Ex Parte Lawton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

15002274 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/002,274 01/20/2016 David John William Lawton
76113 7590 09/20/2018
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP (Xerox)
XEROX CORPORATION
P .0 . 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.
2012027 6US02-444999 7842
EXAMINER
LAZARO, DOMINIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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 STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID JOHN WILLIAM LAWTON and
SANTIAGO FAUCHER1
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
Technology Center 1600
Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants state that the real party-in-interest is Xerox Corporation. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the combination of Blair et al. (US
2011/0150985 Al, June 23, 2011) ("Blair"), Yang et al. (US 2012/0003581
Al, January 5, 2012) ("Yang"), and Zale et al. (US 2010/0216804 Al,
August 26, 2010).
Claims 3, 4 and 20 also stand rejected as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Blair, Yang, Zale, and Chen et
al. (US 2006/0223934 Al, October 5, 2006) ("Chen").
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to porous nanoparticles. Abstr.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites:
1. Porous nanoparticles comprising:
a resin composition comprising at least one polyester resin
in the absence of an organic solvent, and
a surfactant;
wherein the porous nanoparticles have a particle size of
from about 50 nm to about 2 µm, a pore diameter of from about
20 nm to about 400 nm, and a surface porosity of from about 10%
to 60% of the surface of the porous nanoparticles.
2
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
App. Br. 13.
ISSUES AND ANALYSES
We are persuaded by, and expressly adopt, the Examiner's findings
and conclusions establishing that Appellants' claims are prima facie obvious
over the combined cited prior art. We address the arguments raised by
Appellants below.
A. Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 over Blair, Yang, and Zale
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had no motivation to combine the teachings of
Blair and Yang. App. Br. 8.
Analysis
The Examiner finds that Blair teaches: "[a] method for making a
pharmaceutical by emulsion aggregation, the method including emulsifying
a first pharmaceutical agent and a biodegradable resin to form a primary
emulsion of pre-aggregated particles in a slurry; aggregating the pre-
aggregated particles to form aggregated pharmaceutical particles in the
slurry; and isolating the pharmaceutical particles," which "may be used to
make time-released, multiformulation, and inhalable pharmaceuticals."
Final Act. 3 ( quoting Blair Abstr. ). The Examiner finds that, reviewing the
prior art, Blair teaches that, with respect to the control of particle size,
"[p ]article size, particle composition, and particle size distribution control
3
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
are important for the production and manufacture of pharmaceuticals,"
which "play a role in pharmaceutical treatment regimens, including dosage
amounts, dosage frequency, active-ingredient concentration, and drug
therapy side effects." Id. (citing Blair ,r,r 2-7). The Examiner finds Blair
discloses embodiments which "address[] these various needs by providing a
method for producing timed-release, multi-formulation, and/or inhalable
pharmaceuticals by an emulsion aggregation process. Id. ( citing Blair ,r 9).
Specifically, the Examiner finds, Blair teaches a method comprising:
"emulsifying a first pharmaceutical agent and a biodegradable resin to form
a primary emulsion of pre-aggregated particles in a slurry; aggregating the
pre-aggregated particles to form aggregated pharmaceutical particles in the
slurry; and isolating the pharmaceutical particles." Final Act. 3--4 ( citing
Blair ,r 10). The Examiner further finds that Blair teaches an "Emulsion
Aggregation Process," and also teaches an embodiment in which "an
emulsion is prepared by agitating in water a mixture of one or more of an
optional nonionic surfactant, such as polyethylene glycol or polyoxyethylene
glycol nonyl phenyl ether, an optional anionic surfactant, such as sodium
dodecyl sulfonate or sodium dodecyl benzenesulfonate, a biodegradable
resin, and an optional bioactive agent." Id. at 4 (citing Blair ,r,r 32-55, 40).
The Examiner finds that, in another embodiment, Blair teaches
"Solvent-Free Emulsification," in which "[a] ZSK-53 extruder, equipped
with a feed hopper and liquid injection ports is heated to approximately 95°
C," and is "fed a mixture of sodium hydroxide, DO WF AX 2A 1, and a
crystalline polyester resin (poly( dodecandioicacid-cononanediol)," with
"[ w ]ater heated to 80° C, containing a bioactive agent molecule [which] is
fed into the extruder's first injection port at a feed rate of 1.0 kg/min using a
4
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
diaphragm pump," and in which "[t]he resultant extrusion yields a solvent-
free emulsion." Final Act. 4--5 (quoting Blair ,r 67], Ex. 4).
The Examiner thus summarizes the findings of fact concerning Blair
as teaching:
(1) The crystalline polyester resin (polydodecandioicacid-
cononanediol) (Blair ,r 67, Ex. 4), is a crystalline polyester resin
as recited in Appellants' claims 3 and 20 and the at least one
polyester resin recited claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 17 and 20.
(2) Sodium hydroxide, (Blair ,r 67, Ex. 4), which is the elected
species of neutralizing agent recited in Appellants' claims 12-
14; and
(3) DOWFAX 2Al, (Blair ,r 67, Ex. 4), is also taught by Blair
as alkydiphenyloxide disulfonate surfactant (Blair68), which is
Appellants' elected species of surfactant in claims 1, 8-9, 11 and
16-18.
Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds Blair further teaches an exemplary embodiment
for the Preparation of "Pharmaceutical Particles," in which a first bioactive
agent/resin emulsion from one of Examples 1-5 (including Example 4,
supra) is aggregated by heating the emulsion to about 40°C-50° C for about
30-180 minutes. Final Act. 5 (citing Blair ,r 70, Ex. 6). The Examiner finds
that Blair further teaches that "[ w ]hen the targeted core particle size is
reached, a second latex prepared according to Examples 1-5 containing the
same or different concentration of bioactive agent by resin weight basis is
added to the reactor and heated to about 40° C to about 50° C to form a
shell," and "[w]hen a second targeted particle size is reached, the particle
size growth is halted via pH adjustment." Id.
5
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
The Examiner also finds that Blair teaches an exemplary embodiment
for a double emulsion-solvent evaporation, phase inversion emulsification
and the preparation of particles involving 4% sodium hydroxide. Id. (citing
Blair ,r 44, Ex. 1; ,r 66, Ex. 3; ,r 72, Ex. 8).
The Examiner therefore summarizes the findings of fact with respect
to the teachings of Blair as disclosing exemplary embodiments for a solvent-
free emulsification from a solution comprising a mixture of sodium
hydroxide, DOWF AX 2Al, and a crystalline polyester resin (poly
dodecandioicacid-cononanediol) in a ZSK-53 extruder, as well as double
emulsion evaporation (Blair i-f 65), for producing nanoparticles having an
average diameter of about 20 nm to about 1200 nm. Final Act. 5---6 (Blair ,r
67, Ex. 4; ,r 64, Ex. 1; ,r 41).
The Examiner acknowledges that Blair does not teach that its particles
are porous, not does Blair prescribe the diameter of the pores, as recited in
the claims. Final Act. 6. The Examiner therefore relies upon the teachings
of Yang as meeting this requirement of the claims. Id. The Examiner finds
that Yang is directed to: "methods of manufacturing wax-containing
polymer particles by limited coalescence processes employing aqueous wax
dispersions," and embodiments, wherein an "aqueous wax dispersion is used
in the second water phase of a double emulsion (Wl/O/W2) process to form
porous polymer particles containing the wax." Id. ( citing Yang Abstr. ).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Yang teaches:
Yang teaches:
[D]issolving a polymer binder in a water immiscible organic
solvent to form an organic phase solution; combining the organic
phase solution with an aqueous phase containing a particulate
stabilizer; and emulsifying the resulting mixture to form an oil in
6
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
water emulsion; wherein either (i) an aqueous wax dispersion is
added to the organic phase solution to form a transient water in
oil emulsion in the organic phase solution prior to combining the
organic phase solution with the aqueous phase containing
particulate stabilizer, or (ii) the aqueous phase containing a
particulate stabilizer combined with the organic phase solution
further comprises an aqueous wax dispersion; and removing the
solvent from the oil in water emulsion to form polymer particles
with incorporated wax particles.
Final Act. 6 ( quoting Yang ,r 23). With respect to porous polymer particles
obtained by double emulsion, the Examiner finds that Yang teaches that:
[T]he organic phase solution containing a polymer binder is in
the form of a first water in oil emulsion formed by dispersing a
first aqueous phase comprising a pore stabilizing hydrocolloid in
the organic phase solution, and the first water in oil emulsion is
dispersed in an aqueous phase containing particulate stabilizer
and an aqueous wax dispersion to form a water in oil in water
double emulsion; and shearing the double emulsion in the
presence of the particulate stabilizer to form droplets of the first
emulsion in the second aqueous phase; and removing the organic
solvent from the droplets to form porous polymer particles with
incorporated wax particles
And that "[a]ddition of the water phase containing the particulate stabilizer
[ ... ] to the water-in-oil emulsion causes a phase inversion due to the excess
amount of water phase in the system. Final Act 7 ( quoting Yang ,r,r 26-31,
48).
With respect to the resultant particles, the Examiner finds that Yang
teaches: "[t]he average particle diameter of the discrete wax containing
polymer particles of the present invention is, for example, 2 to 50
micrometers, preferably 3 to 20 micrometers" and that:
7
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
The porous particles may include "micro," "meso," and "macro"
pores, which according to the International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry are the classifications recommended for
pores less than 2 nm, 2 to 50 nm, and greater than 50 nm
respectively ... [ and] include pores of all sizes, including open or
closed.
Id. (quoting Yang, ,r,r 57, 59; ,r 62).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to have followed Blair's teachings to obtain
a core/shell nanoparticle by processes such as double emulsion-solvent
evaporation or solvent-free emulsification, and to have combined them with
Yang's teachings by dispersing the nanoparticle obtained by solvent-free
emulsification in an aqueous phase containing a particulate stabilizer by
phase inversion in water to form a double emulsion in order to obtain porous
nanoparticles. Final Act. 9. The Examiner also concludes that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a
reasonable expectation of success since both Blair and Yang are concerned
with similar problems in the art, namely the preparation of particles with
core/shell structures. Id. ( citing Blair 56-60; Yang ,r 76). The Examiner
also finds motivation for the skilled artisan in that Yang teaches double
emulsion processes for preparing toners, whereas Blair references, and
draws from, prior art teachings for emulsion aggregation processes, e.g.,
phase inversion emulsification in the preparation of "Xerox products," e.g.,
toners. Id. ( citing Yang Abstr., ,r 1; Blair ,r,r 32-35).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Yang as teaching
porous particles is misplaced. App. Br. 8. According to Appellants, Yang
requires both a pore-stabilizing hydrocolloid and an organic solvent to form
8
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
pores. Id. Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that that Yang teaches
a technique similar to Blair's, as described in Blair's paragraph [0073]. Id.
But paragraph [0073] of Blair, Appellants argue, describes techniques that
can be used in connection with only the first step of the Yang process. Id.
Appellants point to paragraph [0063] of Yang as describing this first step in
this process:
One suitable process for making porous polymer particles as
described in the above referenced patent applications involves
basically a three-step process. The first step involves the
formation of a stable water-in-oil emulsion, including a first
aqueous solution of a pore stabilizing hydrocolloid dispersed
finely in a continuous phase of a binder polymer dissolved in an
organic solvent. This first water phase creates the pores in the
particles of this invention and the pore stabilizing compound
controls the pore size and number of pores in the particle, while
stabilizing the pores such that the final particle is not brittle or
fractured easily.
Appellants contend that the Yang system is completely different, both
in composition and process, from Blair as well as from the presently claimed
invention. App. Br. 8. Appellants therefore argue that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not have had any motivation to combine the teachings
of Yang with those of Blair, and the Examiner's combination of the
references therefore constitutes impermissible hindsight analysis relying
upon knowledge gleaned from Appellants' disclosure. Id. Appellants assert
that any porous material properties that might be obtained by the methods of
Yang are not necessarily going to be similarly imparted to the materials
employed by Blair or to Appellants' claimed composition. Id.
Appellants argue further that the three-step process of Yang does not
resemble the process used to prepare Appellants' claimed nanoporous
9
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
materials. App. Br. 8. Appellants point to Figure 1 and paragraph [0048] of
their Specification as demonstrating the surprising result that the claimed
nanoporous material is achieved without the use of the pore-stabilizing
hydrocolloids required in the Yang process. Id. at 8-9. Appellants contend
that, because the processes are different, access to the nanoporous material
with the claimed physical properties is not obvious. Id. at 9.
The Examiner responds that, contrary to Appellants' argument that
paragraph [0073] of Blair describes techniques that can be used in
connection with only the first step of the Yang process, Yang teaches both a
double emulsion-solvent evaporation method and phase inversion method
related to Blair's disclosure of the same methodologies. Ans. 5 ( citing Yang
,r 63). The Examiner finds that, in order to form pores in the particles, Yang
teaches the use of a particulate stabilizing hydrocolloid or a particulate
stabilizer:
[T]he organic phase solution containing a polymer binder is in the
form of a first water in oil emulsion formed by dispersing a first
aqueous phase comprising a pore stabilizing hydrocolloid in the
organic phase solution, and the first water in oil emulsion is
dispersed in an aqueous phase containing particulate stabilizer
and an aqueous wax dispersion to form a water in oil in water
double emulsion; and shearing the double emulsion in the
presence of the particulate stabilizer to form droplets of the first
emulsion in the second aqueous phase; and removing the organic
solvent from the droplets to form porous polymer particles with
incorporated wax particles.
Id. ( quoting Yang ,r 26; also citing Yang ,r 31 ).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have followed Blair's teachings in
obtaining a core/shell nanoparticles (citing Blair ,r,r 56-60) by a processes
10
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
involving double emulsion-solvent evaporation ( citing Blair ,r 64, Ex. I), and
incorporating Yang's teachings for dispersing a first water-in-oil emulsion
containing a polymer and particulate stabilizer in a aqueous phase containing
a particulate stabilizer. Ans. 6. By this means, a double emulsion is formed
(citing Yang Abstr., ,r 26, 31) in order to produce porous nanoparticles
( citing Yang ,r,r 62, 7 4--7 6]) by "osmotic mismatch." Id. ( citing Yang ,r 7 4). 2
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As an initial matter,
Appellants' secondary argument that, because the processes by which
nanopore particles are produced by their method is different, the
compositions that they claim are not obvious over the prior art is inapposite.
Appellants point to Figure 1 and paragraph [0048] of their Specification as
demonstrating the surprising result that the claimed nanoporous material is
achieved without the use of the pore-stabilizing hydrocolloids required in the
Yang process. App. Br. at 8-9. We fail to see the relevance of this
argument. Appellants' claims on appeal are directed to a composition of
matter and not to a method, novel or otherwise, of synthesizing that
composition. The Examiner has concluded that the combined teachings of
the cited prior art references teach the limitations of the claim. Appellants
have not provided evidence that it is "surprisingly" that the modified process
2 Appellants, in their Reply Brief, argue that, because Blair is directed to the
production of pharmaceutical agents and Yang is non-analogously directed
to a polymer and particulate stabilizer employed for purposes of making
non-biocompatible toners for printing, there would have been no motivation
to combine the teachings of the references. Reply Br. 3--4. Regardless of
the merits of Appellants' argument that Blair and Yang are non-analogous
art, this argument was not raised in the Appeal Brief and we do not consider
it in our analysis
11
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
of Yang and Blair would result in the claimed porous nanoparticles. If
Appellants have invented a novel method of synthesizing their claimed
porous nanoparticles, that is proper subject matter for an application reciting
methods claims. However, the question before us is whether it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings
of Blair and Yang to arrive at Appellants' claimed composition as recited in
the claims . In this respect, and as we explain, we conclude that Appellants
have failed to rebut the Examiner's primafacie conclusion that Appellants'
claimed composition is obvious over the prior art.
Appellants argue that the Examiner impermissibly relied upon
hindsight reasoning, contending that any porous material properties that
might be obtained by the methods of Yang are not necessarily going to be
similarly imparted to the materials employed by Blair or to Appellants'
claimed composition. App. Br. 8. We do not find this argument persuasive.
Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and
does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971). Appellants adduce
no evidence of record to demonstrate that the Examiner relied only upon
knowledge gleaned from Appellants' Specification. Furthermore, it is not
necessary, as Appellants' argue, that the methods of Yang would necessarily
be imparted to the materials employed by Blair. All that is necessary is that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation
of success in combining the teachings of the references to arrive at
12
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
Appellants' claimed invention. See In re Langi, 795 F.2d 887,897 (Fed. Cir.
1985): ("Only a reasonable expectation of success, not absolute
predictability, is necessary for a conclusion of obviousness"). Appellants
did not provide evidence or an adequate explanation as to why one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the modified process of
Yang and Blair to have resulted in the claimed nanoporous particles. As we
explain below, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings of Blair and Yang, because both
references teach similar methods of synthesizing nanoparticles, and we
therefore conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the
refemces.
Blair teaches a method of synthesizing nanoparticles that fall within
the size range established in the claims, however it does not teach that such
particles are porous, nor does it teach the size range of pores specified by the
claims. Yang is directed to means of synthesizing porous particles by
compnsmg:
[ A ]n aqueous wax dispersion or emulsion is dispersed in an oil
phase comprising a water-immiscible solvent and a polymer to
form a transient water-in-oil (W/0) emulsion, and a further
aqueous phase containing a particulate stabilizer is then added to
the W /0 emulsion to induce phase inversion, and the mixture
homogenized to form an oil-in-water (0/W) emulsion. The
solvent is then removed from the emulsion to form particles
containing wax domains inside.
Yang ,r Abstr. Specifically, Yang teaches a three-step process:
The first step involves the formation of a stable water-in-oil
emulsion, including a first aqueous solution of a pore stabilizing
13
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
hydrocolloid dispersed finely in a continuous phase of a binder
polymer dissolved in an organic solvent. This first water phase
creates the pores in the particles of this invention and the pore
stabilizing compound controls the pore size and number of pores
in the particle, while stabilizing the pores such that the final
particle is not brittle or fractured easily.
Yang ,r 63. Yang then teaches that:
[I]n the second step of the process of the formation of
porous particles, the water-in-oil emulsion is mixed with the
second aqueous phase containing colloidal silica stabilizer and
the wax dispersion to form an aqueous suspension of droplets
that is subjected to shear or extensional mixing or similar flow
processes ....
Yang ,r 71. Yang then teaches that:
The third step in the preparation of the porous particles of this
invention involves removal of the solvent that is used to dissolve
the binder polymer and to produce a suspension of uniform
porous polymer particles in aqueous solution. The rate,
temperature and pressure during drying will also impact the final
particle size and surface morphology.
Yang ,r 77.
Blair teaches a method of synthesizing nanoparticles,
comprising, first:
A bioactive agent-containing aqueous phase is first poured into
an organic solution of a biodegradable polymer dissolved in an
organic solvent, such as ethyl acetate and methylene chloride. A
primary ( w 1/ o) emulsion is obtained by sonication of the
aqueous phase and organic solution.
And then:
14
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
[A] 2% aqueous PV AL solution is poured into the primary
emulsion and sonicated to form the wl/o/w2 double emulsion.
The final suspension of nanoparticles is then magnetically stirred
overnight at room temperature to evaporate the organic solvents.
Blair ,r 64. Furthermore, Blair teaches that:
For example, phase inversion emulsification (PIE) may be used
where both the bioactive agent and the polymer are dissolved in
a suitable solvent. Water may be added to the solvent until
separation of the solvent and water occurs under mixing. The
solvent may be removed by vacuum distillation and an emulsion
of polymer and bioactive agent microshopheres [sic] in water
results.
Blair ,r 35; see also Ex. 3. Blair also teaches methods by which a solvent-
free emulsification may be formed. See, e.g., Blair ,r 67.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Yang teaches
a technique similar to Blair's, because paragraph [0073] of Blair describes
techniques that can be used in connection with only the first step of the Yang
process and that the method of Yang is completely different from that of
Blair. We do not find this persuasive. Both references teach, as we have
explained supra, the formation of a water-oil emulsion and then the
formation of a water-oil-water emulsion via, e.g., phase inversion, and then
removing of the solvent. See Yang ,r,r 63, 71, 77; Blair ,r,r 35, 64.
Appellants offer us no persuasive reason why it would not have been
possible to compare the first step of Yang with the second and third step of
Blair to arrive at Appellants' claimed porous microspheres, nor why it would
not have been obvious for one of obvious skill in the art to combine the
references to achieve that end. Absent any persuasive evidence or argument
15
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
that rebuts the Examiner's primafacie conclusion of obviousness, we affirm
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, with respect to dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-20,
Appellants adduce no evidence of record, nor make any argument beyond
the bare assertion that the combined references fail to teach the limitations of
the claim. That is insufficient to sustain an argument that the claims are
nonobvious on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37; see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011): ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art"). We
consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5-20 on
this ground.
B. Rejection of claims 3, 4 and 20 over Blair, Yang, Zale, and Chen
Appellants rely upon the same arguments presented supra with
respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-20, arguing further that Chen
fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Blair, Yang, and Zale. We have
explained our reasoning as to why we do not find Appellants' arguments
persuasive, and we incorporate our reasoning herein with respect to this
rejection. We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4,
and 20 upon this ground.
16
Appeal2017---009673
Application 15/002,274
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
17