Ex Parte Arnitz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2018

13524760 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/524,760 06/15/2012
124540 7590 11/13/2018
Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. (DC)
Woodard, Ernhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP
111 Monument Circle, Suite 3700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Theo Arnitz
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.
007804-000025 27186 us 7121
EXAMINER
PRICE, NATHAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/13/2018 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):
pair_roche@firsttofile.com
DocketDept@uspatent.com
meg.ward@roche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THEO ARNITZ
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LISA M. GUIJT, and BRENT M. DOUGAL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Theo Arnitz (Appellant) 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8, 11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 25-36. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Roche Diabetes Care,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 6, 7, 17, 18, and 21-24 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Appeal Br. 24--27 (Claims App.). No other claims are pending.
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A device for the dosed dispensing of a fluidic medium, the
device comprising:
a housing;
at least one transporting and transferring container,
wherein the transporting and transferring container has at least
one reservoir for receiving the fluidic medium, the reservoir
has at least one displaceable element, wherein the reservoir is
movably mounted in relation to the at least one displaceable
element, and wherein a relative positioning of the displaceable
element in relation to the reservoir determines an interior space
of the reservoir available for receiving the fluidic medium;
at least one energy unit, wherein the at least one energy
unit subjects the reservoir to a force so that the fluidic medium
is under increased pressure, wherein the energy unit is
configured to move the reservoir;
at least one measuring element, wherein the measuring
element is configured to sense the relative positioning of the
displaceable element in relation to the reservoir and configured
to sense a relative positioning of the reservoir in the housing;
and
at least one adjusting element for influencing the
dispensing of the fluidic medium by way of at least one fluid
connection to the interior space;
wherein the measuring element and the adjusting element
interact so that the dispensing of the fluidic medium is
influenced by the relative positioning sensed by the measuring
element; and
wherein the reservoir is movably mounted in the housing
and wherein the displaceable element is fixedly coupled to the
housing.
2
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 31, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite.
II. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 13-16, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 3 29, and 31-36
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Shekalim (US 2003/0216683 Al, published Nov. 20, 2003),
Donovan (US 8,257,310 B2, issued Sept. 4, 2012), and
Bochenko '972 (US 8,385,972 B2, issued Feb. 26, 2013).
III. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Shekalim, Donovan, Bochenko '972, and Sidler
(US 2005/0159708 Al, published July 21, 2005).
IV. Claims 27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Shekalim, Donovan, Bochenko '972, and
Bochenko '659 (US 2010/0204659 Al, published Aug. 12, 2010).
DISCUSSION
Re} ection I-Indefiniteness
Appellant does not present any substantive arguments challenging the
merits of the rejections of claims 31, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite. See Appeal Br. 11. Rather, Appellant states
an intention to amend these claims to address the source of the indefiniteness
after the appeals process concludes. Id. Thus, Appellant has waived any
argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejections of claims 31, 35,
3 The Examiner inadvertently omitted claim 28 from the statement of this
rejection, but expressly addressed claim 28 in the detailed explanation of the
rejection. Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d
975, 984, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the Board did not err in
sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when the
applicant failed to contest the rejection on appeal).
Rejection II-Obviousness
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 13-16, 19, 20, 25, 28, and 29
The Examiner found that Shekalim discloses a dosing device as
claimed including, in pertinent part, structure (shown in Figure 4)
corresponding to both the claimed "housing" and the claimed "transporting
and transferring container," a reservoir within the housing/container
structure, at least one energy unit ( the spring shown in Figures 1 and 6), at
least one measuring element (pressure measurement system 22) for
calculating remaining volume in the reservoir, and at least one adjusting
element (valve 16). Final Act. 3. The Examiner found that Shekalim does
not disclose the reservoir being movable in relation to the housing or a
volume measuring element that senses a relative positioning of the reservoir
in the housing. Id.
The Examiner found that Donovan discloses a reservoir volume
measuring element ( optical sensor 140) that senses the positioning of a
displaceable element in relation to the reservoir and determined it would
have been obvious to use a position displacement sensor in Shekalim as an
art-recognized alternative means of determining remaining volume. Final
Act. 4. The Examiner also reasoned that Donovan's optical sensor would be
a desirable means for determining remaining volume because it would yield
more accurate results over a wide range of pressure environments. Id.
4
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
The Examiner also found that Bochenko '972 teaches, as an
alternative to a syringe design having a displaceable plunger in a fixed
reservoir, a reverse syringe design in which the reservoir (medication
container 20B) is movably mounted in relation to plunger 25, which is
fixedly coupled to housing 4 and pressed against an abutment (the rod on
which plunger 25 is mounted) such that plunger 25 is pressed into the
reservoir. Id. ( citing Bochenko '972, Fig. 7 A); compare Bochenko '972,
Fig. 7 A, with id., Fig. 6A. The Examiner determined it would have been
obvious to further modify Shekalim by incorporating a reverse syringe
design as taught by Bochenko '972 as an obvious design choice and/or
obvious reversal of parts. Final Act. 4. According to the Examiner, "[ s ]uch
a fluid delivery design is an obvious art-recognized alternative, has the same
structure, and performs the same function, with the reservoir moving instead
of the plunger, absent any unexpected results." Id. The Examiner further
explained:
Id.
Once combined, the reservoir of Shekalim, Donovan, and
Bochenko ['972] would be movabl[y] mounted in a housing
and the measuring element would be capable of sensing a
relative position of the reservoir in the housing since it already
has been shown to sense the position of the reservoir relative to
the displaceable element and in the combination, the
displaceable element is fixed relative to the housing.
In summary, the Examiner's rejection proposes modifying Shekalim
by providing a relative displacement sensor for determining the remaining
volume in the reservoir and by reversing the arrangement of the plunger and
the reservoir so that the reservoir is defined by a structure movably mounted
5
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
within the housing and the plunger is fixedly coupled to the housing via an
abutment.
Appellant argues that Shekalim and Bochenko '972 teach using
pressure sensors or other flow sensors to determine the volume of fluid
dispensed and, thus, do not "disclose a measuring element 'configured to
sense a relative positioning of the reservoir in the housing' and 'wherein the
reservoir is movably mounted in the housing and wherein the displaceable
element is fixedly coupled to the housing"' as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br.
15-16. Appellant also argues that Donovan's volume sensor 140 measures
the relative position of a movable plunger tip, rather than the relative
position of the reservoir in a housing, and, thus, does not remedy the
asserted deficiency of Shekalim and Bochenko '972. Id. at 16. These
arguments do not apprise us of error because they attack the references
individually rather than as combined in the rejection. "Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant also argues that Donovan teaches away from using spatial
measurements in order to measure accurate volumes, and that Shekalim and
Bochenko '972 also teach using pressure sensors. Appeal Br. 16. In
particular, Appellant points out that Donovan teaches that the high pressures
involved in Donovan's application deform the syringe and tubing, leading to
inaccurate volume measurements by volume sensor 140 alone. Id. To
overcome this deficiency, Donovan teaches using compensation circuit 160,
which uses pressure measurements from pressure sensor 150 to compensate
6
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
for the measurement error of sensor 140. Id. at 16-1 7. Thus, Appellant
contends that Shekalim, Bochenko '972, and Donovan, even when
combined, teach away from using a spatial sensor ( a sensor that senses
relative positioning of a movable component) in order to determine volume
remaining in the reservoir. Id. at 17. For the reasons set forth below, we do
not agree with Appellant.
Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by
disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also
criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Shekalim uses a differential
pressure sensor for determining the remaining volume of liquid medicament
in the reservoir. Shekalim ,r 68. Bochenko '972 also uses a differential
pressure sensor for determining the volume of fluid delivered.
Bochenko '972 23:63-24: 15. However, Appellant does not identify any
disclosure in either Shekalim or Bochenko '972 that criticizes, discredits, or
otherwise discourages using a measuring element configured to sense the
positioning of the reservoir relative to fixed structure in the housing in order
to determine volume remaining in the reservoir.
Donovan explicitly teaches using a volume sensor that measures the
displacement of the plunger (i.e., the relative positioning of the plunger and
the reservoir) and, thus, does not teach away from using such a sensor.
Donovan 4:28-38. Donovan teaches that, for the particular system and
application contemplated by Donovan, such as dispensing of relatively
viscous bone cements, the higher pressures used to deliver the flowable
material cause system components to expand. Id. 2:7-33; 5:45--47.
Donovan also teaches that this system compliance can result in volume
7
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
measurement inaccuracy. Id. 5:45-56. Donovan provides compensation
circuit 160, which adjusts the value read by volume sensor 140 based on a
pressure reading from pressure sensor 150, in order to compensate for this
measurement inaccuracy. Id. 5:57----67. Appellant does not direct our
attention to any disclosure in Shekalim, Bochenko '972, or Donovan
suggesting that system compliance presents such a problem in Shekalim's
device, which is designed for delivery of liquid medicament, rather than a
relatively viscous bone cement. See Shekalim ,r,r 1, 10. Moreover, even if
system compliance would negatively influence volume measurement
accuracy in Shekalim's system, Donovan teaches a solution to this problem,
namely, providing a compensation circuit to compensate for such
inaccuracy. Further, as discussed above, Shekalim already includes a
differential pressure sensor, which could be used with such a compensation
circuit.
Appellant notes that Shekalim uses the differential pressure sensor to
perform other functions, such as detecting valve leaks and the like, in
addition to measuring fluid volumes, and, therefore, incorporating a different
volume measurement technique would destroy these intended functions of
the differential pressure sensor. Appeal Br. 21. This argument is not
convincing because Shekalim's differential pressure sensor need not be
eliminated in order to use a displacement sensor, such as taught by Donovan,
to measure reservoir volume. Rather, a displacement sensor as taught by
Donovan could be used in concert with the differential pressure sensor of
Shekalim, with each sensor being used to verify or compensate for
inaccuracies in the measurements of the other. See Final Act. 4 (the
Examiner reasoning that use of Donovan's optical sensor design would be
8
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
desirable in that it would yield more accurate results under some pressure
conditions). Merely by way of example, Shekalim teaches that a
discrepancy between the expected remaining drug volume and the remaining
drug volume as calculated from the differential pressure value indicates
either an occlusion in the system (if the pressure differential is lower than
expected) or a disconnected output connection (if the pressure differential is
higher than expected). Shekalim ,r,r 71, 72. A relative displacement sensor,
as taught by Donovan, for measuring volume independently of the
differential pressure measurement would be instrumental in identifying such
an occurrence.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant takes issue with the Examiner's
treatment of the claimed housing and container as being the same. Reply Br.
2; see Final Act. 3. Although the Examiner's statement that the two "appear
to [be the] same" (Final Act. 3) may be a bit imprecise, we appreciate the
Examiner's point. Appellant's illustration of transporting and transferring
container 114 in Figures IA and IB, with the lead line for element 114
pointing to the assembly including reservoir 116, spring 130, abutment 132,
and housing 124, suggests that housing 124 is part of transporting and
transferring container 114. Moreover, given the ordinary and customary
meaning of the term "container," it is reasonable for one to interpret
Appellant's housing 124 to be the "container," or at least part of the
"container," rather than a separate element discrete from the "container."
Thus, to the extent that the Examiner's statement conflating the "housing"
and the "container" may be inaccurate, we view this as harmless error.
Claim 1 recites "a housing," and also recites "at least one transporting
and transferring container," thereby suggesting that the "housing" is distinct
9
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
from the "transporting and transferring container." Appeal Br. 23 (Claims
App.). However, claim 1 cannot be read, consistent with Appellant's
Specification and drawings, as requiring two distinct containers or
housings. 4 To the extent that the "reservoir" in claim 1 requires a housing or
container for defining an interior volume for receiving the fluidic medium,
distinct from the claimed "housing," the structure resulting from the
modification of Shekalim to incorporate a reverse syringe design as taught
by Donovan, which includes a reservoir movably mounted within a housing,
includes a reservoir housing/ container structure distinct from the housing-
that is, a reservoir housing/container structure movably mounted within
reservoir 12 of Shekalim.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Shekalim, Donovan, and
Bochenko '972. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13-16, 19, 20, 25, 28, and 29, for which Appellant does
not present any separate arguments. Appeal Br. 17-20.
Claim 31
Claim 3 1 is indefinite, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner on
page 2 of the Final Action, which Appellant does not challenge (see Appeal
Br. 11 ). Having sustained a determination that claim 31 is indefinite, we
cannot sustain the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
to do so would require speculation as to the scope of the claims. See In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the Board erred in
4 In the event of further prosecution of the claimed subject matter, Appellant
may wish to consider amending claim 1 to more closely correspond to the
underlying disclosure in the Specification and drawings of the present
application by reciting the "housing" as a component of the "container."
10
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
affirming a rejection of indefinite claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
the rejection was based on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the
claims). It should be understood, however, that our decision in this regard is
based solely on the indefiniteness of the claimed subject matter, and does not
reflect on the adequacy of the prior art evidence applied in support of the
rejection.
Claim 32
Appellant argues that Shekalim and Donovan fail to disclose
measuring the relative position of a movable reservoir in a stationary
housing and that Bochenko '972 never mentions measuring volume by
measuring the relative position of the container. Appeal Br. 18. These
arguments do not apprise us of error because they attack the references
individually, rather than as combined in the rejection.
Appellant contends that modifying Donovan's volume sensor 140 to
satisfy the limitations of claim 32 would change its principle of operation
and "require significant and dramatic modifications in order to be
incorporated into the system described in Shekalim." Id. at 18-19.
Donovan's volume sensor 140 is used to determine the volume of fluid
dispensed from the reservoir by measuring the displacement of a movable
plunger relative to the reservoir. Donovan 4:28-38. Using sensor 140 to
measure the displacement of a movable reservoir relative to a stationary
plunger would not change its principle of operation. Whether the plunger is
the moving part or the reservoir is the moving part, Donovan's sensor 140
measures the displacement of the moving part relative to the fixed part in
order to determine the volume of fluid displaced. Further, Appellant does
not offer any evidence or persuasive technical explanation to support the
11
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
contention that incorporation of Donovan's volume sensor 140 into
Shekalim's system would "require significant and dramatic modifications."
Shekalim's system, like that of Donovan, includes a plunger and a reservoir.
Thus, incorporation of a sensor as taught by Donovan into Shekalim' s
system to measure the displacement of either of the plunger or the reservoir
relative to the other to determine the volume of fluid displaced from the
reservoir would seem to require nothing more than routine skill in the art.
Appellant also reiterates the argument that Donovan teaches away
from using spatial measurements to determine volume. Appeal Br. 19. This
argument does not apprise us of error, for the reasons discussed above.
Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of
claim 32 as unpatentable over Shekalim, Donovan, and Bochenko '972,
which we, thus, sustain.
Claims 33 and 34
Claim 33 depends from claim 32 and further recites that "the reservoir
includes a rim; and the measuring element is configured to sense the position
of the rim relative to the housing." Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.). In
rejecting claim 33, the Examiner read the claimed "rim" on Donovan's
volume sensor 140 because it is located around the reservoir. Final Act. 7.
Donovan's sensor 140 is located on the outside of reservoir 120, which is the
stationary component in Donovan's system, to measure displacement of the
plunger, which is the movable component in Donovan's system. Donovan
4:28-38. Even if Donovan's sensor 140 were considered to be a "rim"
around reservoir 120, as depicted, for example, in Donovan's Figure 2C, the
Examiner does not adequately explain how Donovan's sensor 140 would be
incorporated into Shekalim's system so as to be disposed on the reservoir
12
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
and sense its own position relative to the housing, as claimed. 5 Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 33, or claim 34, which depends from
claim 33, as unpatentable over Shekalim, Donovan, and Bochenko '972.
Claim 26
The Examiner's findings and reasoning in rejecting claim 26 are
substantially similar to those set forth in rejecting claim 1. See Final Act. 6-
7. Further, Appellant's arguments in contesting the rejection of claim 26 are
substantially similar to those set forth in contesting the rejection of claims 1
and 32. See Appeal Br. 20-21. For the reasons discussed above, these
arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 1 and 32, and,
likewise, do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 26.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable over
Shekalim, Donovan, and Bochenko '972.
Claims 3 5 and 3 6
Normally, when substantial confusion exists as to the interpretation of
a claim, and no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to the terms in a
claim, a determination as to compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not made.
See In re Steele, 305 F.2d at 862---63. However, in this instance, we consider
it to be desirable to address the rejections of claims 35 and 36 to avoid the
inefficiency of piecemeal appellate review. See Ex parte Ionescu, 222
USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984) (expressing the view that, where a claim is
subject to more than one interpretation, one of which would render the
5 The Examiner, correctly, points out that "[a]n end of a cylindrical
reservoir" is a "rim." Ans. 13. Thus, any cylindrical reservoir would have a
"rim," with or without Donovan's sensor 140 disposed thereon. However,
the Examiner persists in reading the claimed "rim" of the reservoir on sensor
140. Id.
13
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
claims unpatentable over the prior art, the USPTO should enter simultaneous
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 or§ 103, to avoid piecemeal appellate review). As discussed in more
detail below, Appellant's arguments presented with respect to claims 35 and
36 are directed to other aspects of the claims not involving the indefinite
language identified in the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and, thus, unlike the rejection of claim 31, we need not
speculate about the meaning of the indefinite language to consider the merits
of the disputed aspects of the rejection of these claims.
Appellant argues that "[ n Jone of the cited references disclose 'loading
the at least one transporting and transferring container into the medication
device with the fluidic medium under the increased pressure before said
using' as is required in claim 35, especially one in conjunction with claim
26's requirement that the reservoir moves." Appeal Br. 22. The Examiner
responds that the step of loading is performed when the device of Shekalim,
as modified by Donovan and Bochenko '972, is fully assembled. Ans. 15.
The Examiner also construes the "loading ... before said using" limitation
of claim 35 as "simply requir[ing] a pressurized state before using," but not
"requir[ing] that the reservoir be in a constantly pressurized state during
loading." Id. Appellant does not dispute this claim construction. See Reply
Br. passim. The Examiner finds that "the reservoir is inherently under some
pressure by virtue of the cartridge being sealed since the parameters of this
increased pressure have not been specified." Ans. 15.
Appellant does not present any persuasive argument explaining why
the Examiner's findings are in error. When Shekalim's device is fully
assembled, with the spring biasing the reservoir toward the plunger, in the
14
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
reverse syringe arrangement as taught by Bochenko '972, and outlet 14
sealed prior to use, and/or valves 16 and 20 closed, so that fluid cannot flow
out of the reservoir, the fluidic medium in the reservoir will be under
increased pressure from the force exerted by the spring.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 35 as unpatentable over Shekalim, Donovan, and
Bochenko '972, which we, thus, sustain.
Claim 3 6 depends from claim 3 5 and further recites "maintaining the
fluidic medium under the increased pressure for at least one month." Appeal
Br. 30 (Claims App.). In addressing this limitation, the Examiner reasoned
that the duration of maintaining the increased pressure is an obvious matter
of routine optimization. See Final Act. 8.
Appellant argues that none of the references discloses the
"maintaining" step recited in claim 36. Appeal Br. 22. This argument is
unavailing because it does not address the rejection set forth by the
Examiner, which does not include a finding that any of the references
discloses the recited "maintaining" step. In particular, Appellant does not
specifically contest the Examiner's determination that the duration of
maintaining the increased pressure is an obvious matter of routine
optimization. Moreover, the Examiner explains that Shekalim' s container is
under pressure from the force of the displaceable element acting on a sealed
reservoir and finds that one of ordinary skill in the art "would recognize that
medical devices are often stored for various lengths of time" prior to use,
with "one month simply being an example of any typical length of time, as
would be readily understood by one of ordinary skill." Ans. 15. Appellant
15
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
does not contest the Examiner's findings or reasoning in this regard. See
Reply Br. passim.
Appellant asserts that the reverse syringe design of Bochenko '972 "is
incapable of holding the increased pressure for a prolonged period of time
when stored away from its medication delivery apparatus." Appeal Br. 22.
This argument does not apprise us of error because it attacks Bochenko '972
individually, rather than as combined with Shekalim and Donovan in the
rejection.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 36 as unpatentable over Shekalim, Donovan, and
Bochenko '972, which we, thus, sustain.
Rejections III and IV--Obviousness
Appellant does not present any arguments specifically contesting the
rejections of claims 4, 27, and 30. See Appeal Br. 11-22. Thus, for the
reasons set forth above in addressing the rejection of claim 1, from which
claims 4, 27, and 30 depend, we also sustain the rejections of claims 4, 27,
and 30.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 31, 35, and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 13-16, 19, 20,
25, 26, 28, 29, and 31-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED as to
claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 13-16, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, and 36, and is
REVERSED as to claims 31, 33, and 34.
16
Appeal 2017-011477
Application 13/524,760
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 27 and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
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
17