Ex Parte Eggers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

13403790 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/403,790 02/23/2012 Mitchell Donn Eggers
27500 7590 04/03/2018
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP (CV)
ATTENTION: DOCKETING DEPARTMENT
P.O BOX 10500
McLean, VA 22102
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.
048723-0420329 4761
EXAMINER
SIMPSON, SARAH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
Docket_IP@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MITCHELL DONN EGGERS
Appeal2017-000845
Application 13/403,790 1
Technology Center 3700
Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, DEBORAH KATZ, and
ELIZABETH A. LA VIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
LA VIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant seeks review of the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 15-18, 22-24, and 26-3 7. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S. C. § 6(b ). For the reasons set forth below, we
AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The Specification describes "an absorbable vascular filter deployed
within a vessel for temporary filtering of body fluids," particularly for
1 Appellant states the real party in interest is Adient Medical, Inc. Appeal Br.
2.
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
placement within the inferior vena cava (IVC) to temporarily prevent
pulmonary embolisms. Spec. if 2.
Claim 1 is representative:
1. An absorbable filter configured for intra vena cava
deployment through the femoral or jugular vein comprising:
a circumferential element for attaching or securing the filter to a
vessel, wherein the circumferential element provides sufficient
radial force to maintain placement in a vessel, the
circumferential element being made from an absorbable
material; and
a plurality of absorbable capture elements affixed to the
circumferential element for capturing or retarding substances
flowing in the vessel for a limited duration in time;
wherein the circumferential element is characterized by a frrst
lattice spacing and the absorbable capture elements are
characterized by a second lattice spacing, the frrst lattice
spacing being smaller than the second lattice spacing; and
wherein individual ones of the plurality of absorbable capture
elements are linked with adjacent absorbable capture elements
to establish the second lattice spacing.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).
APPEALED REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 15-18, 22, 23, 26-32, and 34--36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable overHyodoh, 2 Greenhalgh, 3
and Mackiewicz. 4 Final Action 2-3.
2 Hyodoh et al., US 2003/0040771 Al, published Feb. 27, 2003.
3 Greenhalgh et al., US 2008/01198 86 Al, published May 22, 2008.
4 Mackiewicz, US 2009/0187210 Al, published July 23, 2009.
2
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
2. Claims 24 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hyodoh, Greenhalgh, Mackiewicz, and Alt. 5
Final Action 11.
3. Claim 37 standsrejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as unpatentable
over Hyodoh and Mackiewicz. Final Action 12.
DISCUSSION
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)6 if the differences
between the claimed subject matter "and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious" to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of invention. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000 ed. and Supp. IV)). The
question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of skill in the art; 7 and, ( 4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations, including commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs,
5 Alt, US 6,159,142, issued Dec. 12, 2000.
6 "The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA frrst to invent
provisions." Final Action 2.
7 The level of ordinary skill in the art often is evidenced by the references
themselves. See Okajimav. Bourdeau, 261F.3d1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
Inre GPACinc., 57F.3d 1573, 1579(Fed.Cir. l995);Inre0elrich, 579F.2d
86, 91 (CCP A 1978). That is the case here: the level of ordinary skill is not a
point of contention between the Appellant and the Examiner, and we discern
no outcome-determinative issue in this matter that turns on it. Accordingly,
need not address this issue further.
3
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
failure of others, and unexpected results. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
A. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues all of the claims together. See
generally Appeal Br. 6-22. Accordingly, we treat claim 1 as representative.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2011).
1. Hyodoh: parti ally-absorbable embolic fl lter
The Examiner fmds that Hyodoh teaches an absorbable filter for vena
cava deployment in accordance with claim 1, with two exceptions. See
generally Final Action 3-5 (citing Hyodoh iii! 54, 212-213, 293, 309, Fig.
52). Figure 52 ofHyodoh is reproduced below:
Flfl .52
Figure 52 ofHyodoh depicts a barbless stent filter with base 402, mid-
portion 404, dome 406, struts 408, and hook 410. Hyodoh iii! 311, 313.
4
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
The two elements of claim 1 found by the Examiner to be not fully
supported Hyodoh are (1) the "circumferential element being made from an
absorbable material" and (2) the "linked" nature of the plurality of individual
absorbable capture elements. See Final Action 3--4.
2. Greenhalgh: absorbable circumferential element
The Examiner acknowledges that "Hyodoh fails to specifically state
that the circumferential element ( 402) is made from a fully absorbable
material." Final Rejection 3. As such, the Examiner turns to Greenhalgh, as
teaching "a filtering device that may be entirely biodegradable." Id. at 4
(discussing Greenhalgh if 40). The Examiner fmds that it would have been
obvious to modify Hyodoh's circumferential element (base 402) by making
it from a fully absorbable material as taught in Greenhalgh, to "allow the
filter to degrade over time, leaving no trace of the device left in the body
after treatment has occurred." Id.
First, we address Appellant's argumentthat Greenhalgh is not
analogous art. See Appeal Br. 14--17; Reply Br. 5. We do not fmd this
analysis persuasive, because Appellant defmes the field of endeavor too
narrowly. As the Examiner fmds, the relevant field "encompasses 'an
absorbable filter,"' and that"[ w ]hile the filters of the present invention and
that of Greenhalgh may be placed in different locations throughout the body,
both are ultimately embolic filters and serve the same purpose, to capture or
retard emboli (see para. [0003] of Greenhalgh)." Ans. 6. Thus, we conclude
that Greenhalgh "logically would have commended itself to an inventor's
attention in considering [their] problem," Innovention Toys, LLCv. MGA
Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re
5
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which, in this case, was the
incomplete biodegradability of embolic filters.
Appellant does not dispute that Greenhalgh teaches a fully
biodegradable device. Rather, accordingto Appellant, the issue is that
Greenhalgh's device has a "completely different purpose ... and design"
(Appeal Br. 11) from those of the claimed invention and H yodoh; therefore
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to look to
Greenhalgh in trying to modify the base ofHyodoh (id. at 11-12). More
Specifically, Appellant asserts:
[T]he Greenhalgh device is not even a device to be placed in a
vessel, nor a device in which a circumferential element provides
sufficient radial force to maintain placement in a vessel.
Instead, the Greenhalgh device serves to correct septal defects
by preventing the undesired passage of emboli from a venous
pool to an arterial blood pool. [see, e.g., Greenhalgh, iii! 3, 7, 8,
39.], by essentially plugging a hole in the cardiac wall between
venous and arterial pools such as in an atrial septal defect
(ASD) like a patent foramen ovale (hole between the right
atrium (venous pool) and the left atrium (arterial pool)). In
contrast to the claimed absorbable filter which allows blood to
flow through it while in the vessel, the Greenhalgh device
serves to occlude/block blood flow.
Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellant also relies on the allegedly "completely
different purpose and ... design" (id. at 13) of Greenhalgh as a basis to
argue that the rejection is the product of impermissible hindsight (id. at 13-
14; see also Reply Br. 4--5).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Greenhalgh is cited
for a very narrow proposition, i.e., "to teach fully absorbable filters are well
known in the art." Ans. 4. Indeed, Greenhalgh teaches that its fully-
biodegradable embolic filters (Greenhalgh if 40) can be made of polyglycolic
6
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
acid (PGA) (id. at iii! 44, 75, 212-213). Hyodoh also teaches biodegradable
filaments made from PGA. Hyodoh if 32. 8 Further, as the Examiner points
out, "[ w ]hile the embolic filter of Greenhalgh is not placed directly into a
vessel, it is fully absorbable (see para. [0040]) and maintains its position
when implanted." Ans. 4. Thus, the gap between Hyodoh and Greenhalgh
is a narrow one: use materials already described in Hyodoh to make
Hyodoh's partially-biodegradable embolic filter into a fully-biodegradable
one, such as by making the base 402 in Hyodoh out ofPGA. Appellant's
assertion that Greenhalgh's device would not provide "sufficient radial force
to maintain placement in a vessel" (Appeal Br. 10) is unsupported attorney
argument, and is further unpersuasive because it fails to distinguish whether
such alleged insufficient radial force of Greenhalgh' s device would be due to
the use of fully biodegradable materials per se or some other feature. 9
Indeed, Hyodoh recommends PGA for its "high strength and stiffness,"
useful in maintaining vessel patency or providing scaffolding. Hyodoh
if 213. 10 Accordingly, on the evidence before us, we fmd that the differences
in placement of the embolic filters described in Greenhalgh (within the
8 PGA is not the only biodegradable material common to Hyodoh and
Greenhalgh. Compare Hyodoh if 32, 213 with Greenhalgh if 44, 75.
9 For example, Hyodoh describes that alteration in the mesh tightness of the
base 402 affects the radial force and thus the ability of the base to anchor the
filter within a vessel. Hyodoh if 309.
10 The exemplary embodiments discussed in paragraph 213 of Hyodoh are
stents, not embolic filters. However, as Hyodoh makes clear elsewhere
(including in the immediately preceding paragraph) that embolic filters can
likewise be made from biodegradable filaments (including PGA), the
discussion in paragraph 213 helps illuminate H yodoh' s teachings regarding
the known properties of PGA(i.e., strength and stiffness).
7
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
cardiac wall) versus Hyodoh (within a blood vessel) are not so great as to
negate their commonalities and relevance to one another, or to render their
combination an exercise in impermissible hindsight. Therefore, we discern
no reversible error in the Examiner's fmding (see Ans. 4) that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Greenhalgh to modify Hyodoh
to achieve a fully degradable filter.
3. Mackiewicz: "linked" capture elements
As to the "linked" capture elements, the Examiner fmds that
"[a ]lthough individual ones of the plurality of absorbable capture elements
of Hyodoh are woven with adjacent absorbable capture elements to establish
the second lattice spacing (fig. 52), Hyodoh fails to disclose that the capture
elements are linked." Final Action 4. Instead, the Examiner relies on the
structures for body lumen filters disclosed in Mackiewicz:
However, Mackiewicz teaches a filter wherein individual ones
of a plurality of capture elements (228) are woven with adjacent
capture elements (fig. 2B) and an additional embodiment with a
filter wherein individual ones of a plurality of capture elements
(244) are linked with adjacent capture elements (fig. 2C). Thus,
the linked pattern is used as an alternative to the woven pattern.
Id. at 4--5. The Examiner fmds that using the linked pattern of Mackiewicz
instead of the woven pattern of Hyodoh would have been obvious "to
establish the second lattice spacing" of the individual adjacent absorbable
capture elements, and that doing so would have been a matter of "the
substitution of one known element for another equivalent element would
have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention." Id. at 4--5.
Appellant argues that Mackiewicz features a different design and
purpose compared to the claimed invention, insofar as Maciewicz's embolic
8
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
filter uses a central aperture in the narrow middle section of its hourglass-
like shape to capture emboli, not the linked pattern along the walls of the
wider parts of the hourglass. See Appeal Br. 12 (discussing Mackiewicz
if 55, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5); Reply Br. 4. Appellant's argument is not persuasive
because it ignores the possibility that both the linked elements of the
hourglass walls and the aperture in the middle of the hourglass are filters.
We agree with the Examiner that Mackiewicz contemplates using the linked
elements for filtration:
As disclosed by Mackiewicz, the filter includes a plurality of
filter elements interconnected together such that "the filter body
has a plurality of apertures disposed between and defined by the
interconnected filter elements, the apertures extending from an
external surface to an internal surface of the filter body and
being dimensioned so as to inhibit a thrombus of a selected size
from passing through the apertures and being dimensioned so as
to allow blood components smaller than the selected size to
pass through the apertures" (see para. [0022] of Mackiewicz).
Ans. 4--5. Accordingly, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner's
fmding that "the linked pattern of Maciewicz is designed to capture or retard
emboli in the same manner as the filter of the present invention." Id. at 5.
4. Cottenceau: teaching away
Whether the prior art teaches away from the claimed combination is a
"subsidiary" consideration within the scope of the first Graham factor.
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. DeutschlandKGv. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, Appellant argues that Cottenceau, 11
which is not cited by the Examiner as part of the appealed rejections,
amounts to a "clear and unambiguous teaching away ... from replacing a
11 Cottenceauetal., US 5,375,612,issuedDec. 27, 1994.
9
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
metal support hoop or member with an absorbable material" in an embolic
filter used in a blood vessel. Appeal Br. 17. Specifically, Cottenceau
(which generally describes filters for placement in the vena cava
( Cottenceau 1: 14--21)) states that "it is considered a priori inappropriate to
use an absorbable material" for the portion of the filter that holds it in place
(id. at 4:32-33). Cottenceau further notes that if "the central sieving part is
made from a biologically absorbable material, the risks of migration of the
external structure (here assumed to be unabsorbable) will be very limited"
(id. at 2:23-26).
As Appellant indicates (see Reply Br. 6), Cottenceau is relevant
evidence, despite not being cited as part of the rejection, as the teachings of
the prior art must be considered as a whole. See Ari osa Di agnostics v.
Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Randall Mfg. v.
Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2013). However, teaching away is a
matter of degree, and depends on the particular facts. See In re Gurley, 27
F.3d551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Although strident, Cottenceau's
admonitions rely on assumptions, not cited data. Further, Cottenceau issued
in 1994, long before the other references were published or the present
application was filed. For this reason, and because Cottenceau is not relied
upon by the Examiner as part of the present rejection, Cottenceau is some
evidence of the state of the prior art well beforethe time of the invention (in
1994), but not necessarily of the state of the prior art at the time of the
invention. In contrast, Greenhalgh, published in 2008 and cited as part of
the rejection, is more exemplary of the state of the prior art at the time of the
invention. Accordingly, on these facts, we are not persuaded that
Cottenceau's negative, but much older, assumptions about biodegradable
10
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
supports are outweighed by Greenhalgh's subsequent acceptance offully-
biodegradable structures in similar devices, especially given that Hyodoh
and Greenhalgh use the same absorbable materials, such as PGA.
B. Differences between the Claimed Subject Matter and the Prior Art
As discussed above, we fmd that Hyodoh, Greenhalgh, and
Mackiewicz together teach or suggest all of the elements of claim 1, as
arranged in the claim. However, the point of combination of Hyodoh and
Greenhalgh, i.e., using a biodegradable circumferential element (as taught in
Greenhalgh) in a venacava filter (as taught in Hyodoh), is the very thing
Cottenceau cautions against. Thus, we acknowledge that Cottenceau slightly
weakens the motivation to combine Hyodoh and Greenhalgh to arrive at the
absorbable vena cava filter having a "circumferential element being made
from an absorbable material" as recited in claim 1, insofar as Cottenceau is
evidence that, at some point in the past, there were concerns about the safety
of fully-biodegradable vena cava filters. But we are not convinced that
Cottenceau' s earlier warnings are sufficient to overcome Greenhalgh' s more
contemporaneous acceptance of fully-biodegradable materials, and
Hyodoh's use of biodegradable materials such as PGA for at least the
filaments of its vena cava filters and for maintaining vessel patency in stents.
Accordingly, we fmd that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 1.
C. Secondary Considerations (ObjectivelndiciaofNonobviousness)
"[W]hen secondary considerations are present, though they are not
always dispositive, it is error not to consider them." In re Huai-Hung Kao,
639F.3d1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011). However, "[fJorobjectiveevidence
11
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent
must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed
invention." Id. at 1068 (quotation omitted). Furthermore, "there is no nexus
unless the evidence presented is reasonably commensurate with the scope of
the claims." ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838F.3d1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (quotation omitted).
Appellant proffers the Eggers Declaration 12 as evidence of long-felt,
unsolved need in the art, and of skepticism by experts. See Appeal Br. 19-
22. The tested device in the Eggers Declaration is an "absorbable filter
comprised of a circumferential element and a capture basket are made from
absorbablematerial," specifically, polydioxanone. Eggers Deel. 5. The
Eggers Declaration compares its bioabsorbable filter to several"[ c ]urrently
used standard of care metal filters" (id. at 2) made from metal alloys instead
of absorbable polymers (id. at 2-3).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's response to the Eggers
Declaration was insufficient, in violation ofMPEP § 716.0l(B). See Appeal
Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 6-7. The Examiner, however, states expressly
that the Eggers Declaration was "fully considered," and explains why it was
found unpersuasive. Ans. 7. Any alleged inadequacies in the depth of the
Examiner's review of the Eggers Declaration cannot alleviate Appellant of
its burden to establish evidence of secondary considerations (see Kao, 639
F.3d at 1068) and to explain that evidence (see Ex parte Ishizaka, 24
USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (BP AI 1992) ("[ A]ppellants have the burden of
12 Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 ofMitchell Donn Eggers, Ph.D. (Dec.
22, 2014).
12
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-
obviousness. ") ).
After careful review of the Eggers Declaration, we fmd that Appellant
has not carried its burden of demonstrating the required nexus between the
evidence presented therein and the claimed invention. Claim 1 places no
limitations on the type of "absorbable material" used for the claimed filter.
The Specification explains that the circumferential elements and capture
elements may be made of absorbable materials (see Spec. iii! 55, 65), and
lists several exemplary materials (see id. iii! 56---62) including polydioxanone
(id. if 56) as well as Dexon, which is "made from polyglycolic acid and
coated with polycaprolate" (id. if 59). Notably, there are no claims on appeal
limited to filters made of polydioxanone. To the contrary, "polydioxanone"
appears in the appealed claims only in certain dependent claims (not
depending from claim 1 ), as part of Markush groups reciting materials for
the circumferential and/or capture elements. For example, claim 22 depends
from claim 15 (which itself, similar to claim 1, recites an absorbable filter
having an "absorbable circumferential element" and an "absorbable capture
basket" (Appeal Br. 25-26)), and further recites "wherein the
circumferential element is fabricated of absorbable materials selected from
the group consisting of polydi oxanone, polytrimethylene carbonate,
polyglactin, polyglycoli c acid, poly L lactic acid, poliglecaprone,
polyglytone, or polylacticoglycolic acid" (id. at 27 (emphases added)).
Claim 1 's embrace of any "absorbable material" is problematic
because, as discussed above, both Hyodoh and Greenhalgh teach the use of
the absorbable material PGAin their respective devices, and it would have
been obvious to modify Hyodoh's base 402 by making it out of PGA as
13
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
suggested by Greenhalgh. Thus, claim 1 includes within its scope an
obvious variant (i.e., a filter having circumferential and capture elements
made from PGA). Whether a different variant also within the scope of the
claim is not obvious (i.e., a filter having circumferential and capture
elements made from polydioxanone, as discussed in the Eggers Declaration)
cannot rescue the claim as a whole, at least not on the facts before us.
In some cases, evidence regarding a single embodiment can be
sufficient to support a fmding that such evidence is commensurate in scope
with the claims. See Kao, 639 F.3d at 1068 ("If an applicant demonstrates
that an embodiment has an unexpected result and provides an adequate basis
to support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim
will behave in the same manner, this will generally establish that the
evidence is commensurate with scope of the claims."). However, we do not
fmd the Eggers Declaration to be sufficient in this regard because Appellant
points to no evidence of record to show how filters made of other absorbable
materials within the scope of claim 1 would perform, i.e., whether filters
made from other materials would likewise overcome expert skepticism
and/or solve the purported long-felt need. 13 Thus, whether the Eggers
Declaration supports the conclusion that the particular fl lter tested is
superior to the prior art metal filters is beside the point, because the Eggers
Declaration does not provide sufficient evidence or analysis from which we
13 Indeed, were Appellant to suggest drawing such an inference, doing so in
the absence of more data would be directly at odds with Appellant's position
taken in regard to the motivation to combine the cited references, that is, the
alleged inadvisability in the prior art of making a fully-biodegradable vena
cava filter.
14
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
can discern whether other filters within the scope of claim 1 would function
similarly. For example, the Eggers Declaration does not offer evidence or
analysis as to whether the reported success (e.g., in terms of safety or
dissolvability) ofits fully-degradable filter is due to the selection of
polydioxanone (instead of other absorbable materials), the different lattice
spacing between the circumferential element and the capture element, the
linkages among adjacent capture elements, or some combination of these
and/or other features. 14 Ifwe infer that the success of the tested filter is due
to the use of polydioxanone, then the Eggers Declaration evidence is not
commensurate in scope with claim 1. If we infer that the success of the
tested filter is due to some other factor or combination of factors, we engage
in guesswork. In either case, Appellant has not carried its burden to
establish a nexus between the evidence presented in the Eggers Declaration
and the scope of claim 1.
D. Conclusion
As discussed above, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner's
prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. To the limited extent that
Cottenceau's distant warnings against fully-biodegradable vena cava filters
can be said to erode the strength of that prima facie case, ultimately there is
nothing against which to weigh it. This is because Appellant's proffered
evidence of long-felt, unsolved need and skepticism by experts lacks an
14 The Eggers Declaration refers to the relative "surface area density" of the
circumferential element and the capture element (Eggers Deel. 6), but never
expressly mentions "lattice" spacing or how the elements are "linked."
15
Appeal 2017-000845
Application 13/403, 790
adequate nexus to the claimed subject matter, and therefore is not entitled to
substantial weight.
Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as obvious over
Hyodoh, Greenhalgh, and Mackiewicz is affirmed. Claims 15-18, 22, 23,
26-32, and 34--36 are not argued separately, and fall with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We thus affrrm Rejection 1 in its entirety.
Appellant does not separately argue Rejections 2 or 3, and the claims subject
to these rejections depend from independent claims subject to Rejection 1.
As such, for similar reasons and those of record, we affrrm Rejections 2 and
3.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1, 15-18, 22-24, and 26-37 are affrrmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
16