Ex Parte Lytle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13886638 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/886,638 05/03/2013 MATTHEW MARK LYTLE Lytle.WaterproofBagCIP 7253
23616 7590 11/01/2017
NEWHOPE LAW, PC
CLEMENT CHENG, ESQ.
4522 Katella Avenue
#200
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
EXAMINER
THEIS, MATTHEW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3782
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATTHEW MARK LYTLE
____________

Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Matthew Mark Lytle (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–16. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A water resistant container comprising:
a. a body made of flexible water resistant material,
wherein the body is formed of a sheet material that comprises
sidewalls of the body;
b. an opening formed at an end of the body, wherein the
body opening has a body opening first side and a body opening
second side;
c. a first magnet strip bonded to the body opening first
side;
d. a second magnet strip bonded to the body opening
second side;
e. a water resistant seal formed between the first magnet
strip and the second magnet strip when the first magnet strip is
closed to the second magnet strip to close the opening formed at
the end of the body, wherein at a magnet side opposing the water
resistant seal, the first magnet strip is bonded to the body opening
first side and the second magnet strip is bonded to the body
opening second side; and
f. a flap magnet contact area where the first magnet strip
and the second magnet strip contact each other, but at least either
the first magnet strip or the second magnet strip is free from the
sidewalls of the body at the flap magnet contact area, wherein the
flap magnet contact area is adjacent to the water resistant seal
area.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Ausnit US 3,326,399 June 20, 1967
Kamins US 3,477,634 Nov. 11, 1969
Peterson US 4,033,013 July 5, 1977
Hydorn US 4,127,155 Nov. 28, 1978
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

3
McKelvey US 4,451,321 May 29, 1984
Walor US 4,905,298 Feb. 27, 1990
Simonsen US 5,017,021 May 21, 1991
Scholz US 5,687,848 Nov. 18, 1997
Chongson US 2007/0215663 A1 Sept. 20, 2007

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Peterson, Scholz, and Simonsen. Final Act. 2–4.
II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, and Hydorn. Id. at 4–5.
III. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, and Chongson. Id. at 5–6.
IV. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, and Ausnit. Id. at 6–7.
V. Claims 6, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, and Kamins. Id. at 7–
8.
VI. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, Kamins, and Hydorn. Id. at 8–9.
VII. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, Kamins, and Chongson. Id. at 9–10.
VIII. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, Kamins, and Ausnit. Id. at 10–11.
IX. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, and McKelvey. Id. at
11–12.
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

4
X. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Walor, Ausnit, Kamins, and Hydorn. Id. at 12–15.

OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Peterson discloses a container including a
flexible body with an opening, and first and second magnetic strips that
close the opening to form a water resistant seal. Final Act. 2–3 (citing
Peterson, Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner acknowledges that Peterson does not
disclose that the body is made of water resistant material, but finds that
Scholz teaches this feature. Id. at 3 (citing Scholz, Fig. 1; col. 11, ll. 52–58).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to make
Peterson’s container body out of water resistant material “in order to ensure
that water is kept out of the package by preventing water from penetrating
through the walls of the body of the pouch.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner also acknowledges that Peterson does not disclose “a
flap magnet contact area where the first magnet strip and the second magnet
strip contact each other, but at least either the first magnet strip or the second
magnet strip is free from the sidewalls of the body” (id. at 3), but finds that
Simonsen teaches this feature (id. at 3–4 (citing Simonson, Figs. 1 and 4)).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to further modify
Peterson’s container to “attach an outer portion of the closure strips with an
interior free portion in order to control the disengagement forces which act
on the package and force them through a single path in order to help reduce
the chances of accidental disengagement of the sealing members.” Id.
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

5
Appellant argues that Peterson’s magnetic pouch “is not designed to
be waterproof because it includes a seal breaker formed as ‘a pair of opening
tabs 11, 13,’” and, thus, teaches away from a waterproof seal. Appeal Br. 6
(citing Peterson, col. 2, l. 15). Appellant also asserts that “Peterson does not
suggest to remove the ‘pair of opening tabs 11, 13’ to provide a full-length
watertight seal because taking off the tabs would make it difficult for a user
to break the seal open and easily access the contents of the bag.” Id. These
arguments are unpersuasive because they are not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1, which does not require a seal that is “waterproof” or
“watertight.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (noting that
it is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be
relied upon for patentability). Instead, claim 1 only recites a “water resistant
seal.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). In this regard, Appellant does not
persuasively refute the Examiner’s finding that “the seal of Peterson will act
to resist water from entering the interior of the bag.” Ans. 15.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s teaching away argument. A
reference teaches away from a claimed invention or a proposed modification
if “‘. . . a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.’” In
re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). 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).
Here, Appellant does not point to, nor do we find, any disclosure in Peterson
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

6
criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging a water resistant seal. To
the contrary, as discussed above, the Examiner finds that Peterson’s
magnetized seal would resist water from entering the pouch (see Ans. 15),
and Appellant does not identify error in the Examiner’s finding. Moreover,
Appellant’s assertion that Peterson does not suggest removing tabs 11, 13
(Appeal Br. 6) is not responsive to the rejection articulated by the Examiner,
which does not propose such a modification (Final Act. 2–4; see also Ans.
15–16 (explaining that the rejection does not contemplate removing
Peterson’s tabs)).
Appellant argues that Scholz “teaches away from direct magnet to
magnet contact and instead teaches to mount the magnetic attraction on the
outside of the bag so as to clamp the bag opening between the magnets.”
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant’s argument against Scholz is unpersuasive. The
Examiner finds that Peterson discloses magnet strips that close the opening
of the container body, and relies on Scholz only for teaching body material
that is water resistant. See Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 16 (“The Scholz
reference is not relied on to . . . modify structure of the magnetic closure.
Examiner notes that the direct magnetic contact is disclosed by Peterson.”).
Merely because Scholz offers a different solution of mounting magnetic
attraction on the outside of the bag does not teach away from Peterson’s
direct magnetic contact. Appellant does not point to, nor do we find, any
disclosure in Scholz criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the
modification proposed in the rejection.
Appellant argues that Simonsen teaches a sandwich bag with a rib and
groove seal (e.g., a mechanical press lock seal), and does not teach magnets
or a self-closing seal. Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, Simonsen
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

7
teaches away from the magnets and self-closing seal of the claimed
invention. See Appeal Br. 7–9. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner relies on Peterson for disclosing magnets. Final Act. 3–4; see
also Ans. 16 (explaining that Simonsen is not relied on for teaching
magnets). Merely because Simonsen offers a different solution of a
mechanical press lock seal does not teach away from the magnets and self-
closing seal of Peterson. Appellant does not point to, nor do we find, any
disclosure in Simonsen criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging
magnets or self-closing seals.
Appellant also asserts that “magnet to magnet contact on the flap is
not taught by the Simonsen reference because the Simonsen reference has
free tips that are actually spaced apart from each other as seen in Simonsen
Fig. 5.” Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, Simonsen teaches away
from the flap magnet contact area of the claimed invention. See Appeal Br.
7–9. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner relies on
Peterson for teaching direct magnetic contact. See Ans. 16. Merely because
Simonsen’s free tips are spaced apart does not teach away from the direct
contact of Peterson’s magnets. Appellant does not point to, nor do we find,
any disclosure in Simonsen criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise
discouraging the modification proposed by the Examiner in the rejection.
The Examiner’s modification relies on Simonsen for suggesting “tak[ing]
the modified device of Peterson and attach[ing] an outer portion of the
closure strips with an interior free portion.” Final Act. 4. In particular, the
Examiner explains that Simonsen is relied on “to teach the configuration of
attaching sealing strips to a pair of bag walls, namely the ability to have a
sealed portion 16 and an unsealed portion in order to manage forces
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

8
interacting with said sealing strips.” Ans. 16. The Examiner takes the
position that “the magnet to magnet contact of Peterson[,] when combined
with the attachment to the sidewalls[,] as taught by Simonsen[,] meets the
limitation of the ‘flap magnet contact area’ as well as a portion of the strip
that is free from the sidewalls of the body.” Id. at 17. Appellant does not
specifically address the Examiner’s position or explain why this position
would be in error.
Appellant argues that “there is no motivation to combine the above
mentioned four references to show ‘a flap magnet contact area where the
first magnet strip and the second magnet strip contact each other, but at least
either the first magnet strip or the second magnet strip is free from the
sidewalls of the body.’” Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, the
Examiner’s proposed combination of references “is a purely hypothetical
construct of various elements combined in hindsight after reviewing the
applicant’s disclosure.” Id. We are not persuaded by this argument because
it does not specifically address the Examiner’s articulated reasoning to
modify Peterson’s container—i.e., to “attach an outer portion of the closure
strips with an interior free portion in order to control the disengagement
forces which act on the package and force them through a single path in
order to help reduce the chances of accidental disengagement of the sealing
members” (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4)—or persuasively explain why the reasoning
lacks rational underpinnings. Moreover, Appellant does not identify any
knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from
Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d
1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). As such, we disagree with Appellant’s assertion
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

9
that the Examiner relied on impermissible hindsight (Appeal Br. 9; Reply
Br. 1) in reaching the determination of obviousness of the claimed subject
matter.
Appellant also argues that the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of
Matthew Mark Lytle,1 dated June 8, 2015 (the “Declaration”), provides
evidence of secondary considerations demonstrating non-obviousness of the
claimed subject matter. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 1. In particular, Appellant
asserts that the Declaration, which describes videos of experiments
involving the invention, establishes that “unexpected results were obtained
by accident.” Appeal Br. 9. We recognize that evidence of secondary
considerations, such as that presented by Appellant, must be considered in
route to a determination of obviousness or non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. In the present case, however, we find Appellant’s evidence to be
insufficient to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
According to the Declaration, “the self-sealing waterproof bag has an
unexpected result that it is both self-sealing and forms an extremely strong
seal.” Declaration ¶ 2. The Declaration describes an experiment in which
“[t]he self-sealing waterproof bag was filled up with only air and then run
over with a Toyota Tacoma,” but “[t]he bag did not leak or lose any air.” Id.
¶ 3. The Declaration also describes an experiment in which Mr. Lytle “put
hand weights into the bag and then threw it in a container of water,” but
“[t]he bag float[ed] on the water without leaking or losing any air.” Id. ¶ 4.
According to the Declaration, these experiments show that “[t]he self-

1 Declarant Matthew Mark Lytle is the named inventor in the present
application. See Declaration ¶ 1.
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

10
sealing waterproof bag is unexpectedly much stronger than originally
anticipated.” Id. ¶ 5.
To the extent that Appellant relies on the Declaration as evidence of
surprising or unexpected results, the evidence falls short because the results
described in the Declaration have not been shown to be unexpected
compared with the closest prior art, Peterson, which is directed to a
container that includes a magnetic strip closure and is self-closing. See In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[W]hen
unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must
be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.”) (citing In
re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Indeed, the Declaration
fails to compare the results achieved by the claimed invention to the results
achieved with any other container. Accordingly, the Declaration fails to
establish that the strength of the container is due to features recited in the
claims and not present in prior art containers such as Peterson. See In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705 (stating “[w]hen an article is said to achieve
unexpected (i.e. superior) results, those results must logically be shown as
superior compared to the results achieved with other articles”).
Although we have weighed the evidence offered by Appellant in an
effort to prove unexpected results, we conclude that the Examiner’s evidence
of obviousness outweighs Appellant’s evidence of nonobviousness. See In
re Fenton, 451 F.2d 640, 643 (CCPA 1971) (the court balanced the Patent
Office’s case against the strength of Appellant’s objective evidence of non-
obviousness); see also Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“given the strength of the prima facie
obviousness showing, the evidence on secondary considerations was
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

11
inadequate to overcome a final conclusion that [the claimed subject matter]
would have been obvious”). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim
1, and of dependent claims 3, 12, and 13, for which Appellant does not
provide separate arguments (see Appeal Br. 6–9), under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Peterson, Scholz, and Simonsen.
Rejection II
In connection with dependent claim 2, the Examiner acknowledges
that the container of Peterson, as modified according to the teachings of
Scholz and Simonsen, does not include heat laminated edge seals with
stitching holes. Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner finds that Hydorn
discloses a waterproof bag having this feature, and determines that it would
have been obvious “to take the modified device of Peterson and include left
and right edge seals including stitching and heat sealing thereafter in order to
create a seal which incorporated the strength of a stitched seal while
maintaining water resistance of a heat seal.” Id. Appellant argues that “[a]
person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Hydorn with Simonsen
since that would lead to a Ziplock sandwich bag with stitched edges.”
Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, Simonsen and Scholz “teach a
regular heat sealed plastic bag which is generally not stitched.” Id. This
argument is not persuasive because it is not responsive to the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner. Here, the Examiner relies on Peterson as
modified by Scholz and Simonsen, not on Simonsen or Scholz alone.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 2 would have been
obvious, and we sustain the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, and Hydorn.
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

12
Rejections III and VI–VIII
With respect to the rejections of dependent claims 4, 8, 10, and 11,
Appellant’s arguments relate to the perceived deficiencies in the
combination of Peterson, Scholz, and Simonsen argued in connection with
independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 10–12. Because we have found no such
deficiencies, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 4, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which we sustain.
Rejection IV
In connection with dependent claim 5, the Examiner finds that
“Ausnit teaches the ability to have a magnetic closure device on a bag with a
first magnetic strip and a second magnetic strip with linearly oriented
magnetized channels disposed within plastic resin (Fig. 3, Item 43), and the
ability to have a plurality of rows of magnetized channels (86).” Final Act.
7. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to further
modify the container of Peterson to
include a plurality of linearly oriented magnetized channels
disposed within plastic resin as taught by Ausnit in order to allow
for a groove or grooves to be formed in order to allow the
channels to align properly and further to allow the space between
channels to receive the opposing channel to create a secure
connection.
Id.
Appellant argues that “[t]he protruding nature of the Ausnit reference
teaches away from a flat waterproof surface that has a ‘contact surface.’”
Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, the “[f]lap magnet contact area
implies that the contact surfaces between the first and second magnetic strip
are flat.” Reply Br. 2. Even assuming arguendo that the terminology of the
claim requires the contact surfaces between the first and second magnetic
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

13
strips to be flat, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner
relies on Peterson, as modified by the teachings of Scholz and Simonsen, for
the contact surfaces between the first and second magnetic strips. Final Act.
3–4. As the Examiner explains, “the overall shape and structure of the
Ausnit reference is not relied on, but rather the teaching of using a linearly
oriented magnetized channel disposed within a plastic resin.” Ans. 19.
Appellant does not point to, nor do we find, any disclosure in Ausnit
criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the inclusion of
magnetized channels disposed within plastic resin structured to provide a flat
surface for contact with another surface.
Appellant also argues that “[e]ach of the Ausnit strips only has a
single channel of magnetization[,] not multiple as . . . claim 5 . . . requires.”
Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, “[t]he word ‘each’ is implied in the
text of claim five.” Reply Br. 2. Claim 5 recites, in relevant part, that “the
first magnet strip and the second magnet strip have linearly oriented
magnetized channels disposed within.” Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.).
Although Appellant may have intended for claim 5 to require that each
magnetic strip has a plurality of magnetized channels, we agree with the
Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not
require such a feature. See Ans. 19 (explaining that “a single linearly
oriented magnetized channel in the first magnet strip and a single linearly
oriented magnetized channel in the second magnet strip is considered to
meet this limitation”). Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive
because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 5, which does not
require that each of the magnet strips has a plurality of magnetized channels.
See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348.
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

14
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claim 5 is in error, and we sustain the rejection of
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Peterson, Scholz,
Simonsen, and Ausnit.
Rejection V
In connection with dependent claims 6, 7, and 9, the Examiner reasons
that changing the shape of the magnet strips so as to utilize Kamins’s
beveled structure is a matter of design choice that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the
particular shape changes the function of the magnetic strips or is otherwise
significant. Final Act. 8 (citing Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous, 35 F.2d 120 (3d
Cir. 1929)). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Kamins with Peterson, Scholz, and Simonsen is based upon impermissible
hindsight. See Appeal Br. 11 (“A person of ordinary skill in the art would
not consider to use the beveled structure of Kamins without having first been
taught to do so by the Lytle invention.”). This argument is unpersuasive
because Appellant does not identify any knowledge relied upon by the
Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that was
not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention.
As such, we disagree with Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner relied on
impermissible hindsight in reaching the determination of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter. Moreover, Appellant’s contention is unconvincing
in that it fails to address the Examiner’s design choice rationale. See Final
Act. 8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, and
Kamins.
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

15
Rejection IX
In connection with dependent claims 14 and 15, the Examiner
acknowledges that modified Peterson does not specifically disclose the first
and second magnet strips being made of different materials, and turns to
McKelvey for this teaching. Final Act. 11–12. Appellant asserts that
“McKelvey suggests to wrap the magnet inside a sleeve formed by a sheet
portion of the bag and not have a direct magnet contact” and “McKelvey
also suggests not to have a flap,” such that “McKelvey . . . teaches away
from the present invention.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive. The Examiner relies on Peterson as modified by Simonsen for
the flap magnet contact area, not McKelvey. Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans.
17 (“Examiner notes that the magnet to magnet contact of Peterson when
combined with the attachment to the sidewalls as taught by Simonsen meets
the limitation of the ‘flap magnet contact area’ as well as a portion of the
strip that is free from the sidewalls of the body”). Merely because
McKelvey offers different solutions that do not involve direct magnet
contact and/or a flap does not teach away from such features present in the
combination of Peterson and Simonsen. Appellant does not point to, nor do
we find, any disclosure in McKelvey criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise
discouraging a flap magnet contact area. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Peterson, Scholz, Simonsen, and McKelvey.
Rejection X
Independent claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Walor, Ausnit, Kamins, and Hydorn. Final Act. 12–15.
Appellant does not present any separate argument against the rejection of
Appeal 2016-008610
Application 13/886,638

16
claim 16, but, instead, appears to rely on the arguments presented for
patentability of claims 1–15. See Revised Appeal Br. 1 (Appellant stating
that “[c]laim 16 is not appealed because its contents including its alleged
points of novelty are substantially encompassed in the other claims”). To
the extent that Appellant’s arguments alleging deficiencies of Ausnit,
Kamins, and Hydorn relate to Rejection X, these arguments are not
persuasive of error here for the reasons discussed above. The remainder of
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are not directed to
Walor in combination with the other references as presented in Rejection X,
and, thus, are not responsive to the rejection. See Appeal Br. 6–13
(presenting no argument against Walor); Reply Br. 1–3. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Walor, Ausnit, Kamins, and Hydorn.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED