Ex Parte Archer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2015

12264462 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/264,462 11104/2008
26384 7590 12/21/2015
NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
AS SOCIA TE COUNSEL (PA TENTS)
CODE 1008.2
4555 OVERLOOK A VENUE, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20375-5320
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marie J. Archer
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.
99189-USl 1215
EXAMINER
CROW, ROBERT THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1634
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIE J. ARCHER,
BAOCHUAN LIN, and DAVID A. STENGER
Appeal2013-004075 1
Application 12/264,462
Technology Center 1600
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involves claims to a method in
which target ribonucleic acid is hybridized to an immobilized single-
stranded nucleic acid probe. The Examiner rejected the claims for
obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
1 The Real Party in Interest is the Government of the United States of
America, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses "a general method for the selective
capture of RNA that can be used for either target enrichment or background
subtraction applications." Spec. i-f 14. The method uses a "magnetic bead-
based solid phase functionalized with a phosphorous dendrimer linker
disclosed in US Patent Application 11/751,096 that allows control of the
performance by changing the probe loading capacity." Id. The
Specification explains that the "thermal stability of the solid phase allows
the method to be performed in a single-step process and recovery of the
targets to be performed through heat denaturation which greatly reduced the
processing steps involved in performing the experiments." Id.
Claims 1-18 stand finally rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1--4, 6, 9, 12-15, and 17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Van Ness, 2 Yeh, 3 Sampath, 4 and Groebe5 (Final Action 2-
14);
(2) Claim 5, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Van Ness,
Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Trevisiol 6 (Final Action 14--15);
(3) Claims 7 and 8, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Szasz7 (Final Action 15-18);
2 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0077595 Al (published Apr. 24, 2003).
3 U.S. Patent No. 6,238,866 Bl (issued May 29, 2001).
4 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2007 /0248969 Al (published Oct. 25, 2007).
5 Duncan R. Groebe and Olke C. Uhlenbeck, Thermal Stability of RNA
Hairpins Containing a Four-Membered Loop and a Bulge Nucleotide,
28 BIOCHEMISTRY 742-747 (1989).
6 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2005/0214767 Al (published Sept. 29, 2005).
7 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2005/0186601 Al (published Aug. 25, 2005).
2
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
(4) Claims 9 and 10, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Lockhart8 (Final Action 18-21);
(5) Claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Archer9 (Final Action 21-23);
(6) Claim 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Denz 10 (Final Action 23-24);
(7) Claim 18, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Lesche 11 (Final Action 24--26);
(8) Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11-15, and 17, provisionally, on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of
copending Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath (Final
Action 27-28);
(9) Claims 4 and 9, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath and Van Ness (Final
Action 28-30);
(10) Claim 7, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath and Szasz (Final
Action 31-32);
8 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2002/0012940 Al (published Jan. 31, 2002).
9 Marie J. Archer et al., Magnetic bead-based solid phase for selective
extraction of genomic DNA, 355 ANAL. BIOCHEM. 285-297 (2006).
1° Christopher R. Denz and Dipak K. Dube, The benefits of 28S rRNAfor
standardization of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction for
studying gene expression, 341 ANAL. BIOCHEM. 382-384 (2005).
11 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2009/0298054 Al (filed Dec. 3, 2009).
3
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
(11) Claim 8, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath and Van Ness (Final
Action 32-34);
(12) Claims 9 and 10, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath, Van Ness, Lockhart,
and Groebe (Final Action 34--38);
(13) Claim 16, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath and Denz (Final
Action 3 8-39); and
(14) Claim 18, provisionally, on the ground ofnonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath and Lesche (Final
Action 39-41 ).
Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
providing a solid surface having a dendrimer molecule
bound thereto and a single-stranded probe nucleic
acid immobilized by covalent bonding to the
dendrimer;
contacting the solid surface with a sample suspected or
known to contain both a target ribonucleic acid
from a target organism and a background
ribonucleic acid from a background organism;
wherein the target ribonucleic acid 1s
complementary to the probe nucleic acid; and
wherein the background ribonucleic acid is not
complementary to the probe nucleic acid;
4
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
App. Br. 10.
denaturing the target ribonucleic acid and the background
ribonucleic acid at thermal conditions sufficient to
denature the target ribonucleic acids and the
background ribonucleic acid to produce denatured
ribonucleic acids while the sample is in contact
with the solid surface; and
incubating the sample to allow hybridization of the
denatured target ribonucleic acid to the probe
nucleic acids.
OBVIOUSNESS
In rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 9, 12-15, and 17 for obviousness over Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe, the Examiner cited Van Ness as
describing a process in which an oligonucleotide probe bound to a solid
surface was contacted with a target RNA, as recited in claim 1. Final Action
3. The Examiner found that Van Ness did not expressly describe the target
RNA as being denatured, as recited in claim 1, and cited teachings in Van
Ness, as well as Groebe, to show that an ordinary artisan would have been
prompted to ensure that the target RNA was denatured. Id. at 4--5.
The Examiner also cited Yeh as evidence that an ordinary artisan
would have considered it obvious to heat and denature the target RNA in
Van Ness's process in the presence of the solid support, as recited in claim
1, because doing so "would have resulted in a method having the added
advantage of allowing quantitative annealing [of] the [target RNA] analytes
to the probes as explicitly taught by Yeh et al (column 11, lines 19-27)." Id.
at 6; see also id. at 7 ("the known technique of denaturing target RNA
molecules in a sample that is in contact with a solid surface as taught by of
5
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
Yeh et al predictably results in a reliable denaturation step allowing reliable
hybridization of the target molecules to the immobilized probe molecules").
The Examiner conceded that, although both Van Ness and Yeh taught
that the target RNA in their processes was part of a complex mixture of
nucleic acid molecules, neither reference expressly taught that the analyte
was a first RNA from a target organism, and that there was a second RNA
from a background organism in the sample, as required by claim 1. Id. at 7.
To address that deficiency, the Examiner cited Sampath as teaching
"the known technique of selectively detecting the presence of a first RNA
from a first organism in the presence of a second RNA from a second
organism." Id. The Examiner reasoned that an ordinary artisan would have
considered it obvious in view of Sampath to modify Van Ness's method by
using a sample that included RNA from a background organism in addition
to RNA from a target organism because doing so "would have resulted in a
method having the added advantage of allowing detection data to be cleaned
up as explicitly taught by Sampath et al. (paragraph 0387)." Id. at 8.
Id.
The Examiner additionally reasoned:
[I]t would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the
known technique of detecting the presence of a target RNA
nucleic acid in the presence of a second RNA from a
background organism as taught by of Sampath et al could have
been applied to the method of Van Ness et al in view of Yeh et
al with predictable results because the known technique of
detecting the presence of a target RNA nucleic acid in the
presence of a second RNA from a background organism as
taught by of Sampath et al predictably results in a detection of a
specific nucleic acid in a complex sample.
6
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
As stated in In re Oetiker, 977F.2d1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability ....
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.
We select claim 1 as representative of the claims subject to this
ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Appellants' arguments do not
persuade us that a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the
Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 1.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not advanced a rationale
adequate to support the proposed combination of references, because the
references are non-analogous art. App. Br. 3--4. In particular, Appellants
contend, although Sampath discloses a sample containing RNA from a target
organism as well as RNA from a background organism, Sampath's objective
is to perform mass spectrometry on the mixture, "which is not relevant to the
methods of the Van Ness and Yeh. The mere existence of the RNA mixture
of Sampath does not render obvious the application of the methods of Van
Ness and Yeh to that mixture." Id. at 4. Moreover, Appellants contend,
"that a mass spectrometry analysis of the mixture was successful in Sampath
does not indicate that any other method, including the presently claimed
selective hybridization of target species RNA, would be successful with such
a mixture." Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred.
Van Ness describes methods of ascertaining the presence of target RNA
molecules in a biological sample by hybridizing the RNA from the sample to
7
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
immobilized nucleic acids having a sequence complementary to the target
RNA, as recited in claim 1. See Van Ness i-f 11. Van Ness explains that its
biological sample may be from a number of sources, including not only
tissue from living organisms, but also from the environment, for example
air, water, or solid samples. Id. at i-f 12. Yeh discloses that its nucleic acid
analysis methods may similarly use biological or environmental samples.
Yeh, 12:35-38.
Sampath, which is also directed to ascertaining the presence of a
target nucleic acid in a sample (see Sampath i-f 287), similarly discloses that
the samples it analyzes "may include both biological and environmental
samples" (id. at i-f 269). As the Examiner noted, Sampath discloses that
"nucleic acids from organisms other than those to be detected may be
present as background in a test sample." Id. at i-f 271.
Given Sampath's disclosure of using the same types of samples as
used in Van Ness and Yeh, and given Sampath' s disclosure that such
samples contain background nucleic acid from organisms other than the
target organism, Appellants do not persuade us that a preponderance of the
evidence fails to support the Examiner's conclusion that an ordinary artisan
would have considered it obvious that the samples of Van Ness and Yeh
would also contain RNA from a background organism that is not the target
orgamsm.
Appellants also do not persuade us (see App. Br. 4), that Van Ness,
Yeh, and Sampath are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
method. Like the method of claim 1, Van Ness and Yeh both describe
methods of ascertaining the presence of target RNA molecules in a
biological sample by hybridizing the RNA from the sample to immobilized
8
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
nucleic acids having a sequence complementary to the target RNA, as
recited in claim 1. See Van Ness i-f 11; Yeh, 11:20-38.
While Sampath may use mass spectrometry as a final tool in
identifying the target nucleic acid of interest, Sampath, nonetheless,
hybridizes known primers to target nucleic acid in its sample to obtain and
identify the target nucleic acid by amplification. See Sampath i-f 287
("Primers are selected to hybridize to conserved sequence regions of nucleic
acids derived from a [target] bioagent, and which bracket variable sequence
regions to yield a bioagent identifying amplicon, which can be amplified and
which is amenable to molecular mass determination.") (emphasis added).
Thus, while Sampath may have used the hybridizing reaction between its
primers and its target to amplify the target (see Reply Br. 2), Sampath,
nonetheless, like Van Ness and Yeh, uses hybridization to ascertain the
presence of a target nucleic acid, including RNA, in a tested sample.
Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us that the cited references are not
in the same filed of endeavor as the claimed method. We are, therefore, not
persuaded that the cited references are non-analogous art. See In re Klein,
647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (A reference is analogous prior art
when it is "from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed .... ") (emphasis added).
In sum, for the reasons discussed, Appellants' arguments do not
persuade us that a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the
Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 1. Because
Appellants do not advance any secondary evidence of nonobviousness, we
affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Van Ness, Yeh,
9
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
Sampath, and Groebe. Because they were not argued separately, claims 2--4,
12-15, and 17 fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
As to claims 6 and 9, Appellants argue that the Examiner erroneously
argued that those claims do not recite subtraction of background RNA.
Reply Br. 1-2 (citing Ans. 44:12-13). We are not persuaded.
In the Final Action, the Examiner explained that Van Ness met claim
6' s separation step by disclosing washing the sample lysate from the solid
support (Final Action 11 (citing Van Ness i-f 270)), and claim 9's thermal
elution step by disclosing heat denaturation to remove target from the array
(id. (citing Van Ness i-f 300)). Appellants do not direct us to any clear or
specific evidence suggesting that the Examiner erroneously found that Van
Ness teaches the features recited in claims 6 and 9. Accordingly, we also
affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 9 over Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe.
In rejecting claim 5 for obviousness, the Examiner relied on Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe for the teachings discussed above, and
cited Trevisiol as evidence that the dendrimer recited in claim 5 would have
been obvious to use when immobilizing a nucleic acid probe to a solid
support. Final Action 14--15.
Appellants contend only that the same arguments discussed above as
to the combination of Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe apply to the
rejection of claim 5. App. Br. 5. As discussed above, we do not find those
arguments persuasive. Accordingly, because Appellants identify no
deficiency in the Examiner's obviousness rationale as to claim 5, and
because we detect none, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
that claim.
10
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
In rejecting claims 7 and 8 for obviousness, the Examiner relied on
Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe for the teachings discussed above, and
cited Szasz as evidence that the analytical steps recited in claims 7 and 8
would have been obvious additions to the process suggested by the other
references. Final Action 15-18.
Appellants contend that the same arguments discussed above as to the
combination of Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe apply to the rejection
of claims 7 and 8. App. Br. 5. As discussed above, we do not find those
arguments persuasive.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner erroneously argued that
claims 7 and 8 do not recite subtraction of background RNA. Reply Br. 1-2
(citing Ans. 44:12-13). Appellants do not direct us, however, to any clear or
specific evidence suggesting that the Examiner erroneously found that Szasz
teaches the features recited in claims 7 and 8, nor do Appellants explain why
the Examiner erred in concluding that an ordinary artisan would have
considered it obvious to include the additional steps recited in claims 7 and 8
in the process suggested by the other references. Accordingly, because
Appellants identify no deficiency in the Examiner's obviousness rationale as
to claims 7 and 8, and because we detect none, we affirm the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of those claims.
In rejecting claims 9 and 10 for obviousness, the Examiner relied on
Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe for the teachings discussed above, and
cited Lockhart as evidence that the additional steps recited in claims 9 and
10 would have been obvious additions to the process suggested by the other
references. Final Action 18-21.
11
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
Appellants contend that the same arguments discussed above as to the
combination of Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe apply to the rejection
of claims 9 and 10. App. Br. 5. As discussed above, we do not find those
arguments persuasive.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner erroneously argued that
claims 9 and 10 do not recite subtraction of background RNA. Reply Br. 1-
2 (citing Ans. 44:12-13). Appellants do not direct us, however, to any clear
or specific evidence suggesting that the Examiner erroneously found that
Lockhart teaches the features recited in claims 9 and 10, nor do Appellants
explain why the Examiner erred in concluding that an ordinary artisan would
have considered it obvious to include the additional steps recited in claims 9
and 10 in the process suggested by the other references. Accordingly,
because Appellants identify no deficiency in the Examiner's obviousness
rationale as to claims 9 and 10, and because we detect none, we affirm the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of those claims.
In rejecting claim 11 for obviousness, the Examiner relied on Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe for the teachings discussed above, and
cited Archer as evidence that it would have been obvious to use
paramagnetic beads, as recited in claim 11, in the process suggested by the
other references. Final Action 21-23.
Appellants contend only that the same arguments discussed above as
to the combination of Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe apply to the
rejection of claim 11. App. Br. 6. As discussed above, we do not find those
arguments persuasive. Accordingly, because Appellants identify no
deficiency in the Examiner's obviousness rationale as to claim 11, and
12
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
because we detect none, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
that claim.
In rejecting claim 16 for obviousness, the Examiner relied on Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, for the teachings discussed above, and cited
Denz as evidence that it would have been obvious to use probes
complementary to the human 18S and 28S RNAs, as recited in claim 16, in
the process suggested by the other references. Final Action 23-24.
Appellants contend only that the same arguments discussed above as
to the combination of Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe apply to the
rejection of claim 16. App. Br. 6. As discussed above, we do not find those
arguments persuasive. Accordingly, because Appellants identify no
deficiency in the Examiner's obviousness rationale as to claim 16, and
because we detect none, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
that claim.
In rejecting claim 18 for obviousness, the Examiner relied on Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, for the teachings discussed above, and cited
Lesche as evidence that an ordinary artisan would have considered it
obvious to apply the process suggested by the other references to a sample in
which the amount of background RNA exceeds the amount of target RNA,
as recited in claim 18. Final Action 24--26.
Appellants argue:
[I]n Lesche, the background DNA is from the same organism as
the target. Detection is by distinguishing methylated
nucleotides from non-methylated nucleotides (0052), which is
not performed by hybridization and is unrelated to the methods
of the other references. The mere existence of the mixture of
13
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
Lesche does not render obvious the application of the methods
of Van Ness and Yeh to that mixture.
App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2 ("There is no teaching that the fraction upon
which hybridization is performed [in Lesche] is a mixture of target and
background RNA. Even if it does contain a mixture, the hybridization
technique would still not distinguish between normal RNA and tumor
RNA.").
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred.
The Examiner cited Lesche as describing "the known technique of detecting
trace amounts of a first target nucleic acid in the presence of an excess of
background nucleic acid" (Final Action 25), not as disclosing the specific
sample or purification technique that might be used in the methods described
in Van Ness. As the Examiner found, Lesche discloses that biological
samples used in molecular cancer screenings contain small amounts of target
DNA in larger amounts of background DNA. Lesche i-f 30 ("Blood based
molecular cancer screening assays are faced with the challenge to detect
minute amounts of tumor DNA in a background of normal DNA from other
tissues."). As the Examiner found also, Lesche used hybridization to assist
in its analysis of the RNA obtained from its sample. Id. at i-f 139 ("Detection
involves contacting the nucleic acids and in particular the mRNA of the
sample with a DNA sequence serving as a probe to form hybrid duplexes.").
Given these teachings, Appellants do not persuade us that a
preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner's conclusion--
that an ordinary artisan, testing the biological or environmental samples
described in Van Ness, Yeh, and Sampath, would have considered it obvious
to test a sample in which a target RNA was present in an amount less than
14
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
that of the background RNA, as recited in claim 18. That Lesche might have
ultimately used methylation as a marker for its RNA of interest (id. at i-f 52),
and used purification steps in addition to the hybridization steps used for
sequence detection (Reply Br. 2), does not negate Lesche's suggestion that
samples of type described in Van Ness, Yeh, and Sampath would have been
expected to contain background RNA in amounts in excess of the target
RNA. Accordingly, because Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that
a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner's prima facie
case, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 18.
OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
As noted above, the Examiner entered seven provisional rejections on
the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims
1-15 of copending Application Serial No. 11/751,096, in light of various
combinations of the Sampath, Van Ness, Szasz, Lockhart, Groebe, Denz,
and Lesche references. Final Action 27--41.
In response to each rejection, Appellants state only that "[a]s the
rejection is provisional, a response will be provided upon allowance of one
of the applications." App. Br. 7, 8, 9.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner's provisional
obviousness-type double patenting rejections. See MPEP § 1205.02
(Arguments and evidence not presented in an appeal brief "are waived for
purposes of the appeal and the Board may summarily sustain any grounds of
rejections not argued.")
15
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
SUMMARY
For the reasons discussed, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of:
(1) Claims 1--4, 6, 9, 12-15, and 17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, and Groebe;
(2) Claim 5, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Van Ness,
Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Trevisiol;
(3) Claims 7 and 8, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Szasz;
(4) Claims 9 and 10, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Van Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Lockhart;
(5) Claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Archer;
(6) Claim 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Denz;
(7) Claim 18, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Van
Ness, Yeh, Sampath, Groebe, and Lesche;
(8) Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11-15, and 17, provisionally, on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of
copending Application Serial No. 11/7 51,096 in view of Sampath;
(9) Claims 4 and 9, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath and Van Ness;
(10) Claim 7, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath and Szasz;
16
Appeal2013-004075
Application 12/264,462
(11) Claim 8, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath and Van Ness;
(12) Claims 9-10, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath, Van Ness, Lockhart,
and Groebe;
(13) Claim 16, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath and Denz; and
(14) Claim 18, provisionally, on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of copending
Application Serial No. 11/751,096 in view of Sampath and Lesche.
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
KRH
17