Br. 11–12.) Appellant argues that the Examiner has not explained how antibody titers reported in the prior art correlate with neutralizing titers, but Appellant does not direct us to evidence that claim 1 requires a neutralizing titer. (See Appeal Br. 13.) Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by “resting on the premise that oral prime by itself elicits protective titer of neutralizing antibody.” (Appeal Br. 12.) Appellant cites Dr. Ameiss’s testimony about an experiment orally administering non-adjuvanted CDV vaccine on days 0, 21, and 42, wherein four out of 10 dogs reached a protective titer after the first administration and nine dogs reached a protective titer after the second administration. (See id., citing First Ameiss Decl. ¶ 25.) We are not persuaded that the Examiner relied on this “premise.” Rather, the Examiner’s rejection is based on the knowledge in the art of two oral dose vaccination schemes. Furthermore, although Dr. Ameiss testifies that a single orally administered vaccine is not effective to protect against CDV, he does not explain how the protection obtained in four dogs supports this conclusion. (See id. ¶ 25.) We note also that even with a second administration, one dog still failed to obtain a protective titer. Dr. Ameiss fails to explain why four dogs reaching protective immunity after a single dose indicates failure. Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 12 We note that Dr. Ameiss cited Pasetti6 regarding the mucosal immune system (see First Ameiss Decl. ¶ 8), and Pasetti evidences that oral vaccines were well known, teaching: “Licensed oral vaccines against polio, rotavirus, S. Typhi, and V. choleare O1 are boased on robust technologies . . . These vaccines have achieved considerable success in disease prevention and control.” (Pasetti 2.) Pasetti notes that the typhoid vaccine may be given as three or four oral doses (Pasetti 9), the cholera vaccines may be given as two or three oral doses (Pasetti 11), and the Sabin oral polio vaccine may be given as three oral doses (Pasetti 13). Thus, even the evidence cited by Appellant’s expert supports the Examiner’s position that administering multiple oral doses of vaccine was a well-known approach. In general, Appellant’s claim 1 is broad, encompassing vaccination targets with methods known in the art. Appellant does not direct us to sufficient evidence of results that show the full scope of claim would have been unexpected by a person of ordinary skill in the art when compared to Frantz and Lauterslager. Dr. Ameiss testifies that “the fact that certain antigens may elicit a protective immune response via a parenteral administration is insufficient to confer a reasonable expectation that the same antigen would also elicit similar response if administered orally in both the prime and the boost vaccination,” (First Ameiss Decl., ¶ 19), but he fails to discuss the specific teachings of Frantz in either of his declarations. Appellant argues that Lauterslager teaches away from the claimed method. (See Appeal Br. 13.) According to Appellant, 6 Pasetti et al., Immunology of Gut Mucosal Vaccines, Immunological Rev. 239(1):1–35 (2011). Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 13 The disclosure that the mucosal immune system is only capable of maintaining antibody response suggests that the second oral vaccination is unlikely to noticeably improve the results of the first oral vaccination. Thus, if the response elicited by an oral prime vaccination aren’t promising, as it was after the prime oral anti-CDV vaccination, Lauterslager would have discouraged a person of ordinary skill in the art from continuing with the experiment and administering the oral boost vaccine. Therefore, Lauterslager teaches away from the claimed invention. (Appeal Br. 13–14.) The teaching in Lauterslager that Appellant relies upon is that “mucosal immunization is not capable of boosting the immune response to a high level, but rather to maintain antibody titres at a steady level.” Lauterslager, 1389. A teaching that a second oral vaccination does not improve the results of the first oral vaccination is not a teaching away, particularly given that a second oral vaccination “maintain[s] antibody titres at a steady level” and that Appellant’s claim 1 does not require an improvement. Moreover, Lauterslager concludes that “significant local responses can be induced by oral boost immunisation, provided that multiple doses are given, which is in agreement with observations by others.” Id. (emphasis added). Appellant refers several times to the “unexpected results” discussed by Dr. Ameiss in his declarations (see, e.g, Appeal Br. 9, 11, 15 (“Dr. Ameiss’s Declarations underscore the unexpectedness of the results discussed in these Declarations.”), but does not provide a direct citation to such discussions. Dr. Ameiss refers to two references, which were not cited by the Examiner in the rejections before us, testifying that one of ordinary skill would not have expected protective immunity and that the results of experiments with the claimed method were “surprising.” (See First Ameiss Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 14 Decl. ¶¶ 19–26.) We do not find a statement in either declaration comparing the results obtained with Appellant’s claimed method to the closest prior art or explaining why such results would have been unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, given the breadth of claim 1, the experiment described in the Ameiss Declaration does not appear to be commensurate with the scope of the claim. (See id.) In the absence of persuasive evidence of unexpected results, we are persuaded that given the breadth of Appellant’s claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to treat a dog with the recited viral antigens and bacterins by administering vaccine in therapeutically effective amounts as two doses spaced apart temporally. Appellant fails to persuade us that the method of claim 1 would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the prior art cited by the Examiner. Claim 23 Claim 23 recites: The method according to claim 1, wherein the composition is nonadjuvanted. (Appeal Br. 21.) The Examiner cites the abstract of Lauterslager, which states: “Mice were primed orally (PO), intranasally (IN), subcutaneously (SC), orintraperitoneally (IP) with ovalbumin (OVA) with or without adjuvant. Boost immunisations were given orally with or without cholera toxin (CT) Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 15 as adjuvant.” The Examiner bases the rejection of claim 23 on this positive teaching in Lauterslager of vaccines without adjuvant. Appellant argues that Lauterslager uses only an adjuvanted vaccine, citing the methods used in the experiments reported. (See Appeal Br. 15–16, citing Lauterslager 1392.) Appellant argues that Lauterslager reports: “[r]epeated oral administrations with OVA without adjuvant was not strong enough to induce detectable immune response in serum.” (Appeal Br. 16, quoting Lauterslager 1397.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Lauterslager was not cited for the specific results, but rather to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known of methods of treatment by administering two doses of oral vaccine. Lauterslager indicates that it was known vaccines could be used in the absence of adjuvant. (See Lauterslager, Abstr.) Frantz also demonstrates that nonadjuvanted canine vaccines were known in the art. (See Frantz ¶ 3.) Because claim 23 does not require any specific level of efficacy and Appellant does not direct us to unexpected results in the absence of adjuvant, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting it over the teachings of Frantz and Lauteslager. 35 U.S.C. § 112 The Examiner finds that express language of claim 23 does not appear in the Specification or the original claims. (See Ans. 21–22.) The Examiner also finds that the support cited by Appellant for claim 23 (page 13, lines 5– 6, page 9, lines 7–22, and page 1, lines 17–23) does not fully support non- lyophilized compositions being non-adjuvanted. (See id.) Because claim 23 does not require a method of treating a dog with a non-lyophilized Appeal 2021-000783 Application 14/282,702 16 composition, we review only whether Appellant’s Specification provides sufficient support for a composition that is non-adjuvanted. As Appellant argues, the Specification provides that “[l]yophilized immunogenic compositions can be reconstituted prior to use in a stabilizing solution, e.g., saline or/and HEPES, with or without adjuvant.” (Spec. ¶ 54; see Appeal Br. 17.) Thus, we agree with Appellant that this limitation of claim 23 supported by the Specification. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of sufficient written description support. Conclusion Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons given, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–14, 16– 23 103(a) Frantz, Lauterslager 1, 3–14, 16– 23 23 112, first paragraph Written description 23 Overall Outcome 1, 3–14, 16– 23 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation