Ex Parte Kamath et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

13460018 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/460,018 04/30/2012
6147 7590 11/02/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vidya Pundalik Karnath
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.
251547-4 I 120718-01701 7643
EXAMINER
VALDEZ,PATRICKF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIDY A PUNDALIK KAMA TH, ZHENGYU PANG, and
BRION DARYL SARACHAN
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.
TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
for displaying expression levels of two or more biomarkers in biological
tissue, which have been rejected as obvious. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as the General Electric
Company. (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 We note that the subject matter of this application is similar to that of
Application 13/460, 100, which is the subject of Appeal No. 2017-004722,
the claims of which were rejected as being directed to patent ineligible
subject matter and as obvious. In a decision issued simultaneously herewith,
we affirm both the rejection of the claims on appeal in Appeal No. 2017-
004722, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter and as obvious.
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
"Examination of tissue specimens that have been treated to reveal the
expression of biomarkers is a known tool for biological research and clinical
studies." (Spec. 1) "Commonly the treated tissue is examined with digital
imaging and the level of different signals emanating from different
biomarkers can consequently be readily quantified." (Id.)
A technique has further been developed which allows testing a
given tissue specimen for the expression of numerous
biomarkers. Generally, this technique involves staining the
specimen with a fluorophore labeled probe to generate a signal
for one or more probe bound biomarkers, chemically bleaching
these signals, and re-staining the specimen to generate signals
for some further biomarkers.
(Id.) "Digital images of the specimen are collected after each staining step."
(Id.) The claimed invention "leverage[ s] multiplexed biomarker images that
are generated through known techniques such as staining-bleaching-
restaining" (id. at 9), "allow[ing] users [ of a graphical interface] to review
complex image and analysis data corresponding to multiple patients,
multiple tissue fields-of-view and/or multiple biomarker data in a structured
yet flexible and user-friendly manner (id. at 15).
Claims 1-9 and 12-24 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for displaying expression
levels of two or more biomarkers in biological tissue, the
method comprising:
rendering a graphical user interface on a visual display device;
rendering, on the graphical user interface, a field of view
selection component allowing a user to select a field of view
within a set of registered multiplexed biomarker images
2
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
capturing expression of a plurality of biomarkers in the same
sample of biological tissue, wherein each multiplexed
biomarker image of the same sample of the biological tissue
depicts expression levels of different biomarkers at least at the
cellular level;
receiving user input, at the field of view selection component of
the graphical user interface, selecting a respective field of view
common to each of the multiplexed cells and corresponding to a
subset of cells within the multiplexed biomarker images;
rendering, on the graphical user interface, a biomarker selection
component allowing a user to select a first biomarker and a
second biomarker from among the plurality of biomarkers
having a corresponding image in the multiplexed biomarker
images of the selected field of view;
rendering, on the graphical user interface, a biomarker
expression level selection component allowing a user to select a
first biomarker expression level criterion for the selected first
biomarker and a second biomarker expression level criterion for
the selected second biomarker;
receiving user input, at the graphical user interface, selecting
the first biomarker, the first biomarker expression level
criterion, the second biomarker, and the second biomarker
expression level criterion;
in response to the user input, automatically identifying those
cells or sub-cellular structures within the field of view having
concentrations of the first biomarker meeting the first
biomarker expression level criterion and concentrations of the
second biomarker meeting the second biomarker expression
level criterion; and
3
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
rendering a view of at least the subset of cells, wherein the view
highlights the identified cells or sub-cellular structures within
the field of view where both the first biomarker expression level
criterion and the second biomarker expression level criterion
are met.
(Appeal Br. 21-22.)3
The following grounds of rejection by the Examiner are before us on
review:
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Younes, 4 Sarachan, 5 Schoenmeyer, 6 and Holmes. 7
Claims 2-5, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, and Bousamra. 8
Claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, Ericson, 9 and Bousamra.
Claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, Ericson, Bousamra, and Pyrce. 10
Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Younes,
Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, and Kolatt. 11
3 All references to the Appeal Brief refer to the brief dated September 22,
2016.
4 Younes et al., US 8,693,743, issued Apr. 4, 2014.
5 Sarachan et al., US 2011/0091091 Al, published Apr. 21, 2011.
6 Schoenmeyer et al., US 2013/0156279 Al, published Jun. 20, 2013.
7 Holmes et al., An Interactive Java Statistical Image Segmentation System:
Gemident, 30(10) Journal of Statistical Software 1-20 (2009).
8 Bousamra et al., US 2012/0286953 Al, published Nov. 15, 2012.
9 Ericson et al, US 2007/0168154 Al, published Jul. 19, 2007.
10 Pyrce et al., US 2006/0031187 Al, published Feb. 9, 2006.
11 Kolatt et al., US 2010/0177942 Al, published Jul. 15, 2010.
4
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Younes,
Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, Heinemann, 12 and Najm. 13
DISCUSSION
Obviousness
The Examiner finds that Younes teaches a computer implemented
method for displaying expression levels of one or more biomarkers in a
biological tissue sample in a field of view using a graphical user interface
(GUI). (Final Action 3-5.) The Examiner explains that Younes discloses
rendering two images from two thin layers that are proximate each other in a
tissue sample and have been stained for different biomarkers and overlaying
them to observe co-expression ofbiomarkers on a per-cell basis. (Id.) The
Examiner further notes that Younes teaches that instructions are stored in
memory to cause the processor to obtain the different images of the tissue
sample so that they can be analyzed to identify portions of the tissue sample
that are positive for the various biomarkers in a selected field of view. (Id.)
The Examiner further notes that where a positive result is identified by the
processor that is an automatic identification of cells within the field of view
that has the biomarkers of interest. (Id. at 4--5.)
The Examiner acknowledges that Younes does not teach the
multiplexed biomarker images are generated from the same sample of the
biological tissue by staining, bleaching, and restaining but that such would
have been obvious in light of the teachings of Sarachan. (Final Action 5-6.)
The Examiner notes that Sarachan is in the same field of endeavor as
12 Heinemann, US 2009/0327906 Al, published Dec. 31, 2009.
13 Najm, US 2011/0202624 Al, published Aug. 18, 2011.
5
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
Younes but teaches a method of sample image collection of biomarkers in a
tissue in which the same sample of biological tissue is stained, images,
bleached, stained again, and reimaged. (Final Acton 6.) The Examiner
explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
use Sarachan's disclosed process for obtaining images of tissue sample to
"make the most efficient use of biological tissue samples that may be rare
and/or extremely difficult to obtain." (Id.)
The Examiner also acknowledges that Younes does not expressly
teach that the field of view selection component provides for a user to select
a field of view within a set of registered multiplexed images or that the field
of view selection component of the GUI receives user input selecting a field
of view that is common to each of the multiplexed images (Final Action 6),
or providing a biomarker selection component on the GUI (Final Action 7).
However, the Examiner finds that these selection components and their use
would have been obvious from the teachings of Schoenmeyer, which is also
in the same field of endeavor of Younes. (Id. at 7-8.) The Examiner notes
that Schoenmeyer teaches a field of view selection component that generates
sub-images that would include a subset of cells that allows physicians to
compare the biomarker staining in cancerous tissue. (Id. at 6-7.) The
Examiner further notes that Schoenmeyer teaches a show/hide feature to be
able to selectively visualize biomarkers. (Id.) The Examiner explains that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ these
selection features to "mak[ e] it easier for a user to analyze biomarker
expression data by allowing said user to actively interact with displayed
information by changing not only what is displayed but also how said
information is displayed." (Id.)
6
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
The Examiner recognizes further that Younes in combination with
Sarachan and Schoenmeyer does not expressly disclose providing on the
GUI a biomarker expression level selection. (Final Action 7.) The
Examiner contends that such would have been obvious from the teachings of
Holmes which describes a computerized statistical classification method
where a user trains the system to recognize a user identified expression level
criteria. (Id. at 7-8.) The Examiner explains that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such a feature in the
Y ounes/Sarachan/Schoenmeyer combination to "mak[ e] it easier for a user
to experiment with and analyze biomarker expression data by allowing said
user to actively interact with displayed information by changing not only
what is displayed but also how said information is displayed."
We agree with the Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of
obviousness.
One of Appellants' disagreements with the Examiner's rejection is
based on an unwarranted narrow interpretation of the Younes reference.
Appellants contend that Younes teaches away from using the Sarachan
staining, bleaching, restaining process. According to Appellants, this is so
because Younes states, "' [ i ]n one or more embodiments of the invention,
inherent error associated with tagging multiple biomarkers on the same
sample is eliminated or minimized by first tagging biomarkers separately on
separate slices, and then performing the co-expression analysis on a per-cell
basis.' Younes col. 4, lines 49-53." (Appeal Br. 13.)
We agree with the Examiner that Younes does not teach away from
using the Sarachan process for collecting images from a single sample for
analysis where that single sample has been stained for biomarkers, imaged,
7
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
bleached and, then, restained and imaged again. (Ans. 10-12.) It is
certainly true that Younes teaches there is inherent error in tagging multiple
biomarkers on the same sample, but such a concern is likely because
multiple biomarker stains on the same tissue sample at the same time before
imaging could interfere with one another. (Id.) Younes' solution to avoid
the interference problem is to stain different slices differently and then to
stack those slices and analyze whether the multiple stains are in one cell or
not, which the Examiner calls the analysis on the per-cell basis. (Id.)
Younes does not counsel against using another solution that would avoid
biomarker interference. Such a process is described by Sarachan. (Id.)
Furthermore, using the Sarachan process in which images are taken of the
same tissue sample after each different staining provides a set of images that
do not need to undergo the complex, computationally intensive steps
requiring the registration (i.e. warping and/or alignment calculations to align
spatial locations of cellular structures (Younes 12 :41-13: 5)) of tissue sample
images that is required by Younes in order to ensure that samples imaged
intersected the same cell, and thus the biomarker analysis is correctly
effected on a per-cell basis. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Sarachan
process of staining-imaging-bleaching-restaining-imaging of the same tissue
sample to collect biomarker image sets to analyze the tissue sample on a per-
cell basis, and would have done so for the advantage of avoiding the
complexity of the Younes alignment process when separate slices of a tissue
sample are stained with the hope that at least some of the cells of the
samples will be the same in each stained slice.
8
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
Appellants also argue that the Examiner improperly relies upon
Holmes' teachings of the training module of Gemldent that is for Color
Adjustment because the user guide for Gemldent disclosed in Kapelner 14
teaches that when images are obtained using a microscope that separates the
chromagens by using special optical filters, such as is how the samples are
imaged in Sarachan, the Color Selection panel for color adjustment is
removed. (Appeal Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 2-3.) We do not find this
argument persuasive because, as indicated by the Examiner (Ans. 3---6), the
rejection is not one that requires the image set to have been collected using
the multi-spectral imaging system employed by Sarachan. Rather, the
rejection relies upon the substitution of Younes' staining different slices of a
tissue sample with the alternative Sarachan process of staining, imaging (by
any particular means, including devices that do not spectrally filter),
bleaching, restaining and imaging again. Consequently, where imaging is
accomplished using a generic digital camera to obtain color/grayscale
images, which Younes teaches may be used (Younes 8:4--14), the Color
Adjustment panel would not be turned off. Thus, we do not agree that it was
improper for the Examiner to have relied upon the Color Adjustment feature
of Holmes in the obviousness rejection.
Finally, Appellants argue that the references in combination do not
teach the final step of claim 1, rendering a view that highlights the identified
cells or sub-cellular structures within the field of view where both the first
biomarker expression level criterion and the second biomarker expression
14 Kapelner et al., Gemldent 1.0 user manual, available at
www.Gemident.com, 2007.
9
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
level criterion are met. (Appeal Br. 11-12.) Appellants assert that "Younes
fails to disclose any color coding based on user-defined biomarker
expression levels." (Id. at 11.) In particular, Appellants contend that in the
one embodiment that Younes discloses color coding may apply to the
captured images, Younes "at best discloses that the color coding applies to
cells within a biomarker category, [ e.g.,] cells that express certain
biomarkers may be color coded." (Id.) As to Holmes, Appellants assert that
Holmes' classification training tool is for "pixel-based analysis" and,
"[ a ]lthough Holmes permits each phe[ n ]otype to be defined by a particular
color, there is no disclosure that Holmes' pixel color coding highlights based
on expression level." (Id. at 12.) Thus, according to Appellants, "even if
Holmes' color adjustment were applied to Younes, the modification would
yield a pixel-based color coding, and not a cell or subcellular structure based
color coding." (Id.) We do not find this argument persuasive.
Appellants' argument that Younes by itself does not provide this
feature is not persuasive as one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As to Appellants' "even if' argument, we note that argument is premised on
Holmes' phenotype training rather than the customization of the chromagen
signal in the first instance prior to phenotype training, which phenotype
training can associate a different selected color to a particular cell type that
may contain more than one chromagen stain ( e.g., one identifying the
nucleus of a cell, as well as whether the cell is a T-cell, for example). For
the reasons discussed above, we conclude Appellants' position that Younes,
10
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
as modified by Sarachan, would not include chromagen customization is not
well founded.
Regarding chromagen customization in Holmes, as the Examiner
explains, Holmes teaches chromagen color adjustment provides for a user to
correlate expression level of the biomarker with the chromagen in the
chromagen training. (Final Action 8 ( discussing Figure 8 's "Color
adjustment" panel attributes and the fact that "[i]n multispectral image sets,
each individual chromagen signal can be customized" and noting that "[ t ]he
display color can be chosen arbitrarily and the range of signal to be
displayed can also be varied" (quoting Holmes section 3.2)).) The Examiner
does not rely on phenotype training of Holmes for the expression level
selection component of the claim. Claim 1 's recitation of "rendering, on the
graphical user interface, a biomarker expression level selection component
allowing a user to select a first biomarker expression level criterion for the
selected first biomarker and a second biomarker expression level criterion
for the selected second biomarker" and "receiving user input, at the
graphical user interface, selecting the first biomarker, the first biomarker
expression level criterion, the second biomarker, and the second biomarker
expression level criterion" does not exclude the user interactive chromagen
training of Holmes which necessarily involves the user setting expression
levels of the biomarker that are within the corresponding selected
chromagen color. As Kapelner ("which is the product manual for the
software program disclosed in Holmes" (Reply Br. 3, emphasis omitted))
indicates, once the training set has been prepared for the relevant color, it is
hardwired into the system so that it can be used later in classification.
(Kapelner 3 .1.4)
11
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
As the Examiner explained (Final Action 4--5; Ans. 7), Younes
teaches a system that renders images of the stained sample in response to
user input in light of instructions that are stored in memory. (Younes 2-3,
13, and 15). Moreover, Younes teaches that categories of expression may be
color coded so that cells within each category are colored on the
captured/processed images enabling the operator to examine individual cells,
and also notes that with respect to the color correlation, the displayed colors
could be user controlled such that certain combination or expressions can be
turned off. (Younes 13.) We agree with the Examiner, that in light of these
teaching and Holmes' teachings regarding chromagen training, the image
view rendered would be a subset of cells that highlights cells within the field
of view meeting the biomarker expression level criterion required by claim
1.
Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, and Holmes.
Appellants rely on the foregoing arguments in contesting the
Examiners rejection of claims 21 and 22 under this same grounds. (See
Appeal Br. 10 (referring to claims 1 and 21), and 12-13 (referring to claims
1 and 22). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive for the reasons
discussed. Consequently, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Younes,
Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, and Holmes.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 16 have not been argued separately and
therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
12
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
Appellants have also not provided separate argument as to the
rejection of:
claims 2-5, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes,
and Bousamra (see Appeal Br. 13-14)
claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, Ericson, and
Bousamra (see Appeal Br. 17-18)
claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, Ericson, Bousamra,
and Pyrce (Appeal Br. 18).
For the reasons discussed, therefore, we also sustain each of these
grounds of rejection by the Examiner.
Claim 8
The Examiner finds that the combination of Younes, Sarachan,
Schoenmeyer, and Holmes does not explicitly teach where an image of the
highlighted cells rendered from a first image identifies the cells with a first
color for one biomarker and a more transparent version of that color for the
remainder of the image. (Final Action 17.) The Examiner contends,
however, that this aspect of the image as taught by the combination of
references would have been obvious in light of the discussion in Kolatt that
staining tissue components affects the transparency of the tissue. (Final
Action 17 ( citing Kolatt ,r,r 100, 101 ). ) The Examiner explains that Younes
teaches obtaining an image of stained tissue sample and the staining results
in positive cells with a distinctive color and negative cells "either not
appreciably stained or of less intensity (with respect to color) compared to
identified 'positive cells"' and that "Younes further discloses 'a first image
in a first color' and 'a second image in a second color'." (Ans. 15.) The
13
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
Examiner notes that although Younes does not "expressly disclose the
notion of 'transparency' associated with color," Kolatt makes it clear that
"staining of tissue samples affects the transparency of the biological
elements and the intensities of the pixels." (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion.
Appellants disagree with the Examiner's position because according
to Appellants "Younes and Kolatt . . . disclose conventional staining
techniques in which non-identified cells are not rendered in a more
transparent version of a color, but are simply devoid of the color" and that
Younes "is silent with regard to any transparency, and transparency and
intensity are not interchangeable." (Appeal Br. 14--15.) We do not find this
argument persuasive. There is no dispute that Younes and Kolatt teach
conventional staining. Such staining is not precluded by claim 8. As the
Examiner noted, Younes teaches that in some cases the negative cells are
stained less intensely than the cells of interest. (Younes 7:46-53.) Claim 8
requires simply that the identified cells have a first color and the remainder
of the image in which those cells are identified have a more transparent
version of the first color. As Kolatt explains, when a stain is associated with
a specific part of cell elements in the nuclear matter, the cytoplasm is more
transparent than the nuclei of the stained cell. (Kolatt ,r 101.) The Examiner
notes that Younes teaches that the intensity correlates to the level or
abundance of the specific biomarker in the cell. (Younes 7 :46-5 3.) In
combination with Kolatt's teaching that where elements are stained they are
less transparent than elements that are not stained, we agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
Younes cells that are positive for the stain because of abundance of the
14
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
biomarker would be less transparent than the cells that are negative and may
be stained less intensely or not at all. Consequently, the remainder of the
image in which identified cells have a first color would be more transparent
than the positively identified cells of that image.
For the reasons discussed, therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 8 over Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer,
Holmes, and Kolatt.
Claim 14
The Examiner recognizes that the combination of Younes, Sarachan,
Schoenmeyer, and Holmes does not disclose a background image selection
component for a user to select and wherein the background image is an
underlay, as required by claim 14. The Examiner contends, however, that
such a feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
light of Heinemann and Najm. (Final Action 18.) The Examiner recognizes
that the field of Heinemann is supporting brand assets in social networking,
but it, nevertheless, concerns background image selection on a GUI without
the need to use a command line. (Id.) The Examiner relies on Najm for
teaching that the background can be an underlay on which other images can
be stacked. (Id. at 18-19.) The Examiner explains that the use of such
background images as underlays would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide increased flexibility of analyzing result
mask images.
Appellants contest the Examiner's rejection because they contend that
Najm is non-analogous art. (Appeal Br. 15-16.) We disagree. It is true, as
Appellants note, that Najm's background image selection on a GUI as an
underlay is used in the context of organizing electronic greetings and
15
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
electronic scrapbooking, as compared to the claims which are directed to
imaging of biological samples. (Appeal Br. 16.) However, as the Examiner
indicates (Ans. 16-17), Appellants' invention is concerned with visualizing
collections of computer-generated images and managing those images for
sharing on a screen, as is Najm. We agree with the Examiner that
in attempting to solve the problem of efficiently preparing and
managing a stack of displayed images, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to search for a solution in a
field concerned with the creation and management of a series of
images (i.e. a stack of images) for displaying and sharing with
others; Najm teaches such methods,
and is therefore analogous art. (Id. at 17.)
For the reasons discussed, therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 14 over Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer,
Holmes, Heinemann and Najm.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Younes, Sarachan,
Schoenmeyer, and Holmes.
We affirm the rejection of claims 2-5, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, and
Bousamra.
We affirm the rejection of claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, Ericson, and
Bousamra.
16
Appeal2017-006470
Application 13/460,018
We affirm the rejection of claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, Ericson,
Bousamra, and Pyrce.
We affirm the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, and Kolatt.
We affirm the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Younes, Sarachan, Schoenmeyer, Holmes, Heinemann,
and Najm.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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
17