Ex Parte AMARASINGHE et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 201813097501 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/097,501 04/29/2011 23117 7590 08/29/2018 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Amal Shirley AMARASINGHE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. BKK-4398-1140 6643 EXAMINER SUL, DOUGLAS YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3771 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2018 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AMAL SHIRLEY AMARASINGHE, ANGELENE MARIE OZOLINS, LEE JAMES VELISS, ALICIA KRISTIANNE WELLS, ERIC SIU, IAN FREDRICK JOHNSON, and ALISON RUTH NORCOTT Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 1 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Amal Shirley Amarasinghe et al. ("Appellants") identify ResMed Limited as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (March 29, 2017) (hereinafter "Appeal Br."), at 3. Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-73, 76, 77, 83, 91-94, 109-119, 122-130, and 132-135. Non-Final Office Action (December 28, 2016) (hereinafter "Non-Final Act."). 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). The claimed subject matter relates to "a respiratory mask assembly designed to suit infants and children." Specification ( April 29, 2011) (hereinafter "Spec."), ,r 9. The mask assembly includes a flexible patient interface, a rigid frame to receive and support the patient interface, and an adjustable headgear. Id. ,r,r 12, 29, Fig. 1. The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the prior art. The Examiner also provisionally rejected claims under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over a claim of a related, co-pending patent application in combination with the prior art. Appellants contest the Examiner's rejections. For the reasons explained below, we sustain only one of the§ 103 rejections. We do not reach the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Accordingly, we AFFIRM-IN-PART. 2 The Examiner objected to claims 74, 90, and 131 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and indicated the claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Non-Final Act. 1, 41. Claims 120 and 121 are cancelled, and claims 75, 78-82, 84-89, and 95-108 are withdrawn. Id. at 2. 2 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 115 are the independent claims on appeal and are reproduced below with the disputed claim language emphasized in italics. 1. A patient interface system for delivering breathable gas to a patient, comprising: a flexible patient interface structure configured to interface with and deliver air to a nose of the patient, the patient interface structure comprising cylindrical protrusions extending from respective opposite sides of the patient interface structure, the cylindrical protrusions being dimensioned and configured to be adjacent the patient's nares when the flexible patient interface structure is engaged with the patient's face; a frame configured to support the patient interface structure, the frame comprising a pair of cylinders, each cylinder having an inner circumferential surface configured to receive a respective cylindrical protrusion of the patient interface structure; headgear arranged for releasable attachment to the frame; and an air delivery tube connected to either one of the cylindrical protrusions, the air delivery tube being configured to be assembled to the cylindrical protrusion in an assembly direction, wherein each of the cylindrical protrusions of the flexible patient interface structure comprises a shoulder having a diameter larger than a diameter of each of said cylinders of the frame, each of the shoulders being configured to prevent movement of the respective cylindrical protrusion relative to the corresponding cylinder in the assembly direction of the air delivery tube when the air delivery tube is assembled to the respective cylindrical protrusion. 3 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 115. A headgear for use with a patient interface system, compnsmg: a pair of side straps, each side strap extending from a region adjacent a wing portion of a patient interface frame and configured to extend along the patient's cheek to above the patient's ear when the patient interface system is engaged with the patient's face; a pair of top straps, each top strap extending from a respective side strap and configured to extend at least to a top of the patient's head; a pair of upper rear straps, each upper rear strap extending from a respective side strap and configured to extend at least to a back of the patient's head; a pair of reinforcing structures, each reinforcing structure having a forward finger extending from a respective wing portion of the frame and configured to extend generally along the patient's cheek when the patient interface system is engaged with the patient's face, an upper finger extending from the forward finger and configured to extend to above the patient's ear, and a lower finger extending from the forward finger and configured to extend to below the patient's ear; a lower rear strap connected at each end to a respective lower finger of a respective reinforcing structure; and a quick release buckle comprising a tab, the quick release buckle being configured to connect one end of the lower rear strap to a respective lower finger and release the lower rear strap from the respective lower finger when a pulling force is applied to the tab, wherein the quick release buckle is configured so that the pulling force causes the quick release buckle to move directly from a secured position to a fully released position, wherein the quick release buckle is in the secured position when the lower rear strap is secured to the respective lower finger, and 4 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 wherein the quick release buckle is in the fully released position when the lower rear strap is fully removed from the respective lower finger. Appeal Br. 20, 34-35 (Claims Appendix). Scozzafava Sink Iund et al. Vandenbroek et al. Utterberg Carlsen et al. Ging et al. Gunaratnam et al. Ho et al. ("Ho '228") Hallett et al. Henry Ng et al. Ho ("Ho '933") Veliss et al. ("the '801 application") Veliss et al. EVIDENCE us 4,231,675 us 5,471,769 us 5,598,840 us 5,709,664 us 5,951,519 US 6,588,427 B 1 US 7,047,972 B2 US 7,066,178 B2 US 2007/0221228 Al US 2008/0060653 Al US 2008/0178875 Al US 2009/0050156 Al US 7,640,933 Bl US Appl. No. 12/377,801 WO 2008/106716 Al REJECTIONS Nov. 4, 1980 Dec. 5, 1995 Feb.4, 1997 Jan.20, 1998 Sept. 14, 1999 July 8, 2003 May 23, 2006 June 27, 2006 Sept. 27, 2007 Mar. 13, 2008 July 31, 2008 Feb.26,2009 Jan.5,2010 Aug.31,2010 ( § 3 71 ( c) date) Sept. 12, 2008 The Non-Final Office Action includes the following rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a): 1. Claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-29, 33, 35-50, 53, 57-68, 91, 92, 109, 112- 114, 122, 127, and 128 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss and Gunaratnam. 2. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, and Hallett. 3. Claims 14 and 111 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, and Ho '228. 5 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 4. Claim 15 stands rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, Ho '228, and Ho '933. 5. Claims 30-32 and 34 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, and Ng. 6. Claims 51, 52, 55, 56, and 110 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, and Ging. 7. Claim 54 stands rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, and Henry. 8. Claim 69 stands rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, and Iund. 9. Claims 70 and 77 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, Iund, and Utterberg. 10. Claims 71-73 and 76 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, Iund, and Scozzafava. 11. Claim 83 stands rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, Iund, and Carlsen. 12. Claims 93 and 94 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam, and Vandenbroek. 13. Claims 115-119, 123-126, 129, 130, and 132-135 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss and Sink. The Non-Final Office Action also includes the following rejection under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting: 14. Claims 115-119, 123-126, 129, 130, and 132-135 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over then-pending claim 73 of the '801 application in view of Sink. 6 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 ANALYSIS First Ground of Rejection: Unpatentability over Veliss and Gunaratnam As to independent claim 1, the Examiner found that V eliss discloses a patient interface system substantially as recited in the claim, including flexible patient interface structure 12 having cylindrical protrusions 88, frame 14 having a pair of cylinders 112, headgear 16, and air delivery tube 11. Non-Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner acknowledged, "Veliss does not disclose each outer cylindrical protrusion comprises a shoulder having a diameter larger than the cylinders of the frame." Id. at 4. The Examiner turned to Gunaratnam to demonstrate that, in the respiratory mask art, it was known at the time of the invention to include a shoulder (retaining ring 29) on a connector, where the shoulder has a diameter larger than the cylinders of another respiratory component (mask shell 15), to prevent movement of the components relative to each other in an assembly direction. Id. at 5. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cylindrical protrusions 88 of Veliss to include a shoulder, as taught by Gunaratnam, "in order to provide a means of securing the cylindrical protrusions to the mask frame." Id. at 6 ( citing Gunaratnam, col. 5, 11. 34-38); see also id. at 43 (Examiner stating that the proposed modification would have been obvious "to provide an additional means of securing the cushion to the frame"). Appellants argue that if one of ordinary skill were to apply the "retaining ring" teaching of Gunaratnam to V eliss' s mask, the teaching of Gunaratnam would have suggested adding the retaining ring to Veliss' s elbow, and not to Veliss's cylindrical protrusions. Appeal Br. 8-9. In keeping with this assertion, Appellants argue that the Examiner's reason for 7 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 modifying Veliss' s cylindrical protrusions with Gunaratnam' s retaining ring is insufficient. Id. at 10-12. The Examiner responds that it would have been obvious to provide a shoulder to the cylindrical protrusion of Veliss "to provide an additional means of securing the cushion to the frame, as it would be a predictable use of using a connection known in the respiratory art in a known application." Ans. 40. The Examiner's reasoning falls short of articulating a reason why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to add a shoulder to the cylindrical protrusions of Veliss for securing these protrusions to the mask frame. In particular, Veliss describes a connection between the cushion and frame, and the Examiner fails to explain why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to provide an additional means of securing these components. The Examiner alludes to "additional benefits in providing additional securing means" (Ans. 40), but the Examiner does not elaborate on what such additional benefits would be or why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve these additional benefits through modification to Veliss. Veliss describes that each cylindrical protrusion 88 comprises an inner cylinder 96 and a substantially concentric an outer cylinder 98. Veliss ,r 136. Inner cylinder 96 and outer cylinder 98 are joined at an end closest to frame 14 by a thin membrane 102 that, by virtue of its flexibility, allows inner cylinder 96 to be substantially decoupled from outer cylinder 98. Id. ,r,r 13 6-13 7. Groove 108 disposed on the outer surface of elbow 18 mates with rib 104 on the inner surface of inner cylinder 96 when the two are joined to fix elbow 18 in inner cylinder 96. Id. ,r 139. Thus, elbow 18 and air delivery tube 11 are substantially decoupled from cushion 12. Id. 8 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 According to Veliss, "[ t ]he decoupling mechanism is also supported by the [frame] 14 since the outer cylinders 98 of the cushion 12 are snugly seated in respective, relatively rigid cylinders 112 provided in the [frame] 14." Id. ,r 141; id. ,r 143 ( describing that frame 14 "acts as an exoskeleton" adjacent cushion 12). Veliss describes that "[i]n use, the rigid cylinders 112 may be flexed outwardly to receive the cylindrical protrusions 88 and then released to mechanically lock the cushion 12 to the [frame] 14." Id. ,r 147 (emphasis added). Veliss further describes that cushion 12 can rotate with respect to frame 14 by virtue of the fact that cylindrical protrusions 88 can rotate within rigid cylinders 112, which allows the patient a greater range of movement without disrupting the seal of the mask. Id. Thus, Veliss describes that once cylindrical protrusions 88 are inserted into rigid cylinders 112, cushion 12 is locked to frame 14. Veliss identifies no reason to further secure cushion 12 to frame 14 or a reason to further limit movement between cylindrical protrusions 88 and rigid cylinders 112. Gunaratnam teaches retaining ring 29 for rotatably coupling end 28 of connector 10 to rigid mask shell 15. Gunaratnam, col. 5, 11. 34-36. The other end of connector 10 is connected to gas supply conduit 31. Id. at col. 5, 11. 28-36, Fig. 2. Connector 10 of Gunaratnam corresponds to Veliss's elbow 18, which also connects a gas supply conduit 11 to a mask (cushion 12). As noted above, Veliss already teaches using a mating groove and rib on the outer surface of the elbow and on the inner surface of the inner cylinder 96 to couple elbow 18 to cushion 12. Gunaratnam teaches an alternate technique, using a retaining ring, in lieu of the mating groove and rib, to mate these elements. We agree with Appellants that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ this alternate 9 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 technique taught in Gunaratnam on Veliss's elbow 18. The Examiner has not adequately explained, however, why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led by the prior art to add a retaining ring to the outer surface of cylindrical protrusion 88. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 2, 3, 6-13, 16-29, 33, 35-50, 53, 57-68, 91, 92, 109, 112-114, 122, 127, and 128, as unpatentable over Veliss and Gunaratnam. Second through Twelfth Grounds of Rejection: Unpatentability over Veliss, Gunaratnam, and additional references The second through twelfth grounds of rejection are directed to claims that depend from claim 1 and similarly rely on the proposed modification of Veliss's cylindrical protrusions with Gunaratnam's shoulder. Non-Final Act. 17-30. The Examiner does not rely on the cited additional references to cure the above-noted deficiency in the base combination of Veliss and Gunaratnam. For these reasons, we also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 30-32, 34, 51, 52, 54-56, 69-73, 76, 77, 83, 93, 94, 110, and 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thirteenth Ground of Rejection: Unpatentability over Veliss and Sink Appellants argue the claims subject to this ground of rejection as a group. Appeal Br. 14-17. We select independent claim 115 as the representative claim, and dependent claims 116-119, 123-126, 129, 130, and 132-135 stand or fall with claim 115. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). As to claim 115, the Examiner found that Veliss discloses the headgear substantially as recited in this claim, including disclosing a quick release buckle configured to connect one end of the lower rear strap to allow quick release of the lower rear strap. Non-Final Act. 30-31. The Examiner 10 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 acknowledged that Veliss does not disclose the quick release buckle comprises a tab and is configured to connect and release the lower rear strap from the lower finger of the reinforcing member when a pulling force is applied to the tab. Id. at 31. The Examiner found that Sink teaches quick release buckle 38 comprising tab 42 where pulling the tab releases hook member 40 of buckle 38. Id. at 31-32. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify the quick release buckle of Veliss to allow quick release of the lower rear strap by way of a pulling force applied on a tab on the buckle as taught in Sink, "in order to allow the buckle to be engaged with a single hand while allowing for precise adjustment of the strap." Id. at 32. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in applying the teachings of Sink to the mask of Veliss because (1) Sink is not analogous art, (2) one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had any reasonable expectation of success in incorporating Sink's locking member into Veliss's headgear, and (3) one of ordinary skill would not have modified Veliss for the reason provided by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 14-17. Analogous Art As to the first contention, two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellants address both criteria. We disagree with the Examiner's determination that Sink is from the same field of endeavor as Appellants' 11 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 invention. Sink relates to a lacing or strapping system for a shoe. Sink, col. 1, 1. 8. Appellants' invention relates to headgear for a respiratory mask assembly. Spec. ,r,r 9, 29-30. Sink's shoelace strapping system is not structurally similar to the claimed headgear. For instance, Sink's strapping system does not include straps for extending about a patient's head, and Sink' s shoelace strapping system is not suitable for attaching a respiratory mask to a patient's head. Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner that Sink is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem facing Appellants. Appellants' Specification discusses means to adjust lower rear strap 136, rear straps 6, and upper straps 8 to provide a comfortable fit with cushion 12 in sealing engagement with the patient's face. Spec. ,r 160. The Specification further describes that the headgear adjustment points are conveniently arranged and adjustable as the parent or clinician is face-to- face with the child patient. Id. The Specification also discloses quick release buckle 80 to provide "a quick and easy way to attach or remove the respiratory mask assembly 10." Id. ,r 161. Quick release buckle 80 comprises slot 82 configured to accept a strap of the headgear and hook 84 connected to quick release buckle 80 by section 86. Id. Tab 94 is provided for a person to grasp quick release buckle to attach or remove the respiratory mask assembly 10 from the patient. Id. Thus, the problem facing Appellants was to provide headgear that was easy to adjust and to provide a buckle that was easy to connect and disconnect to attach and remove the mask assembly to and from the patient. Sink discloses "a shoe lacing system employing a lace or strap with an improved fastener means." Sink, col. 1, 11. 8-10. Sink describes that a 12 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 problem with traditional shoe lacing systems is that "two hands and manual dexterity are required to adjust and tie the laces," which makes this system "difficult to use for the very young, those with dexterity problems, or those who have only one available hand." Id. at col. 1, 11. 23-27. Sink discusses that prior attempts to create a shoe lacing system for single hand closure and having a single, reliable and precise adjustment means have not been totally successful. Id. at col. 2, 11. 1--4. Sink identifies a need in the shoe lacing art for a shoe lacing system that (1) is readily and precisely adjustable by an adjustment means, (2) has a first locking means to positively lock the adjustment means in the precisely adjusted position of the lacing strap, and (3) has a second locking means for positive locking of the adjusted lacing strap. Id. at col. 2, 11. 20-26. Sink describes that once the lacing strap has been adjusted and securely locked by the first positive locking means, a second positive locking means, comprising a hook member, engages with an eye member on the shoe to lock the strap in place. Id. at col. 2, 11. 47-51. Sink describes that this second positive locking means "may be engaged and disengaged by the single hand of a user." Id. at col. 2, 11. 60-62. As such, Sink presents a unitary adjustment and locking means 38 which allows a user to adjust the length of the strap and lock the strap into place at the adjusted length, and which allows a user to engage and disengage the hook to the eye member on the shoe using a single hand. Id. at col. 3, 1. 54 - col. 4, 1. 28. As shown above, Sink addresses a strapping system, the length of which can be precisely adjusted and locked in place, where one end of the strap can be connected or disconnected to a shoe by the user using a single hand. Thus, Sink' s system addresses the problems of adjustability of the 13 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 length of the strapping system and easy attachment and release of the buckle. These are the same problems of adjustability and easy attachment and release facing Appellants in devising a headgear system for an infant, as detailed above. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the teachings of Sink are reasonably pertinent to the problem facing Appellants. Reasonable Expectation of Success Appellants further contend the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of Veliss and Sink because the lower strap and rigid member of Veliss' s headgear are not anchored to anything so that "the movable connection of Veliss will likely react differently to a particular force than the stationary connection of Sink." Appeal Br. 14-15. Appellants further contend, "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill would have understood that the stationary aspect of the connection is critical for achieving a 'precise adjustment' with the locking member 38." Id. at 15. Appellants fail, however, to provide any evidence to support these assertions. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 ( CCP A 197 4) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence."). We agree with the Examiner's determination that reinforcing members 22 of Veliss's headgear are designed to provide increased rigidity to stabilize the mask. Ans. 44 ( citing Veliss ,r 165). Veliss discloses that "[t]his increased rigidity stabilizes the mask 10 on the patient's face providing a more stable and continuous seal." Veliss ,r 165. Based on this description, we further agree with the Examiner's determination that lower finger 134 of reinforcing member 22 is not freely movable and one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success 14 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 in employing Sink' s quick release fastening system to the lower fingers and rear strap of Veliss's headgear. Ans. 44. Reason to Combine The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify Veliss to use the quick release locking member of Sink to allow the locking member to be engaged with a single hand while allowing for precise adjustment of the strap. Non-Final Act. 32. Appellants assert that this reasoning is insufficient because one of ordinary skill would have understood that the stationary aspect of the connection is critical for achieving a precise adjustment with Sink's locking member. Appeal Br. 15. As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner's determination that one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood Veliss' s reinforcing members 22 to be designed so as not to be freely moveable. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to applying Sink's quick release locking member as the quick release buckle on Veliss' s headgear for the reasons provided by the Examiner. For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not identified error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 115 as unpatentable over Veliss and Sink. Claims 116-119, 123-126, 129, 130, and 132-135 fall with claim 115. Accordingly, we sustain the thirteenth ground of rejection. Fourteenth Ground of Rejection: Obviousness-type Double Patenting The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 115-119, 123-126, 129, 130, and 132-135 based on obviousness-type double patenting in view of then-pending claim 73 of U.S. Application No. 12/377,801 ("the '801 application") in view of Sink. Since the date of the Non-Final Action, 15 Appeal 2017-011330 Application 13/097,501 Applicants have amended the claims of the '801 application, and the '801 application subsequently issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,981,102. Because the circumstances surrounding the '801 application have changed since the Examiner made the double patenting rejection in the instant application, we decline to reach this rejection, and leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the obviousness-type double patenting rejection is proper in light of the issued claims of the patent. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-73, 76, 77, 83, 91- 94, 109-114, 122, 127, and 128 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 115-119, 123-126, 129, 130 and 132-135 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. We do not reach the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 115-119, 123-126, 129, 130 and 132-135. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 16 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation