Bhagat, Urvashi

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 20, 2020

13877847 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 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.
13/877,847 04/04/2013 Urvashi Bhagat 218-002 4620
36844 7590 02/20/2020
Cermak Nakajima & McGowan LLP
127 S. Peyton Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
BHAT, NINA NMN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2020 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):
ACERMAK@cnmiplaw.com
IP@cnmiplaw.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte URVASHI BHAGAT

Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JAMES T. MOORE, 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 82–89, 91–104, 107–110, and
113–120.2 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. The Appellant identifies “Asha Nutrition Sciences, Inc.”
as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed February 11, 2019, as revised
March 6, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 3).
2 See Appeal Br. 9–19; Reply Brief filed July 1, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) at 1–6;
Final Office Action entered August 13, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 3–25;
Examiner’s Answer entered May 1, 2019 (“Ans.”) at 3–9.
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

2
I. BACKGROUND
In the Reply Brief, the Appellant refers to Application 12/426,034,
filed April 17, 2009, in which the Appellant is also the sole inventor (Reply
Br. 6). In that application, our reviewing court affirmed a Board decision,
entered April 16, 2016, upholding the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 101 and 102(b) of claims directed to lipid-containing formulations
comprising omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids at a certain ratio. In re Bhagat,
726 Fed. Appx. 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Supreme Court of the United
States subsequently denied Bhagat’s petition for writ of certiorari on
October 29, 2018. Bhagat v. Iancu, 139 S. Ct. 430 (2018).
Turning to the application before us, the subject matter on appeal
relates generally to the field of nutritional compositions and formulations
(Specification filed April 4, 2013 (“Spec.”) ¶ 2). According to the
Appellant, the invention generates tailored diets for consumers, wherein the
nutrient levels are balanced to provide optimal benefits (id. ¶ 9). Further, the
Appellant explains that a formulation in accordance with the invention is
provided from different sources, wherein nutrients complement each other
(id. ¶ 128).
Representative claim 82 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief, as follows:
82. A packaged product comprising one or more
nutritional formulations for an individual including at least one
formulation comprising an intermixture of omega-6 fatty
acid(s) and antioxidant(s) from different sources; wherein the
one or more formulations are so packaged and labeled indicating
suitability for consumption that collectively provide a dosage
from 1 to 40g of omega-6 fatty acids and from 25mg to 10g of
antioxidants, and wherein the antioxidants comprise one or more
polyphenols in the dosage of greater than 5mg; wherein the
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

3
intermixture of omega-6 fatty acid(s) and antioxidant(s) is not
any single specific variety of a vegetable, a fruit, a nut, or a
seed.
(Supplemental Appeal Brief filed March 6, 2019 (“Supp. Appeal Br.”) 20
(emphases added)).
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims on appeal stand rejected, as follows:
A. Claims 82 and 99 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement;
B. Claims 82, 87, 91–93, 96, 97, 99–102, 109, 110, 113, and 114
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, as being indefinite;
C. Claims 88, 89, 95, 103, and 107–110 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
¶ 4, as being in improper dependent form for failing to further
limit the subject matter of the claims from which they depend
or for failing to include all the limitations of the claims upon
which they depend; and
D. Claims 82–89, 91–104, 107–110, and 113–120 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Morris3 in view of Anthony et al.4
(“Anthony”).
(Ans. 3–9; Final Act. 3–25).

3 US 2008/0213239 A1, published September 4, 2008.
4 US 2007/0166411 A1, published July 19, 2007.
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

4
III. DISCUSSION
Rejection A (Written Description). The Examiner finds that claims
82 and 99 contain subject matter, which was not described in the
Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the
relevant art that the Inventor, at the time the application was filed, had
possession of the invention now claimed (Final Act. 3). Specifically, the
Examiner finds that these claims require one or more formulations for an
individual comprising an intermixture of omega-6 fatty acid(s) and
antioxidant(s) from different sources, but the Appellant “has not taught and
described the specific source of the fatty acids and the specific source of the
antioxidant making up the intermixture” (id. at 3–4). According to the
Examiner, nut oils inherently have omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids and
nuts inherently include antioxidants such as vitamin E (id. at 4).
The Appellant contends that description for the genus defined by
omega-6 fatty acids and the genus defined by antioxidants may be satisfied
by a sufficient number of species (Appeal Br. 9). According to the
Appellant, the Examiner concedes that the Specification discloses many
different sources for omega-6 fatty acids and antioxidants and that, indeed,
“many sources of omega-6 . . . fatty acids and antioxidants are known to the
person of skill in the art” (id.). Based on the Specification’s disclosure of
exemplary sources for the omega-6 fatty acids and the examples of
antioxidants, the Appellant urges that the person having ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that, at the time the application was filed, the
Appellant had possession of the invention now claimed (id. at 9–10).
We agree with the Appellant. The written description requirement
does not require in haec verba support. In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

5
(Fed. Cir. 1996). Rather, “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure
of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art
that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing
date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2010).
Applying this test, we find that the disclosure of the application, as
originally filed, reasonably conveys to one skilled in the relevant art that the
Appellant had possession of the claimed subject matter now claimed. As the
Examiner acknowledges (Final Act. 4), the Specification describes various
sources composed of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids and various sources
for antioxidants. The Specification (¶ 59 (Table 1)), for example, lists
various sources for omega-3, -6, and -9 fatty acids including “dark-green
leafy vegetables, grains, legumes, [and] nuts” and also indicates that gamma-
linoleic acid, which is identified as an omega-6 fatty acid (id. ¶ 27), may be
sourced from evening primrose, borage, and blackcurrant. In addition, the
Specification discloses that “[g]rains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, herbs, nuts
and seeds are the richest source[s] of phytochemicals and antioxidants” (id. ¶
129). Given the Specification’s explicit teaching that the invention’s
beneficial effects are achieved by providing the formulation’s components
from different complementary sources (id. ¶¶ 120, 128), we conclude that
the Specification reasonably conveys to one skilled in the art that the
Appellant had possession of the claimed subject matter including the
requirement that the intermixture of the omega-6 fatty acid(s) and the
antioxidant(s) are from different sources.
For these reasons, we do not uphold Rejection A.
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

6
Rejections B (Indefiniteness) & C (Improper Dependent Claims).
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant does not provide any substantive
arguments on the merits against Rejections B and C (Appeal Br. 10–11).
Instead, the Appellant states that, while the Appellant did not concede to the
rejections on the merits, amendments were proposed on October 15, 2018,
after closing of prosecution, in an effort to obviate these rejections (id.).
Noting that these amendments were refused entry,5 the Appellant states that
“[u]pon return to the Examiner, these alleged issues will be readily
addressed with entry of the amendments submitted with Appellant’s October
15, 2018 response” (id. at 10, 11).
The Examiner points out that the rejections should be affirmed
because: (1) the Appeal Brief does not contain any substantive arguments on
the merits; and (2) the issue whether an amendment after Final Action was
properly refused entry is not appealable (Ans. 5–6).
We agree with the Examiner. The record does not indicate that any
petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 was filed to initiate review of the
Examiner’s refusal to enter the amendments. As we discussed above, the
Appellant offers no substantive arguments on the merits in the Appeal Brief
(Appeal Br. 10–11).6 Under these circumstances, summary affirmance is

5 The amendments were not entered on the basis that “[t]hey raise new
issues that would require further consideration and/or search” (Advisory
Action entered October 18, 2018 at 1).
6 In the Reply Brief, the Appellant refers to arguments made in a Reply
submitted on June 15, 2018, and asserts that “the Examiner did not
meaningfully respond to” those arguments in the Final Action (Reply Br. 4–
5). The Appellant urges, belatedly, that we should now reverse Rejections B
and C on the basis of those arguments made in the June 15, 2018 Reply (id.).
The Appellant, however, chose not to rely on those arguments in the Appeal
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

7
appropriate. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“Except as provided for in
§§ 41.41 , 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the
appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal.”). See also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (“In the event of . . . a waiver, the [Board] may affirm the rejection of
the group of claims that the examiner rejected on that ground without
considering the merits.”).
For these reasons, we sustain Rejections B and C without considering
their substantive merits.
Rejection D (Obviousness). Unless separately argued within the
meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), the rejected claims stand or fall with
claim 82, which we select as representative pursuant to the rule. In this
regard, merely pointing out what a claim recites and/or providing a skeletal
argument that the prior art does not disclose or suggest a limitation are not
arguments in support of separate patentability. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2011).7
1. Claim 82
(a) Examiner’s Position
The Examiner finds that Morris describes a fatty acid formulation that
includes polyunsaturated fatty acids (omega-3 and/or omega-6 fatty acids)

Brief (Appeal Br. 10–11). Absent a showing of good cause or other special
circumstances, we decline to consider arguments in the Reply Brief that
were not included in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
7 For example, the Appellant identifies what certain dependent claims recite
as limitations, adding that neither Morris nor Anthony teaches or suggests
these limitations and that the Examiner did not address the limitations in
detail (Appeal Br. 17). Such skeletal arguments, however, are insufficient to
warrant separate consideration.
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

8
and vitamin E, which, according to the Examiner, is an antioxidant (Final
Act. 4, 13). The Examiner finds further that the formulation also includes
polyphenols as part of the antioxidants (id. at 13). Regarding dosages, the
Examiner finds that Morris teaches dosages for the polyunsaturated fatty
acids and the antioxidants that overlap with those recited in claim 82 and
that “it would have been obvious from the teachings of Morris to optimize
the amounts of fatty acids and antioxidants” (id.; see also id. at 17–18).
Furthermore, in attempting to ascertain the scope of claim 82, the Examiner
states that the term “dosage” is “indefinite and obfuscatory when claiming a
mixture” because “the amount of [an] ingredient in the mixture and the
dosage of a mixture or administering that mixture is not the same”—i.e.,
“[t]he dosage of a product is different than the compositional amounts” (id.
at 19–20). The Examiner explains that printed matter and dosage
instructions in packing labels are not entitled to patentable weight (id. at 20
(citing, e.g., In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
The Examiner acknowledges that Morris does not teach that the
specific source for the fatty acids and the specific source for the antioxidant
are different, as required by claim 82 (Final Act. 14, 17).8 The Examiner
finds, however, that Anthony teaches a nutritional supplement containing
long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids having DHA (docosahexaenoic acid)
and an omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio of about 6:1 or less (id.). The
Examiner finds further that Anthony teaches that the polyunsaturated fatty
acids are a blend of oils, which include canola oil, high oleic sunflower oil,
corn oil, and soy oil, and that the supplement may also contain various

8 The Examiner also states that Morris does not teach “phytochemicals” or a
“kit” but neither term is recited in claim 82.
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

9
antioxidants and vitamins (id.). According to the Examiner, Anthony also
teaches a method of making a nutritional supplement in a packaged form (id.
at 15).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that Anthony would
have suggested that a “dietary formulation kit, packaging, labeling and
instructions as to how to use a nutritional supplement is well within the
purview of the ordinary artisan” (id. at 17–18). In addition, the Examiner
concludes that providing a mixture of omega-6 fatty acids and antioxidants
from different sources would also have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art (id. at 18).
(b) The Appellant’s Contentions
The Appellant contends that the application discloses important
factors that were not well known or routine in the art concerning omega-6
and omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants, and phytochemicals (Appeal Br. 11).
According to the Appellant, determining the requirements and dosages of
omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, antioxidants, and polyphenols were not
well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art (id. at 13). The
Appellant argues that “[t]he problem of delivering suitable dosages of
omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, antioxidants, and polyphenols, though
recognized in part by some scientists, was not solved by the prior art,” but
that “[t]he presently claimed invention solves this long-felt need and
overcomes the failure of others” (id. at 14). In the Appellant’s view, neither
Morris nor Anthony teaches a product including a mixture of omega-6 fatty
acids and antioxidants, where the antioxidants comprise polyphenols and
where the fatty acids and antioxidants are derived from different sources, nor
the doses and/or ratios of the specified ingredients (id. at 14–16).
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

10
(c) 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).
As an initial matter, we point out, notwithstanding the Appellant’s
suggestions to the contrary (Appeal Br. 13–14), that claim 82 does not
require the presence of omega-3 fatty acids in the formulation. Rather,
claim 82 specifies only omega-6 fatty acid(s), antioxidant(s), and polyphenol
as the ingredients (Appeal Br. 20). As discussed further below and
consistent with the Examiner’s findings, Morris teaches these three
ingredients.
Specifically, the Examiner is correct in finding that Morris teaches a
dietary formulation comprising polyunsaturated fatty acids (e.g., omega-6
fatty acids) and vitamin E9 (Morris ¶¶ 5–7). Morris explicitly teaches
formulations in packaged forms in which multiple doses are included and
instructions are provided (id. ¶¶ 150–151, 160). In addition to the
polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E, Morris teaches including an agent
that reduces oxidative stress, such as an antioxidant (id. ¶ 128). Morris
identifies a finite list of antioxidants—one of which is polyphenol
antioxidant (id.). 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

9 The Appellant acknowledges that vitamin E is an antioxidant (Appeal Br.
9; Spec. ¶¶ 74–75).
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

11
the [reference] discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not
render any particular formulation less obvious.”).
Regarding administration and dosages, Morris teaches that “a unit
dose of a subject formulation can be administered once, twice, or three times
daily” (Morris ¶ 164). Thus, Morris’s concept of dosages is the same as that
of the Appellant (Spec. ¶¶ 136, 151, 164 (disclosing daily amounts))—i.e.,
the dosages merely define how much of the formulation must be consumed
to meet daily recommended amounts for each of the three ingredients as
appropriate for a particular individual. As the Examiner aptly points out
(Final Act. 19), the dosages recited in claim 82 are not the same as the
relative amounts for each of the three ingredients present in the formulation
recited in the claim. Here, claim 82 does not recite any relative amounts for
the three ingredients present in the formulation, but rather only dosages that
define how much of the formulation must be consumed to meet the specified
daily amounts.
Under that interpretation of the term “dosage” as recited in claim 82,
when interpreted in context with the claim language “labeled indicating
suitability for consumption that collectively provide a dosage,” we agree
with the Examiner that the dosages recited in claim 82 are not entitled to
patentable weight in determining the patentability of the claimed packaged
product, which does not limit the relative amounts of the three ingredients in
the formulation in any way. Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339.
Even if the dosages recited in claim 82 are entitled to patentable
weight, the specified dosages would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art in view of Morris’s disclosure. Morris explicitly
teaches that:
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

12
The dosages of PUFA [polyunsaturated fatty acid] and
vitamin E, as well as the dosages of additional components such
as carnitine and a-lipoic acid, can vary according to various
factors, including, e.g., the age of the individual, the weight of
the individual, the genetic makeup of the individual, and the
severity of symptoms exhibited by the individual to whom a
subject formulation is administered.
(Morris ¶ 166). Thus, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 13), Morris suggests
that the dosages are result-effective variables that may be optimized for a
particular individual. Furthermore, Morris teaches that the dosage for the
omega-6 fatty acids ranges from about 50 mg/day to about 1,000 mg/day (id.
¶ 171), which overlaps with the range recited in claim 82 (“from 1 to 40g”).
In addition, Morris teaches that the dosage for vitamin E (tocopherol-α)
ranges from about 10/mg/kg/day to about 200 mg/kg/day (id. ¶¶ 7, 169),
which overlaps with the Appellant’s specified range (“25mg to 10g”) for an
individual with normal or average weight. Given Morris’s teachings, we
agree with the Examiner that the dosages specified in claim 82 would have
been prima facie obvious in view of Morris’s overlapping ranges and
suggestion that the dosages may be varied depending on the individual. In
re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The sole difference, then, between Morris’s disclosure and claim 82’s
subject matter is that Morris does not explicitly state that the omega-6 fatty
acid and vitamin E are provided from different sources. But Morris does not
indicate or suggest that the omega-6 fatty acids and vitamin E are provided
from the same source (Morris ¶¶ 6–7). In this regard, Anthony appears to
prepare formulations using different sources for the lipid blend and the
vitamins and minerals (Anthony ¶¶ 138–145). Therefore, a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have drawn a reasonable inference that the
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

13
formulation may be provided using different sources. 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.”).
Moreover, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 14), Anthony teaches
various sources for polyunsaturated fatty acids that include omega-6 fatty
acids, such as canola oil, high oleic sunflower oil, corn oil, soy oil, and
medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil (Anthony ¶ 24). Based on this
teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have used any one
of these sources to provide the omega-6 fatty acid component, independent
of vitamin E, in Morris. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007) (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art
that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in
the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”).
The Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 14–15) that the invention
solves a problem in the art of delivering suitable dosages of omega-3 and
omega-6 fatty acids, antioxidants, and polyphenols that differs from the
problem addressed by the prior art, and thus satisfies a long-felt need is
unpersuasive. Our reasons follow.
First, as the Appellant concedes, the problem was recognized in part
by those skilled in the art (Appeal Br. 14). As we found above, Morris
provides extensive guidance on dosages (Morris ¶¶ 166–171). The
Appellant does not direct us to objective evidence that establishes some
discovery beyond that in Morris that would be sufficient to establish
nonobviousness based on secondary considerations. In any event, the case
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

14
law does not require the prior art’s motivation or reason to arrive at the
Appellant’s claimed subject matter to be the same as that of the Appellant,
and, therefore, the Appellant’s problem-solution approach in this case is
misplaced. KSR Int’l Co. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (“The first
error of the Court of Appeals in this case was to foreclose [an obviousness]
reasoning by holding that . . . patent examiners should look only to the
problem the patentee was trying to solve.”). “Under the correct analysis, any
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the [prior art] can provide a reason for combining the elements
in the manner claimed.” Id. See also In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (the motivation or reason in the prior art need not be the same as
that of the inventor).
Second, objective evidence is required to establish nonobviousness
based on satisfying a long-felt need, which requires a showing that both a
demand existed and that others tried but failed to satisfy that demand. In re
Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent
Litigation, 676 F.3d 1063, 1082–83 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Other than mere
attorney argument, the Appellant does not direct us to persuasive objective
evidence to support nonobviousness based on a satisfaction of a long-felt
need. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Mere argument
or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.”).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 82.
2. Claim 99
Claim 99 recites a method for preparing a product comprising one or
more nutritional formulations for individual comprising the steps of, inter
Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

15
alia, “determining for the individual a diet cohort based on diet and/or a
demographic factor of the individual” (Appeal br. 24–25).
The Appellant argues that neither Morris nor Anthony suggests the
diet cohort of an individual and preparing nutritional formulations on that
basis (id. at 17). According to the Appellant, the Examiner’s application of
a standard of obviousness based on a finding that the “claimed invention is
within the skill in the art” constitutes reversible error (id.).
We disagree with the Appellant. Morris discloses that the
formulations may be administered to various individuals ranging from
infants to adults, who may be diagnosed with various conditions (Morris
¶¶ 175–176). Morris also teaches that dosages “can vary according to
various factors, including, e.g., the age of the individual, the weight of the
individual, the genetic makeup of the individual, and the severity of
symptoms exhibited by the individual to whom a subject formulation is
administered” (id. ¶ 166). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion (Final Act. 17–18) is reasonably
supported by evidence.
Accordingly, we also uphold the Examiner’s rejection of claim 99.

IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
82, 89 112, ¶ 1  Written
Description
82, 89
82, 87, 91–93, 96,
97, 99–102, 109,
110, 113, 114
112, ¶ 2 Indefiniteness 82, 87, 91–93, 96,
97, 99–102, 109,
110, 113, 114

Appeal 2019-005232
Application 13/877,847

16
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
88, 89, 95, 103,
107–110
112, ¶ 4 Improper
Dependency
88, 89, 95, 103,
107–110

82–89, 91–104,
107–110, 113–120
103(a) Morris,
Anthony
82–89, 91–104,
107–110, 113–120

Overall Outcome 82–89, 91–104,
107–110, 113–120

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