Ex Parte Pagani

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2013

11768383 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/768,383 06/26/2007 Angelo Pagani 72655 2938
23872 7590 02/06/2013
MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
P.O. BOX 9227
SCARBOROUGH STATION
SCARBOROUGH, NY 10510-9227
EXAMINER
KURPLE, KARL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/06/2013 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 ANGELO PAGANI
____________

Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-13, 15-25, 27, 29-33, and 35-
37 of Application 11/768,383 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.
Appellant seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
A hearing in this appeal was held on January 17, 2013.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
2
BACKGROUND
The ’383 application describes an apparatus for vacuum deposition of
a coating on a continuous material that includes a liquid applicator. Claim 1
is representative of the claims in the ’383 application and is reproduced
below:
1. A system for vacuum deposition of a coating on a web
material, comprising:
an evacuable chamber;
a feed path of the web material in a vacuum environment, said
feed path of said web material being arranged in said chamber;
a process roller arranged along said feed path, said web material
being guided around said process roller;
at least one vaporization source of at least a first material to
form said coating, said at least one vaporization source being
associated with said process roller;
an applicator unit upstream of said at least one source, along the
feed path of the web material, said applicator unit applying a
liquid product to the web material according to a pre-
established pattern, said applicator unit comprising a printing
cylinder, cooperating with a distributor cylinder of said liquid
product, and a source of said liquid product, wherein said
printing cylinder comprises a surface defining discontinuous
and non-annular liquid-applying portions, wherein contact
between said printing cylinder and said web material is
cyclically varied via said discontinuous and non-annular liquid-
applying portions, said printing cylinder comprising at least one
substantially continuous circumferential projection, which
generates a continuous contact with the web material fed
around the process roller or with said process roller during
treatment of the web material.
(App. Br. 63).
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
3
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-10 and 21-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,106,627
(“Yializis,” issued Aug. 22, 2000) in view of European Patent App.
No. 0 447 550 A1 (“Yamauchi,” published Sept. 25, 1991) and
U.S. Patent No. 3,572,601 (“Miller,” issued March 30, 1971) (June
1, 2010 Final Office Action (“FOA”) 2).1
2. The Examiner finally rejected claims 11-13, 15-20, 25, 27, 29-33,
and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yializis in view
of Yamauchi and Miller and further in view of U.S. Patent
No. 5,121,560 (“Daane,” issued June 16, 1992) and U.S. Patent
No. 5,571,564 (“Helms,” issued Nov. 5, 1996) (FOA 6).
3. The Examiner finally rejected claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Yializis in view of Miller (FOA 11).
4. The Examiner finally rejected claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Yializis in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,869,484 B2
(“Hunt,” issued March 22, 2005) (FOA 13).2

1 The Examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection of claim 10 as
obvious over the combination of Yializis, Yamauchi, and Miller (Ans. 3).
2 The Examiner’s Answer states the basis for rejection of claim 37 in
two different ways. In the “Grounds of Rejection,” claim 37 is rejected over
the combination of Yializis and Hunt (Ans. 14). In the “Response to
Argument,” however, the rejection is described as being over the
combination of Yializis, Yamauchi, and Hunt (Ans. 23). We believe the
inclusion of Yamauchi in the “Response to Argument” is an inadvertent
error because Yamauchi is not cited by the Examiner in the detailed
description of the ground of rejection of claim 37 (Ans. 14-15).
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
4
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner’s Answer maintains the final rejection of
claims 1-9 and 21-24 as obvious over the combination of Yializis,
Yamauchi, and Miller (Ans. 4-7). Appellant argues separately for the
patentability of each claim, except for claims 3 and 4 and claims 5 and 6,
which are argued as two separate groups.
Claim 1. Appellant states that claim 1 “highlights that the printing
cylinder comprises a surface defining discontinuous and non-annular liquid-
applying portions” (App. Br. 17). Appellant presents several arguments in
support of his position that the combination of Yializis, Yamauchi, and
Miller neither describes nor suggests the claimed features and alleged
vibration dampening advantages of the claimed apparatus. For the reasons
set forth below, we are not persuaded by these arguments.
First, Appellant argues that “the references as a whole do not provide
any suggestion of using the teachings of Yamauchi to modify surface 4 [sic]
of the printing cylinder . . . of Yializis” to include discontinuous, non-
annular liquid applying portions (id. at 19-20). The Examiner replies that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to use
Yamauchi’s discontinuous non-annular patterned print roller in Yializis
device in to create a printed pattern on a web material (Ans. 5, 16).
The Examiner’s position is correct. Yializis describes a method for
producing a patterned metal film by using a patterned liquid surface to
protect portions of the substrate material from metal deposition (Yializis col.
6, l. 65-col. 7, l. 14). The process is described as being “similar to
conventional offset gravure printing” (id. at col. 7, ll. 3-4). Yializis
specifically states that “[t]he print head roller 68 is patterned in the shape of
the final product capacitors” (id. at 7:12-13). Yamauchi describes one
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
5
method of patterning the surface of a print roller in order to transfer a pattern
to the surface of the web material (Yamauchi col. 7, ll. 27-44; Figs. 8, 9).3
Second, Appellant argues that Miller is non-analogous art and that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Miller to modify the
combination of Yializis and Yamauchi (App. Br. 21-22). To rely upon a
reference as a basis for rejection of Appellants’ claims, the reference must
either (1) be in the field of Appellants’ endeavor or (2) be reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, the Examiner properly relied upon Miller. Appellant
attempts to distinguish the invention’s field of endeavor from printing by
calling the invention a vacuum deposition device (App. Br. 21-22; see also,
e.g., Spec. 1 (referring to invention as a “device for metallization”), 3
(“metallization device or system”), 8 (same)). The specification, however,

3 Indeed, Yializis’s description of its process as being similar to offset
gravure printing is sufficient to describe or suggest the use of a
discontinuous non-annular pattern of liquid-applying portions on the surface
of the print roller to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally
Gravure Printing in Printing, Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravure_Printing#Gravure (accessed Jan. 30,
2013); Rotogravure, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotogravure
(accessed Jan. 30, 2013).
Appellant asserts that “Yializis discloses continuous annular printing
portions on the printing cylinder to provide continuous bands of liquid
material on the web before metallization thereof” (Ans. 20). This assertion is
not supported by any citation to the record and is contrary to Yializis’s
actual description of several different embodiments of apparatus for ensuring
that metallization only occurs in the desired pattern. Appellant’s
understanding of the devices described in Yializis appears to be inaccurate.
Because we find that the Examiner properly identified an adequate
reason for combining Yializis and Yamauchi, we need not rely upon this
basis for a new ground of rejection.
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
6
clearly describes the claimed system as comprising an applicator unit that is
a printing apparatus (e.g., Spec. 3, 10-12). The Specification also
emphasizes the desirability of accurately transferring the masking liquid
from the printing cylinder to the web material with high definition,
precision, and repeatability (e.g., Spec. 14). These problems are common to
all printing processes. Furthermore, the prior art specifically notes the
similarity between the provision of a patterned oil mask and conventional
offset gravure printing (Yializis col. 7, ll. 3-4). Therefore, we find that the
invention falls within the printing field of endeavor, notwithstanding the
location of the claimed printing apparatus within a vacuum deposition
device.
Even if we were to accept Appellant’s argument that printing a
masking pattern on a web of material in a vacuum deposition device is a
different field of endeavor from other sorts of printing (App. Br. 21-22),
Miller is still reasonably pertinent to solving the problem of accurately
transferring the pattern from the print roller to the web material in a printing
process. Yializis describes slippage between the print roller and the main
drum as complicating the use of oil patterning as a mask in the metal
deposition process (Yializis col. 7, ll. 47-61). Such slippage would lead to
the oil masking pattern being inaccurately transferred to the web material.
Miller describes the use of enlarged annular portions of a driven roller to
eliminate slippage between a pair of rollers by directly coupling the driving
and driver rollers (Miller col. 2, ll. 58-65, col. 3, ll. 55-69). Miller therefore
addresses one of the problems already known in the vacuum deposition prior
art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have looked to
Miller and similar references to solve this known problem.
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
7
Third, Appellant argues that Miller provides no teaching or suggestion
that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Miller’s
annular projections with the printing cylinder described in Yializis (App. Br.
22-24). As described above, however, Yializis provides the needed
suggestion by stating that slippage between the print and process rollers is a
problem that should be addressed. Because obviousness is based on the
combined teachings of all of the cited references, Appellant’s argument is
not sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s rejection of this claim.
The rejection of claim 1 is affirmed.
Claim 2. This claim depends from claim 1 and further requires that the
liquid product is an adhesion-preventing product (App. Br. 63-64).
Appellant’s argument that the combination of Yializis, Yamauchi, and
Miller does not describe or suggest the use of an applicator unit upstream of
a vaporization source (App. Br. 24-25) is not relevant to the limitation added
by this claim. We therefore affirm the rejection of this claim.
Claims 3-9 and 21-24. Appellant’s arguments for reversal of the
Examiner’s rejection of these dependent claims amount to either (1) a
recapitulation of the arguments that we have already considered and found
insufficient in connection with claim 1, and/or (2) an assertion that the prior
art does not teach the combination of the limitation added by these
dependent claims and the system claimed in the parent and intervening
claims (if any) from which the particular claim depends.
For each claim where Appellant provided an argument of type (2), we
have reviewed the prior art cited by the Examiner as well as the Examiner’s
findings and reasoning (Ans. 4-7, 15-18) and conclude that the Examiner has
correctly found that the combination of Yializis, Yamauchi, and Miller
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
8
describes or suggests the claimed system to a person of ordinary skill in the
art. We, therefore, affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Rejection 2. The Examiner finally rejected claims 11-13, 15-20, 25,
27, 29-33, and 35 as obvious over the combination of Yializis, Yamauchi,
Miller, Daane, and Helms (FOA 6; Ans. 7-12). Appellant presents separate
arguments for the patentability of each claim.
Claim 11. Claim 11 is reproduced below:
11. System as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of said
printing cylinder and distributor cylinder comprises a
temperature control device.
(App. Br. 65).
The Examiner relies upon Daane and Helms as describing or
suggesting the inclusion of a temperature control device in at least one of the
printing cylinder and distribution cylinder (Ans. 7-8).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous for several
reasons. First, Appellant argues that Daane is non-analogous art because
Daane is directed toward printing webs and not vacuum deposition (App. Br.
35). As discussed above, we find that Appellant’s invention is within the
field of printing technology. The Examiner, therefore, may rely upon Daane
as a basis for rejecting the ’383 application’s claims.
Second, Appellant argues that Daane fails to specifically describe or
suggest controlling the temperature of at least one of a printing roller and a
distributor roller (App. Br. 35-36). The Examiner, however, does not cite
Daane for such a description or suggestion. The Examiner, rather, cites
Daane for its description of the importance of cooling the printed fluid to
avoid smearing of the printed pattern (Ans. 8 (citing Daane col. 1, ll. 12-
26)). Therefore, the Examiner has not erred in describing Daane’s teaching.
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
9
Third, Appellant argues that Helms is non-analogous art and may not
be combined with Yializis (App. Br. 36). For the reasons discussed in
connection with the Daane reference, we do not agree with this argument.
Fourth, Appellant argues that Helms does not describe or suggest
controlling the temperature of at least one of the printing roller and the
distributor roller (App. Br. 36-37). The Examiner does not assert that Helms
provides such a description (Ans. 8). We find no error in the Examiner’s
findings regarding what Helms describes.
Fifth, Appellant, however, asserts that the difference between the prior
art—which describes the use of chill rollers to cool a printed web that has
been heated to dry the ink—and the claimed invention—which requires
temperature control of at least one of either the printing roller and the
distributing roller—would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention (App. Br. 35-37). The question of
obviousness is a determination of whether the differences between the prior
art and the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual
determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17-18 (1966).
As discussed above, Appellant has not demonstrated any error in the
Examiner’s factual findings. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion regarding the ultimate question of obviousness. Like the
Examiner (Ans. 19-20), we conclude that, in view of Daane’s description of
the use of temperature-controlled rollers to avoid ink smearing, it would
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
10
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yializis
to incorporate temperature-controlled rollers to regulate the viscosity and
other properties of the oil applied to the printed substrate.4 Appellant’s
claimed invention amounts to a combination of familiar elements performing
known functions to achieve predictable results. As such, it would have been
obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Corp., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 11.
Claims 12, 13, and 15-20. These claims depend, either directly or
indirectly, from claim 11. Appellant’s arguments for their patentability
(App. Br. 37-43) amount to restatements of the arguments that we have
rejected in our discussion of claim 11. We have carefully reviewed the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to each of these claims
(Ans. 7-8, 18-22) and have considered whether the differences between the
prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of each of these claims.
Claim 25. The Examiner rejected this independent claim as obvious
over the combination of Yializis, Yamachi, Miller, Daane, and Helms (Ans.
7, 8-9). Appellant challenges this rejection, asserting the same errors and
offering essentially the same arguments that were offered in connection with
claim 11 (App. Br. 43-48). Because we have already considered and found

4 We further note, but do not rely upon, Yializis’s description of an
evaporation-condensation system to transfer a thin layer of oil from a heated
reservoir to a first roller (Yializis col. 8, ll. 1-23). A person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that reliably achieving the condensation of the
desired amount of oil on the first roller requires careful regulation of the
temperatures of the reservoir, cooling jacket, and roller surface, thus
implying the presence of a temperature control system within the roller.
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
11
these arguments unpersuasive, supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 25 without providing a detailed analysis.
Claims 27, 29-31, and 33. These claims depend, either directly or
indirectly, from claim 25. Appellant’s arguments for their patentability
(App. Br. 37-43, 55-56) amount to restatements of the arguments that we
have rejected in our discussion of claim 25. We have carefully reviewed the
Examiner’s findings with respect to each of these claims (Ans. 8-10, 18-22)
and have considered whether the differences between the prior art and the
claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
each of these claims.
Claim 32. The Examiner rejected this independent claim as obvious
over the combination of Yializis, Yamachi, Miller, Daane, and Helms (Ans.
7, 10-11). Appellant challenges this rejection, asserting the same errors and
offering essentially the same arguments that were offered in connection with
claim 1 (App. Br. 52-55). Because we have already considered and found
these arguments unpersuasive, supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 32 without providing a detailed analysis.
Claim 35. This claim depends from claim 33. Appellant’s arguments
for its patentability (App. Br. 56) amount to restatements of the arguments
that we have rejected in our discussion of claim 33. We have carefully
reviewed the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to this claim
(Ans. 11-12, 18-22) and have considered whether the differences between
the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of this claim.
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
12
Rejection 3. The Examiner finally rejected claim 36 as obvious over
the combination of Yializis and Miller (FOA 11; Ans. 12-14). Claim 36 is an
independent claim and is reproduced below with the claim language at issue
italicized:
36. A system for vacuum deposition of a coating on a web
material, the system comprising:
a housing defining an evacuable chamber, at least a portion of
said evacuable chamber defining a vacuum environment;
a web material, at least a portion of said web material moving
along a defined feed path in said vacuum environment;
a process roller arranged along said feed path, said web material
being guided about at least a portion of said process roller;
a vaporization source associated with said process roller, said
vaporization source comprising at least a first material to form
said coating;
an applicator unit upstream of said vaporization source, along
said feed path of said web material, said applicator unit
applying a liquid product to the web material in a pre-
established pattern, said application unit comprising a printing
cylinder, a distributor cylinder of said liquid product and a
source of said liquid product, said printing cylinder cooperating
with said distributor cylinder, wherein said printing cylinder
comprises at least two substantially continuous circumferential
projections, said at least two substantially continuous
circumferential projections being in continuous contact with
said distributor cylinder and one of the web material fed around
said process roller and said process roller, wherein said printing
cylinder is moounted [sic, mounted] for movement such that
said printing cylinder is driven into rotation via friction contact
of said at least two continuous circumferential projections with
said distributor cylinder and said process roller or the web

Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
13
material fed about said process roller, at least one of said
distributor roller and said process roller being motor driven.
(App. Br. 69-70 (emphasis added)).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is improper because
Miller is non-analogous art (App. Br. 57-58). We have already explained
why we are unpersuaded by this argument in our analysis of claim 1, supra.
Appellant further argues that Miller does not disclose the provision of
“a frictional transmission between a printing cylinder, a distributor cylinder
and a process roller as featured in the present invention” and that
maintenance of the angular phase relationship between rollers 40 and 42 in
Miller is not critical (App. Br. 58).
We also are not persuaded by these arguments. As the Examiner
explains, Miller describes the use of frictional contact between rollers 40 and
42 to drive roller 40 (Ans. 22). Miller further describes the surfaces of rollers
40 and 42 as comprised of oppositely directed spiral grooves (Miller col. 3,
l. 70-col. 4, l. 16). Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Miller’s discussion of
the way rollers 40 and 42 function cooperatively illustrates the need to
maintain the phase relationship between the rollers (id. at col. 4, ll. 33-68
(discussing cooperation between corresponding groove and land areas on
rollers 40 and 42 to center web and remove creases from web material)).
Furthermore, Miller explains that roller 40 is driven by frictional contact
with roller 42 through annular projections 65 and 66 to avoid slippage
between the rollers that can occur when the web material consists of
multiple layers of paper (id. at col. 1, ll. 58-65, col. 3, ll. 58-62).
In view of Miller’s description of the manner in which rollers 40 and
42 function in its apparatus, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to use a frictional transmission comprised of
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
14
substantially continuous circumferential projections to drive an assembly
comprised of a distributor cylinder, a printing cylinder, and a process
cylinder while maintaining the phase relationship between the printing
cylinder and the process cylinder. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 36 as obvious over the combination of Yializis and Miller.
Rejection 4. The Examiner finally rejected claim 37 as obvious over
the combination of Yializis and Hunt (FOA 13; Ans. 14-15, 23). Claim 37 is
an independent claim and is reproduced below with the key claim limitation
italicized:
37. A system for vacuum deposition of a coating on a web
material, the system comprising:
a housing defining an evacuable chamber, at least a portion of said
evacuable chamber defining a vacuum environment;
a web material, at least a portion of said web material moving along a
defined feed path in said vacuum environment;
a process roller arranged along said feed path, said web material
being guided about at least a portion of said process roller;
an applicator unit arranged along said feed path of said web material,
said applicator unit applying a liquid product to the web material in a
pre-established pattern, said application unit comprising a printing
cylinder, a distributor cylinder of said liquid product and a source of
said liquid product including a liquid container, said distributor
cylinder being at least partially immersed in said liquid product, at
least one of said printing cylinder and said distributor cylinder
comprising a heating system for maintaining said at least one of said
printing cylinder and said distributor cylinder at a controlled
temperature.
(App. Br. 70-71(emphasis added)).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in relying on Hunt to
describe or suggest the provision of “at least one of a printing cylinder and a
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
15
distributor cylinder with a heating system” (App. Br. 59-60). We do not find
this argument to be persuasive.
The Examiner found that Hunt teaches that “printing operations often
require the substrate to be heated in a step-by-step fashion, and that such
heating can be accomplished using heated rollers maintained at a controlled
temperature” (Ans. 14-15 (citing Hunt col. 6, ll. 28-48)). The Examiner then
concluded that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art who desired to heat Yializis’s substrate to perform a coating
operation to incorporate Hunt’s heated rollers into Yializis’s apparatus (id. at
15).
We do not discern any error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusion
that the subject matter of claim 37 would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As the Examiner found,
Hunt describes the need to control the temperature of the web material
which is to be coated by vaporized or sprayed material and establishes that
this need was well known in the art (Hunt Abstract, col. 6, ll. 28-30). Hunt
further teaches that one way in which this temperature control can be
accomplished is by passing the web material over one or more heated rollers
(id. at col. 6, ll. 37-42). Appellant’s claimed apparatus, therefore, uses a
combination of known components, functioning in a known fashion, to
achieve a known and predictable result. As such, it is obvious. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 416. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 as obvious over
the combination of Yializis and Hunt.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 10 as obvious. We
affirm the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-25, 27, 29-33, and 35-37
Appeal 2011-013052
Application 11/768,383
16
(which are all of the other claims remaining in the ’383 application) as
obvious.

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

cam