Asako Minamide et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2020

2020003110 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 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.
13/812,359 01/25/2013 Asako Minamide 406685US99PCT 3810
22850 7590 12/01/2020
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
LOWREY, DANIEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1787
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2020 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ASAKO MINAMIDE and MIKIO MASUDA

Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, 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 decision to reject claims 1–13, 15, 17, 18, and 20–29.2,3 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—i.e., the Inventors (Application Data Sheet filed January
25, 2013). The Appellant identifies “KURARAY CO., LTD.” as the real
party in interest (Substitute Appeal Brief filed October 14, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”) at 2).
2 See Appeal Br. 6–30; Reply Brief filed March 20, 2020 (“Reply Br.”) at
4–16; Non-Final Office Action entered April 17, 2017 (“Non-Final Act.”) at
2–13; Examiner’s Answer entered January 24, 2020 (“Ans.”) at 3–18.
3 We heard oral arguments from the Appellant’s representative on
November 17, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a thermoplastic resin
composition (Specification filed January 25, 2013 (“Spec.”) ¶ 1). The
Appellant states that the adhesion of a prior art thermoplastic polymer
composition, as disclosed in Moriguchi et al. (“Moriguchi”; WO
2009/081877 A1, published July 2, 2009), to ceramics, metals, and synthetic
resins is reduced significantly when a molded product of the composition is
kept at 60°C or higher (id. ¶¶ 5–6). According to the Appellant, the
invention described in the Specification is intended to be an improvement
over Moriguchi’s composition (id. ¶ 6).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. A thermoplastic polymer composition, comprising:
100 parts by mass of a thermoplastic elastomer;
from 20 to 45 parts by mass of a polyvinyl acetal resin
having a glass transition temperature of from 80 to 91°C;
from 50 to 150 parts by mass of a softener; and
from 1 to 15 parts by mass of a compatibilizer,
wherein:
the thermoplastic elastomer comprises a hydrogenated
product of a block copolymer A’, and a hydrogenated product of
a block copolymer A”;
the block copolymer A’ comprises a polymer block
comprising aromatic vinyl compound units and a polymer block
comprising conjugated diene units derived from butadiene,
isoprene, or both, such that the block copolymer A’ comprises 20
to 40% by mass of the polymer block comprising the aromatic
vinyl compound units;
the block copolymer A”' comprises a polymer block
comprising aromatic vinyl compound units and a polymer block
comprising conjugated diene units derived from butadiene,
isoprene, or both, such that the block copolymer A” comprises
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

3
60 to 70% by mass of the polymer block comprising the aromatic
vinyl compound units;
a mass ratio of copolymer A’/copolymer A” is 60/40 to
95/5; and
when the thermoplastic polymer composition is laminated
with glass plates at a compression-molding temperature of 230
°C under the Condition A below, and the laminated glass plates
are measured for adhesion strength according to JIS K 6854-2
under the Condition B below, adhesion strengths of the laminated
glass plates are:
66 N/25mm or more for a laminated glass plate at 23 °C,
58 N/25mm or more for a laminated glass plate at 40 °C,
and
24N/25mm or more for a laminated glass plate at 60 °C;
Condition A: a glass plate of 75 mm length x 25 mm width
x 1 mm thickness, a sheet of the thermoplastic polymer
composition having a thickness of 1 mm, and a sheet of a
polyethylene terephthalate having a thickness of 50 μm were
piled in this order and the resultant pile was placed at the center
of a metal spacer having outer dimensions of 200 mm x 200 mm,
inner dimensions of 150 mm x 150 mm, and a thickness of 2 mm,
and the piled sheet together with the metal spacer was placed
between two sheets of polytetrafluoroethylene, which was then
placed between two metal plates and compression molded at one
of the compression-molding temperature of 230 °C under a load
of 20 kgf/cm2 for 3 minutes, thereby obtaining a laminated glass
plate; and
Condition B: the laminated glass plate was allowed to
stand for 10 minutes at 23°C, 40°C and 60 °C and then was
measured for adhesion strength as an index of heat resistance at
a peel angle of 180° and a tensile speed of 50 mm/min according
to JIS K 6854-2.
(Appeal Br. 31–32 (emphases added)).

Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

4
II. REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1–13, 15, 17, 18, and 20–29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moriguchi,4 identified above, in view
of Tsuji et al.5 (“Tsuji”), Uzee et al.6 (“Uzee”), and Zhang et al.7 (“Zhang”)
(Ans. 3–18; Non-Final Act. 2–13).
III. DISCUSSION
1. Grouping of Claims
Unless separately argued within the meaning of 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv), as discussed below, the rejected claims stand or fall with
claim 1, which we select as representative pursuant to the rule. Merely
pointing out what a claim recites or providing a skeletal argument asserting
that the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed subject matter is
not an argument for separate patentability that requires our separate
consideration. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
2. The Examiner’s Position
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Moriguchi describes
a thermoplastic polymer composition having most of the limitations recited
in the claim including a polyvinyl acetal formed by reacting polyvinyl
alcohol with one or more aldehydes such as acetaldehyde, butyraldehyde, or
a combination thereof (Ans. 3–4; Non-Final Act. 3). The Examiner

4 The Examiner relies on the corresponding United States application, US
2010/0273012 A1, published October 28, 2010 (Ans. 3; Non-Final Act. 2).
Therefore, our citations are to the United States application.
5 US 2010/0086788 A1, published April 8, 2010.
6 US 2006/0205874 A1, published September 14, 2006.
7 US 6,410,129 B2, issued June 25, 2002.
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

5
acknowledges that Moriguchi’s composition differs from that recited in
claim 1 in that the reference does not disclose a glass transition temperature
of 80 to 91°C for the polyvinyl acetal component, as required by the claim
(Ans. 4; Non-Final Act. 3).
The Examiner finds further, however, that Tsuji discloses exemplary
polyvinyl acetal resins having glass transition temperatures of 73°C, 93°C,
and 97°C and processing temperatures that are 70–160°C above the glass
transition temperature (id.). According to the Examiner, Tsuji teaches that
the heat history of the polyvinyl acetal resin can be reduced by choosing
process temperatures in specified ranges relative to the resin’s glass
transition temperature (Ans. 4; Non-Final Act. 3–4).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art . . . to use the polyvinyl acetal of Tsuji having a
Tg of 10 to 200 C (processing temperature [of] 70 to 160 C),
including presently claimed values, in the thermoplastic polymer
composition of Moriguchi in order to gain the benefit of excellent
in adhesion and with good penetration resistance including at
high-temperature conditions (Tsuji Para 35) while minimizing
heat history of the resin during processing at temperatures of 170
to 270 C (Moriguchi Para 86, Tsuji Paras 112–114).
(Ans. 4; Non-Final Act. 4).
The Examiner also finds that the combination of Moriguchi and Tsuji
does not disclose the ratio of high-aromatic and low-aromatic content block
copolymers as specified in claim 1 but relies on Uzee and Zhang to account
for this limitation (Ans. 4–5; Non-Final Act. 4–5). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art . . . to use the aromatic monomer concentration
and blend ratio of Uzee in the thermoplastic elastomer of
Moriguchi in view of Tsuji in order to gain the benefit of
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

6
excellent elastic and stress relaxation properties as taught by
Uzee (Uzee Para 10), such advantages extendable to and
enhanced for the hydrogenated equivalent as taught by Zhang
(Zhang Col 12 Lines 17–27, 56–61, Col 13 Lines 7–15, 21–41).
(Ans. 5; Non-Final Act. 5).
As for the adhesion properties recited in claim 1, the Examiner
acknowledges that “Moriguchi in view of Tsuji, Uzee, and Zhang does not
explicitly disclose the measure of adhesive strength claimed” but states that
“given that [the prior art] discloses the same materials for the same use and,
further, discloses excellent adhesion and means for increasing adhesion,
including at high temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art . . . to adjust the adhesion strength to desired levels, including
those presently claimed” (Ans. 5–6; Non-Final Act. 5). In this regard, the
Examiner states that “evidence of mere improvement is not probative of
nonobviousness” and that the Appellant’s showing relied upon for
nonobviousness is not commensurate in scope with the claims (Ans. 12).
3. The Appellant’s Contentions
The Appellant contends that the “claims on appeal are necessarily
limited to those compositions and products formed therefrom which have the
properties recited in the claims” and that “[t]o the extent, the Examiner’s
claim interpretation in this case disregards, refuses to follow, and/or is
inconsistent with binding precedent of the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, the Examiner erred and his conclusion of obviousness should be
REVERSED for that reason alone” (Appeal Br. 6–7).
The Appellant also argues that the mere fact that the prior art
composition could be modified in the manner claimed by the Appellant does
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

7
not establish obviousness unless the prior art would have suggested the
desirability of doing so (id. at 9). The Appellant argues:
Even assuming that it reasonably would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Tsuji’s
exemplified polyvinyl acetal resins having a Tg of 73°C, 93°C,
and 97°C in Moriguchi’s thermoplastic polymer compositions
and molded products formed therefrom for their advantageous
adhesive properties with reasonable expectation of success,
nothing in either Moriguchi or Tsuji would have led persons
having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect or suspect
that the inclusion of polyvinyl acetal resins having a Tg of from
80 to 91°C, more particularly polyvinyl acetal resins having a Tg
from 84 to 91°C (dependent Claims 15 and 21) and an
acetaldehyde/n-butylaldehyde molar ratio of 53/47 to 68/32
(dependent Claims 20 and 21), could or would result in low and
high temperature adhesion strengths of laminated glass plates [as
recited in the claims].
(Id. at 9–10 (citing Spec. ¶ 74 (Table 1); Declaration of Asako Minamide
filed October 6, 2016 (“Minamide Declaration” or “Minamide Decl.”) ¶ 7
(Table 3)).
Specifically, the Appellant urges that Figure B in the Appeal Brief,
which is allegedly a graphical representation of the data reported in Table 3
of the Minamide Declaration, shows that
the high temperature adhesion strengths reported using polyvinyl
acetal resins with a Tg of 80 to 91, in substantially the same
amounts, unexpectedly impart far superior high temperature
adhesive strengths than would Tsuji’s exemplified polyvinyl
acetal resins having a Tg of 57°C . . .; 70°C . . .; 73°C . . .; 93°C
. . ., 97°C . . . 157°C; and 177°C.
(Appeal Br. 10–11). According to the Appellant,
[t]he overall comparative results additionally show that
thermoplastic polymer compositions comprising 100 parts of
thermoplastic elastomer (A) and 30 parts of polyvinyl acetal (B)
having a Tg of 72°C of [sic] less or a Tg of 92°C or more do
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

8
NOT satisfy the low and high temperature adhesion requirements
of independent Claim 1 and separately argued dependent Claims
15, 21 and 29
and that “thermoplastic polymer compositions comprising 100 parts of
thermoplastic elastomer (A) and 30 parts of polyvinyl acetal (B) having a Tg
of less than 80°C and more than 91 °C do NOT necessarily satisfy the low
and high temperature adhesion strength requirements of independent Claim
1” (id. at 13). The Appellant urges that a person having ordinary skill in the
art would not have found it obvious to optimize the Tg of the polyvinyl
acetal resins to values within the range recited in claim 1 (id. at 15).
4. Opinion
As a preliminary matter, we emphasize that although the Examiner
retains the burden to show unpatentability, our review of the Examiner’s
rejection is based upon the Appellant’s identification of what the Examiner
did wrong—i.e., “the issues identified by [the] appellant, and in light of the
arguments and evidence produced thereon.” Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075–76 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Thus, we do not address
matters beyond those raised in the Appeal Brief as “[i]t is not the function of
[a reviewing tribunal] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.” In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“[A]ny arguments or authorities not included in the
appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal.”).
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

9
We have fully considered the Appellant’s arguments in this appeal but
find them insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
Moriguchi, the principal prior art reference over which the
Appellant’s invention is allegedly an improvement, teaches that “a
thermoplastic elastomer composition having improved adhesion to ceramics,
such as glass, and metals has been demanded” (Moriguchi ¶ 10). To satisfy
this need, Moriguchi teaches a thermoplastic polymer composition
comprising a thermoplastic elastomer (A), such as hydrogenated styrene-
based block copolymers, and a polyvinyl acetal (B), wherein the amount of
polyvinyl acetal (B) is preferably 0.1 to 100 parts by mass based on 100
parts by mass of elastomer (A) (id. ¶¶ 12–13, 27, 35–36). As for the
reactants used to produce the polyvinyl acetal (B) resin component,
Moriguchi teaches using one or more aldehydes, including acetaldehyde and
butyraldehyde (id. ¶ 53), which are the same reactants disclosed for
producing the polyvinyl acetal resins having the glass transition
temperatures recited in claim 1 (Spec. ¶¶ 64–67, 74 (Table 1)). Thus,
Moriguchi’s disclosure generally encompasses, and, therefore, would have
suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the polyvinyl acetal
resins having the specified glass transition temperatures recited in claim 1.
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364–65
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“strong case of obviousness” exists where the combination
of ingredients recited in the claims were based on selections from a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions); Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft
Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the [reference]
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

10
discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any
particular formulation less obvious.”).
In particular, Moriguchi teaches that “the [disclosed] thermoplastic
polymer compositions . . . are remarkably improved in the adhesion strength
to a glass while maintaining good flexibility, mechanical properties, and
formability by blending the polyvinyl acetal (B) into the thermoplastic
elastomer (A)” (Moriguchi ¶ 142 (referring to Examples 1–7 and
Comparative Examples 1–2 in Table 2)). In addition, Moriguchi teaches that
“the adhesion strength can be improved even more by blending [a]
thermoplastic elastomer (A2) containing a polar functional group” (id. ¶ 144
(referring to Examples 8–10 and Examples 1, 4, 5)).
Although Moriguchi does not discuss the glass transition temperature
of the polyvinyl acetal resin (B), Moriguchi’s disclosure encompasses
polyvinyl acetal resins having glass transition temperatures within the range
specified in claim 1, as we discussed above. In this regard, Tsuji teaches
that a polyvinyl acetal resin has excellent adhesion to glass and that its heat
history can be reduced by setting the resin’s processing temperatures within
certain parameters relative to the glass transition temperature (e.g., 70–
160°C above the glass transition temperature) (Tsuji ¶¶ 16, 35, 112–114).
Given that Moriguchi teaches processing temperatures of 170–270°C
(Moriguchi ¶ 86), we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s position
that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
use polyvinyl acetal resins having glass transition temperatures within the
range of 10–200°C, which includes glass transition temperatures within the
range recited in claim 1 (80–91°C), in Moriguchi with a reasonable
expectation of gaining the benefit of excellent adhesion to glass with good
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

11
penetration resistance, while minimizing heat history during processing at
170–270°C, as suggested by Tsuji.
“With a factual foundation for its prima facie case of obviousness
shown, the burden shifts to [the Appellant] to demonstrate that their claimed
[compositions] possess an unexpected property over the prior art.” In re
Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “An applicant may make this
showing with evidence that the claimed invention exhibits some superior
property or advantage that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
find surprising or unexpected.” Id. “‘Although secondary considerations
must be taken into account [when presented], they do not necessarily control
the obviousness conclusion.’” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1067–68 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2007)). See also In re Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (“[W]e give the Board broad deference in its weighing of the evidence
before it.”).
In this case, the Appellant’s arguments concerning secondary
considerations in support of nonobviousness are, in essence, limited to an
allegation of unexpected results arising from the use of 20–45 parts by
weight, based on 100 parts of the thermoplastic elastomer, of a polyvinyl
acetal resin having a glass transition temperature of 80–91°C. We consider
the proffered evidence in support below.
As a matter of claim construction, we agree with the Appellant that
the scope of claim 1 is limited to compositions that possess the specified
adhesive strength properties at 23°C, 40°C, and 60°C, as recited in the
“when the thermoplastic polymer composition is laminated with glass
plates” clause of the claim. In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

12
2017) (“The first three elements describe the surfactants, and their respective
ranges, that comprise the surfactant system. The fourth element limits the
combination of those surfactants to only those combinations that produce a
cloud point above at least 70°C or no cloud point at all.”).
Thus, although the Examiner’s errs in stating that claim 1 is overly
broad relative to the offered evidence—i.e., not commensurate in scope
(Ans. 12), that error was harmless. We start by pointing out that the
Appellant’s comparative examples are not sufficiently comprehensive such
that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have concluded from the
data that the invention recited in claim 1 provides unexpectedly superior
results over the closest prior art, which is Moriguchi.8
Consistent with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 11), and as we have
found above, Moriguchi explicitly teaches that adhesion to glass is
“remarkably improved” while maintaining good flexibility, mechanical
properties, and formability when a polyvinyl acetal is incorporated into a
thermoplastic elastomer composition that may additionally contain an
elastomer having a polar group (Moriguchi ¶¶ 142, 144). Moriguchi’s
Examples 1–12 show compositions based on a hydrogenation product of a
triblock copolymer of polystyrene block-polybutadiene block-polystyrene

8 Baxter, 952 F.2d at 392 (“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence
of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared
with the closest prior art . . . Mere recognition of latent properties in the
prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.”); cf.
Inland Steel, 265 F.3d at 1365–66 (“Throughout the re-examination process,
the examiner expressed concern that insufficient data had been presented to
prove the unexpectedly favorable results in the ’574 patent’s claimed
antimony ranges, because Inland offered only a few data points from one
experiment comparing antimony within and below its claimed ranges.”).
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

13
block having a number average molecular weight of 280,000, a styrene
content of 33 weight %, a hydrogenation ratio in the polybutadiene block of
98%, and an amount of 1,2-bond in the polybutadiene block of 38% (id.
¶ 112; Table 2). According to Moriguchi, adhesion strength is improved
even further by adding a polar elastomer derived from an addition-
polymerized polyurethane-based block (id. ¶¶ 118–119, 144; Table 2
(Examples 8–10)). By contrast, the Appellant’s proffered evidence is
limited to comparative examples that show compositions based only on a
triblock copolymer of a polystyrene block-poly(isoprene/butadiene) block-
polystyrene block having a weight average molecular weight of 170,000, a
styrene content of 32% by mass, a hydrogenation degree of 97%, a
molecular weight distribution of 1.04, and a 1,4-bonding content of 95
mole % (Spec. ¶¶ 62, 74 (Table 1); Minamide Decl. ¶ 7 (Table 3)).
Therefore, absent a fair, comprehensive comparison against the
closest prior art, we do not discern a reasonable basis to conclude
unexpectedly superior adhesive strength at 60°C for the claimed
composition at both below and above the polyvinyl acetal’s specified glass
transition temperatures against all prior art compositions, especially when
the prior art explicitly teaches that adhesion strength to glass is “remarkably
improved” when a polyvinyl acetal—either alone or in combination with a
polar elastomer—is added. In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439 (CCPA 1965)
(“While we do not intend to slight the alleged improvements, we do not feel
it an unreasonable burden on appellants to require comparative examples
relied on for non-obviousness to be truly comparative. The cause and effect
sought to be proven is lost here in the welter of unfixed variables.”).
Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

14
Moreover, the Appellant’s own comparative data show that the prior
art compositions possess significantly better adhesive strength to glass at
23°C and 40°C—i.e., the claimed compositions are remarkably inferior to
the prior art compositions (Minamide Decl. ¶ 7 (Table 1, (compare
Examples 1–4, and Examples A and B with Comparative Examples 1, 2, C,
and E)). The Appellant does not explain why the results at 60°C should be
given more weight and are more significant than those at two other test
temperatures—23°C and 40°C, which approximate ambient temperatures
rather than a heated environment. “Expected beneficial results are evidence
of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected beneficial results
are evidence of unobviousness.” In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1397 (CCPA
1975). See also In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267 (CCPA 1977) (“Appellant
has not shown that the unexpected lower peak discharge current and higher
luminous efficiency have a significance equal to or greater than that of the
expected higher memory margin and lower operating voltage.”); Asyst
Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The
secondary consideration evidence in this case does not overcome the strong
case of obviousness in the substitution of the multiplexer, a known
alternative to [the prior art]’s bus, where the multiplexer operates in a well-
known manner.”).
The Appellant’s additional arguments in support of claims 6, 15, 20,
21, and 29 (Appeal Br. 21–27) do not sufficiently rebut the prima facie case
of obviousness for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection.

Appeal 2020-003110
Application 13/812,359

15
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Bas
is
Affirmed Reversed
1–13, 15, 17,
18, 20–29
103(a) Moriguchi, Tsuji,
Uzee, Zhang
1–13, 15, 17,
18, 20–29

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