2266170 Ontario Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 7, 2020

14098915 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 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.
14/098,915 12/06/2013 Liberatore A. Trombetta 31-631 5607
20736 7590 04/07/2020
Manelli Selter PLLC
10560 Main Street
Suite PH6
Fairfax, VA 22030
EXAMINER
LACHICA, ERICSON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/07/2020 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):
stemberger@mdslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LIBERATORE A. TROMBETTA and YUCHENG FU

Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, 7–12, 15, 17–19, and 25–
44.2,3 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—namely, “2266170 Ontario Inc.” (Application Data Sheet
filed December 6, 2013), which is also identified as the real party in interest
(Appeal Brief filed October 9, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) at 1).
2 See Appeal Br. 5–18; Reply Brief filed January 16, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) at
2–6; Final Office Action entered July 9, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 2–39;
Examiner’s Answer entered November 16, 2018 (“Ans.”) at 3–48.
3 We heard oral arguments from the Appellant’s representative on March
26, 2020.
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a container, such as a single-
serve drip coffee capsule, having a portion that is removable from the
remainder of the container to allow recycling (Specification filed December
6, 2013 (“Spec.”) ¶¶ 1–14). Figure 3 (annotated) is reproduced from the
Drawings filed December 6, 2013, as follows:

Figure 3 above illustrates an embodiment of the claimed subject matter,
showing a container 10 in relation to a machine for dispensing product 36
(Spec. ¶ 18). The container 10 is shown to include, inter alia, a body 12
defining an interior space 24 having an opening 26, a filter 14 disposed in
the interior space 24, ingredients such as coffee 16 disposed in an
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

3
ingredients chamber 46, and a cover 18, wherein the filter 14 is bonded to a
location on the body 12 with a first (peelable) bond 64 (shown in Fig. 4) and
the cover 18 is bonded to the filter 14 with a second bond 68 (shown in Fig.
4) that is different from the first bond 64—i.e., stronger—such that the cover
18 can be removed from the body 12 together with the filter 14 and
ingredients chamber 46 containing ingredients 16 upon application of
sufficient force by hand to the cover 18 (tab 30) following the container 10’s
use (id. ¶¶ 37–58).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. A container [10], for use in a machine [36] that injects
fluid into containers for preparing consumable products, the
container [10] comprising:
a body [12] defining an interior space [24] having an
opening [26];
a filter [14] disposed in said interior space [24] to define
an ingredients chamber [46], said filter [14] being bonded to a
location on said body [12] with a first bond [64], said first bond
[64] being a peelable bond;
ingredients [16] disposed in said ingredients chamber [46];
a cover [18] disposed over said opening [26] for covering
said interior space [24], said cover [18] being bonded to said
filter [14] with a second bond [68] that is different from the first
bond [64];
wherein said first bond [64] and said second bond [68] are
constructed and arranged so that said cover [18] can be removed
from said body [12] together with said filter [14] and said
ingredients chamber [46] containing said ingredients [16] upon
the application of sufficient force by hand to said cover [18]
following use of the container [10].
(Appeal Br. 19 (emphases and bracketed reference numerals added)).

Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

4
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims on appeal stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as follows:
A. Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, and 28–30 as unpatentable over Winkler
et al.4 (“Winkler”) and Sylvan et al.5 (“Sylvan”);
B. Claims 2 and 7 as unpatentable over Winkler, Sylvan, and
Biesheuvel et al.6 (“Biesheuvel”);
C. Claims 3 and 5 as unpatentable over Winkler, Sylvan, and
Suzuki et al.7 (“Suzuki”);
D. Claims 8, 9, 12, 18, 34–36, 43, and 44 as unpatentable over
Winkler, Sylvan, and Fuller et al.8 (“Fuller”);
E. Claims 15, 17, 19, 25–27, 40, and 41 as unpatentable over
Winkler, Sylvan, Fuller, and Suzuki;
F. Claims 31–33 as unpatentable over Winkler, Sylvan, and
Peiffer et al.9 (“Peiffer”);
G. Claims 37–39 as unpatentable over Winkler, Sylvan, Fuller, and
Peiffer; and
H. Claim 42 as unpatentable over Winkler, Sylvan, and Fu et al.10
(“Fu”).

4 US 2012/0058226 A1, published March 8, 2012.
5 US 5,840,189, issued November 24, 1998.
6 US 2011/0033580 A1, published February 10, 2011.
7 US 5,178,293, issued January 12, 1993.
8 US 6,516,949 B2, issued February 11, 2003.
9 US 2005/0118412 A1, published June 2, 2005.
10 US 2011/0073607 A1, published March 31, 2011.
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

5
(Ans. 3–48; Final Act. 2–39).
III. DISCUSSION
Rejection A (Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, and 28–30). Unless separately
argued within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), the claims subject
to Rejection A stand or fall with claim 1, which we select as representative
pursuant to the rule.
1. The Examiner’s Position
The Examiner finds that Winkler describes a container including most
of the limitations recited in claim 1 but acknowledges that Winkler’s filter
30 is spaced inwardly from a cover (lid) 38—i.e., the filter is not bonded in a
peelable fashion to a body of the container, as required by claim 1 (Ans. 4;
Final Act. 2–3). The Examiner finds, however, that Winkler further teaches
that “‘the filter 30 is sandwiched between the lid 38 and [a] rim 19’” (Ans.
4; Final Act. 3) (bolding added; internal citation omitted). Based on these
findings, the Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art . . . to modify the sandwiching of the filter between the lid and
rim such that there is a first bond between the filter and a flange
of the body of the capsule and as well as a second bond between
the cover and the filter so that the capsule can function as
intended. Otherwise, a capsule not having a bonding material
between the filter and the lid or the filter and the rim would be
rendered inoperable, i.e. all of the different components of the
capsule would fall apart before being placed into the beverage
preparation machine.
(Id.).
Additionally, the Examiner finds that “Sylvan . . . teaches that it was
well known in the capsule art to have a first bond between the filter (filter
element 14) and a location on the capsule body (at lip 20 of base 12)” and
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

6
that, based on Sylvan’s Figure 5 embodiment (right hand side), “one of
ordinary skill in the art can envisage the right hand portion embodiment of
FIG. 5 extending all the way around the circumference of the capsule” (Ans.
4–5; Final Act. 3) (bolding added). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . .
to specifically teach bonding of the filter to the capsule body with
a first bond at the flange as taught by Sylvan . . . in order to allow
the capsule to function as intended. Similarly, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to bond the
filter to the cover at the same time with a second bond so that the
cover does not separate from the rest of the capsule before use.
(Ans. 5; Final Act. 3–4).
2. The Appellant’s Contentions
Relying on a Declaration of Dr. Loong-Tak Lim filed May 2, 2017
(“Lim Declaration” or “Lim Decl.”), the Appellant contends that Winkler
does not disclose or suggest a peelable bond between the filter and the body,
as required by claim 1 (Appeal Br. 6–8 (citing Lim Decl. ¶¶ 12–15)).
According to the Appellant, “Winkler . . . discloses that the lid is bonded to
the rim of the body and the filter is connected to the lid” and that “the filter
may be sandwiched between the lid and the rim without any requirement to
bond the filter to the rim” (Appeal Br. 8 (referring to Winkler ¶ 49 and Fig.
1)). The Appellant argues that “to provide a hermetic seal [in Winkler],
[the] lid is bonded to [the] rim radially outwardly from where [the] filter is
sandwiched between [the] lid and [the] rim” and that the Examiner’s finding
to the contrary is unsupported conjecture (Appeal Br. 9). In the Appellant’s
view, “the Examiner’s reasoning is faulty regarding that, if the filter is not
bonded to the rim, the capsule would not operate and the different
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

7
components would fall apart before being placed in the beverage capsule
machine” (id. at 10).
Regarding Sylvan, the Appellant states that although Sylvan may
disclose heat sealing a rim of the filter to a base’s lip, “there is no disclosure
or suggestion in Winkler . . . or Sylvan . . . of a cover being bonded to said
filter with a second bond that is different from said first bond” (id.). The
Appellant argues that “[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion in Sylvan . . . of
the cover 16 being bonded to the filter 14, with the filter being bonded to the
body or flange as claimed” and “[s]ince the cover is sealed to the flange of
the body in Sylvan . . . contrary to the Examiner’s contention, there is no
chance that the cover will ‘separate from the rest of the capsule before use’”
(id. at 10–11 (bolding added)).
The Appellant also argues that “[c]ommercial success demonstrates
nonobviousness of the independent claims since the product embodying the
claimed invention is commercially successful, and there is a ‘nexus’ between
the claimed, patentable features of the invention and the commercial success
of the product” (id. at 16). According to the Appellant, a product identified
as “EcoCup® format of its RealCup® capsules” introduced into the market
in 2014 by Mother Parkers enjoyed such success and received industry
awards (id. at 16–18).
3. Opinion
The Appellant’s arguments fail to identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Like the Inventors, Winkler describes a single-serve beverage (e.g.,
coffee) cartridge that may be recycled and/or composted (Winkler ¶¶ 1–6).
Specifically, Winkler discloses:
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

8
For example, in accordance with one aspect of the invention, a
cartridge including a container and a foil lid covering an opening
of the container may have the filter joined to the lid so that
removal of the lid from the container also removes the filter and
spent coffee grounds or other beverage media together with the
lid. Thus, after using the cartridge to form a beverage, a user
may tear the lid from the container to remove not only the lid,
but also the filter and coffee grounds. Since the coffee grounds
may be contained in the filter, the grounds may be better
contained, reducing any potential mess that may be made
during the separation process. With the lid separated, the
container may be recycled or composted, e.g., the container
may be made of a recyclable and/or compostable polymer that
must be separated from the foil lid and other components for
proper recycling. Similarly, the separated coffee grounds or
other beverage media may be composted or recycled in another
way.
(Id. ¶ 6 (emphasis added)).
Specifically, Winkler’s Figure 1 (annotated) is reproduced, as follows:

Winkler’s Figure 1 above depicts a cartridge 10 including, inter alia, a
beverage medium 20 in a container 12 with a rim 19 and an interior space 14
having a first chamber 14a and a second chamber 14b, a filter 30 separating
the two chambers, and a lid 38 (Winkler ¶¶ 34–40). Although Winkler
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

9
states that “the filter may be attached only to the lid” (id. ¶ 10), as shown in
Figure 1 above, Winkler also teaches that “[i]n some embodiments, the
portion of the filter attached to the lid 38 may extend radially outwardly
from the periphery to, and over, the rim 19 such that part of the filter 30
is sandwiched between the lid 38 and the rim 19” (id. ¶ 41). As Winkler
contemplates that “filter 30 may be removed from the rim 19 and the
container 12 (e.g., by peeling)” (id. ¶ 49; see also id. ¶ 10 (“The lid may be
peelably removable by hand from the rim, so that the filter and the beverage
medium (if in the filter) are removable from the container together with the
lid upon removal of the lid from the rim.”)), a person having ordinary skill in
the art would have drawn a reasonable inference that filter 30 may be
bonded to rim 19 in a peelable fashion when filter 30 is “sandwiched”
between the lid 38 and the rim 19, while, at the same time, is bonded
securely (i.e., with a stronger bond) to the lid 38 such that the lid 38 and the
filter 30 with coffee grounds may be removed by peeling to facilitate
recycling and/or composting, as disclosed in Winkler (id. ¶ 6). In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a
reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).
Declarant Dr. Lim, some of whose “works related to coffee science
and technology have been funded by Mother Parker’s Tea & Coffee, Inc., an
affiliate of the assignee for the present application” (Lim Decl. ¶ 4), opines:
I interpret the word “sandwiched” in [Winkler’s] paragraph
[0041] to simply mean that a portion of the filter is located
between the lid and the rim. This interpretation is consistent
with the definition at dictionary.com where the verb “sandwich”
is defined as: “to insert between two other things”. The
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

10
definition refers only to a relative location of things, there is no
requirement for bonding any of these things together. There is
nothing in paragraph [0041] to suggest to me that there is a
physical bond with a bonding material between the filter and
the rim. In fact, there is no reference in paragraph [0041] to
any bonding structure, such as a sealing layer or a separate
bonding material, for forming a physical bond between the
filter and the rim. Furthermore, a filter with “fluted or pleated
sidewalls” as described in paragraph [0041] would be unlikely
to form a desired hermetic seal with the rim. Thus, it would be
necessary to seal the lid directly to the rim at a location radially
outwardly from the filter in order to achieve the desired hermetic
seal to preserve the freshness of the beverage medium, such as
coffee grounds.
(Lim Decl. ¶ 12 (emphases added)).
Thus, Dr. Lim’s testimony appears to be based on the notions that
(i) Winkler does not explicitly mention any adhesive bonding between the
filter 30 and the rim 19, (ii) Winkler contemplates only a fluted or pleated
filter when filter 30 is “sandwiched” between the lid 38 and the rim 19, and
(iii) when a fluted or pleated filter is used, any seal must be provided directly
between the lid 38 and the rim 19 around the periphery of the filter 30. As
we discussed above, however, a prior art’s disclosure is not limited to
explicit teachings—it also includes reasonable inferences that may be drawn
by a person having ordinary skill in the art and creativity. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[An obviousness] analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).
Neither the Appellant nor Dr. Lim directs us to any disclosure in
Winkler that would have limited a person having ordinary skill in the art to
use only a fluted or pleated filter when a “sandwiched” configuration is
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

11
implemented (Winkler Fig. 5 (showing a non-pleated filter); ¶ 41). Indeed,
Winkler teaches that “the filter 30 may have a substantially frustoconical
shape with fluted or pleated sidewalls and a generally flat bottom 31” but
stops short of saying that a fluted or pleated filter is required (id. ¶ 41)
(emphasis added). Even if a fluted or pleated filter would be required, Dr.
Lim does not persuasively explain why it is believed that a fluted or pleated
filter would be “unlikely” to form a desired hermetic seal with the rim (Lim
Decl. ¶ 12). For example, Dr. Lim fails to explain persuasively why
Winkler’s fluted or pleated filter 30 could not have an end cap with a lip
(defining its opening) that is rigid, which would reasonably be expected to
facilitate a bond with the rim 19 in a peelable fashion. Moreover, Sylvan,
which states that the rim of a filter element may be heated to a lip of a base,
directly refutes Dr. Lim’s conclusory statement (Sylvan col. 3, ll. 29–35;
Fig. 5).11 This teaching refutes the Appellant’s position (Appeal Br. 9),
based on its expert testimony, that the person having ordinary skill in the art
would have been led only to a configuration in which Winkler’s filter
element is not bonded to the rim. Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving more weight to prior publications than to
subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board acted well within
[its] discretion.”); Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(The Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over
another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am.

11 The Appellant’s piecemeal attack of Sylvan as lacking certain features
already disclosed or suggested in Winkler (Appeal Br. 10–11) is ineffective.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

12
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board
is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual
corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the
declarations.”).
Regarding the Appellant’s allegation of nonobviousness based on
commercial success and industry praise, we are in complete agreement with
the Examiner’s assessment, which we adopt as our own (Ans. 47–48). “‘For
objective evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial
weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the
merits of the claimed invention.’” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (internal citation omitted). See also id. (“Where the offered secondary
consideration actually results from something other than what is both
claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed
invention.”).
For these reasons and those well-stated by the Examiner, we uphold
Rejection A.
Rejections B (Claims 2 and 7) and C (Claims 3 and 5). For the
claims subject to Rejections B and C, the Appellant relies on the arguments
offered for claim 1 (Appeal Br. 12). Therefore, we uphold Rejections B and
C for the same reasons given for Rejection A.
Rejection D (Claims 8, 9, 12, 18, 34–36, 43, and 44). For claims 8,
9, and 43, the Appellant relies on the arguments offered for claim 1 (Appeal
Br. 13). Therefore, we uphold the rejection as to claims 8, 9, and 43 for the
reasons given for claim 1 above.
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

13
For claim 12 (and claims dependent thereon), the Appellant argues
that Winkler, Sylvan, and Fuller “do not disclose [a] peelable bond between
the filter and the flange, as discussed above and as supported by the
Declaration of Dr. Lim with regard to Winkler” and that “claim 12 has the
same feature of ‘said cover being bonded to said filter with a second bond
that is different from said first bond’ as claim 1” (id.). Our reasoning as
discussed above for Rejection A applies equally to claim 12. Therefore, we
uphold the rejection of claim 12 and claims dependent thereon on that basis.
Rejection E (Claims 15, 17, 19, 25–27, 40, and 41). For claims 15
and 17, the Appellant relies on the patentability of claim 12 (Appeal Br. 13).
Therefore, the reasons discussed for Rejection A applies equally for claims
15 and 17.
Claim 19 recites:
19. A container comprising:
a body defining an interior space having an opening, said
body having a flange surrounding said opening, wherein said
body is formed of a multilayered material that includes a barrier
layer and a sealing layer, said sealing layer facing said interior
space;
a separation point defined in said flange, said separation
point defining a tab that is constructed and arranged to be
separated from a remainder of said flange upon the application
of sufficient force by hand;
a cover disposed over said opening for sealing said interior
space, said cover being bonded to said flange with a peelable
bond;
a notch defined in said sealing layer of said body within
said interior space, said notch providing a predicted point of
weakness in said sealing layer for separation of said tab and
said cover from said remainder of said flange;
wherein said peelable bond is constructed and arranged
so that said tab and said cover can be removed simultaneously
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

14
from said body by the application of sufficient force by hand to
separate said tab and peel said cover from the remainder of said
flange following use of the container.
(Appeal Br. 22 (emphases added)).
The Appellant argues:
Fuller et al. merely discloses a score line 14 that once
broken enables the tab 20 of the blister pack cover to be pulled
to open the cover. There is no disclosure or suggestion in either
Winkler et al. or Fuller et al. of a bond that enables the tab of
a flange to be removed simultaneously with a cover as claimed.
Winkler et al. does not disclose a tab. Neither Fuller et al., nor
Suzuki et al. discloses a tab of the flange that can be removed
simultaneously with the cover. It is noted that claim 19 requires
that the notch is defined in the sealing layer of the body “within
the interior space”. In Suzuki et al., the notch in a sealing layer
adjacent to the interior space is not a notch defined in the
sealing layer of the body within the interior space as claimed.
(id. at 13 (bolding added)). According to the Appellant, “[t]here is no notch
in the sealing portion 6 of Suzuki et al. that is within the interior space as
claimed” (id. at 14).
We find no persuasive merit in the Appellant’s arguments. As the
Examiner finds (Ans. 25), Winkler’s Figure 8 shows a tab that may be used
to peel the lid 38 and the filter 30 from the rim 19 (Winkler ¶ 52). As for the
notch, the Appellant’s argument that Suzuki does not teach a notch defined
in the sealing layer of the body within the interior space is not persuasive
because the Examiner is relying on modifying Winkler in view of Suzuki’s
Figures 14–16 for the concept of using a notch to permit easier peeling (Ans.
46 (citing Suzuki col. 3, ll. 5–14; col. 11, ll. 42–49; col. 15, ll. 2–5)).
Regarding claim 26, which recites “a separation point defined in said
body around its circumference at a desired location for separating one
portion of said body from a remainder of said body” (Appeal Br. 23), the
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

15
Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to account for this limitation (id. at
14). That is incorrect. The Examiner provides findings and analysis that
addresses claim 26 (Ans. 28–29). The Appellant does not identify what
reversible error was made in the rejection. Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365–66.
Regarding claim 40, the Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s
broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 40 cannot include the flange
being part of the sidewall” (Appeal Br. 15). But the Examiner’s claim
construction does not rely exclusively on such an interpretation (Ans. 32–
33). Moreover, the concept of using a notch to provide a weakened point
can be applied to any location.
For these reasons, we uphold Rejection E.
Rejection F (Claims 31–33). The Appellant relies on the same
argument offered against the rejection of claim 1, adding only that “one of
ordinary skill in the art would not look to Peiffer et al. to modify a bond that
does not exist” (Appeal Br. 16). As discussed above, we do not find any of
the arguments in support of claim 1 persuasive. Therefore, we also uphold
Rejection F.
Rejection G (Claims 37–39). The Appellant relies on the same
argument offered against the rejection of claim 12 (Appeal Br. 16). As
discussed above, we do not find any of the arguments in support of claim 12
persuasive. Therefore, we also uphold Rejection G.
Rejection H (Claim 42). The Appellant does not contest this
rejection (Appeal Br. 16). Therefore, we summarily sustain this rejection.
Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“In the event of . . . a
Appeal 2019-002096
Application 14/098,915

16
waiver, the [Board] may affirm the rejection of the group of claims that the
examiner rejected on that ground without considering the merits.”).
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7, 10,
11, 28–30
103(a) Winkler, Sylvan 1, 2, 7, 10,
11, 28–30

2, 7 103(a) Winkler, Sylvan,
Biesheuvel
2, 7
3, 5 103(a) Winkler, Sylvan, Suzuki 3, 5
8, 9, 12, 18,
34–36, 43,
44
103(a) Winkler, Sylvan, Fuller 8, 9, 12, 18,
34–36, 43,
44

15, 17, 19,
25–27, 40,
41
103(a) Winkler, Sylvan, Fuller,
Suzuki
15, 17, 19,
25–27, 40,
41

31–33 103(a) Winkler, Sylvan, Peiffer 31–33
37–39 103(a) Winkler, Sylvan, Fuller,
Peiffer
37–39
42 103(a) Winkler, Sylvan, Fu 42
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5, 7–
12, 15, 17–
19, and 25–
44

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED