Ex Parte Thomas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

11909662 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
102790-193 7235
EXAMINER
MACAULEY, SHERIDAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/909,662 10/23/2007 McGee Thomas
09/27/201727389 7590
PARFOMAK, ANDREW N.
NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS PA
875 THIRD AVE, 8TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10022
09/27/2017 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 MCGEE THOMAS, CHRISTIAN QUELLET, and
JOHNNY BOUWMEESTERS1
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
Technology Center 1600
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and DAVID COTTA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims directed
to a composition to counteract malodor. The Examiner rejects the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is GIVAUDAN SA.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Specification “spray-dried fragranced particles are
generally very sensitive to humidity, and exposure to moisture over a long
period of time often results in fragrance losses and decreased olfactive
performance.” Spec. 2:10—12.
Claims 1—23, 25, and 26 are on appeal, and can be found in the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is representative of the
claims on appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A solid, free-flowing composition adapted to deliver
fragrance or malodor counteractant in a consumer product that
is subjected to actual or potential malodorous influences,
comprising:
a delivery system consisting of a core material
surrounded by a fragranced material comprising microdroplets
of a fragrance dispersed in a fragrance-encapsulating material,
optionally, surrounded by a protective coating, and,
an external absorbent material in which the fragrance
delivery system is dispersed.
Appeal Br. 16 Claims Appendix (emphasis added).
Appellants request review of following grounds of rejection by the
Examiner:
I. claims 1—7, 9-23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Colbom2 in view of Trinh;3 and
II. claims 1—23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Colbom in view of Trinh, and further in view of Rutherford.4
2 Colbom et al., US 4,407,231, issued Oct. 4, 1983 (“Colbom”).
3 Trinh et al., US 6,287,550 Bl, issued Sep. 11, 2001 (“Trinh”).
4 Rutherford, US 4,842,761, issued June 27, 1989.
2
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
I. Obviousness over Colborn and Trinh
The issue is: Does a preponderance of evidence of record support the
Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of references teaches core
material surrounded by microdroplets of a fragrance dispersed in a fragrance
encapsulating material as claimed?
Findings of Fact
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art as set out in the Final Office Action5 and
Answer. We highlight the following only for emphasis:
FF1. Colborn teaches an animal litter composition having two types of
particles. “The animal litter compris[ing] absorbant [sic] particles
having microcapsules affixed to exterior surfaces of at least some of
the absorbant [sic] particles. The microcapsules encapsulate the odor
masking component, which is released when the microcapsules are
ruptured.” Colborn, Abstract (emphasis added); see Final Act. 3.
FF2. Colborn teaches that the “[mjicrocapsules suitable for affixation to
absorbant [sic] particles ... are preferably formed of a substantially
water insoluble wall material, such as a[n] ureaformaldehyde
polymer.” Colborn 3:17—20; see Final Act. 3.
FF3. Colborn teaches that the fragrance or deodorizer encapsulated by the
microcapsule includes: “perfumes, flavors, fragrances, essence oils,
and deodorizers, which should be fairly volatile, such as citrus
(orange, lemon and the like) oil, oil of cloves, cinnamon oil, pine oil,
and so forth.” Colborn 3: 27—30; see Final Act. 3.
5 Final Office Action mailed June 25, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
3
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
FF4. Colbom teaches the use of a slurry for affixing microcapsules to a
substrate. The slurry “includes microcapsules, a suspension agent, an
adhesive agent, and a solvent, or carrier liquid.” Colbom 5:7—9. The
slurry contains adhesive to “hold at least a major portion of the
microcapsules onto the substrate during handling, such as shaking,
pouring and the like, as is encountered in packaging procedures.”
Colbom 6:32-41 ; see Final Act. 5.
FF5. Colbom teaches that absorbent particles “may be composed of
cellulosic materials such as sawdust, . . . synthetic clays, and clay
minerals such as kaolinites or montmorillonites.” Colbom 2:28—35.
FF6. Trinh teaches the production of animal litter using absorbing
materials. Suitable examples of absorbing materials include cellulosic
material (see Trinh 3:3—12), and clay or clay-like materials. See Trinh
3:36-50 ; see Final Act. 4. Trinh’s discloses animal litter comprising
“particulate earth substrate in admixture with a water soluble or
dispersible polysaccharide . . . being present in an amount sufficient to
increase the inherent clumping ability of the [particulate] earth”
substrate. Trinh 4:26—30.
FF7. Trinh’s absorbing material includes clay particles that “are pelletized
or formed into particles which have a size varying from about 200
mesh USS (0.075 mm) to about 314 mesh (5.6 mm), preferably from
about 60 mesh (0.25 mm) to about 4 mesh (4.75 mm).” Trinh 3:46—
51, see also 4:61—62 (“in the range of about 10 mesh (1.7 mm) to 140
mesh (0.11 mm)”); see Final Act. 5.
FF8. Trinh teaches adding microcapsules to absorbent material.
“Microcapsules suitable for affixation to the inventive animal litter”
4
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
are 20—200 microns in size and contain encapsulate fragrance or
deodorizer within the structure. Trinh 22:48—56; see Final Act 4.
Trinh teaches that “[mjoisture-activated matrix perfume
microcapsules can be applied to the animal litter by uniformly
sprinkling, mixing, or distributing the microcapsules onto the solid
liquid absorbent litter material.” Trinh 41:3 0—3 3.
FF9. Trinh teaches that free perfume can be present in an animal litter
composition but it is preferable to have the perfume contained or
encapsulated so that it is not uncomfortable for the animal. See Trinh
20:4—7.
The encapsulation can be in the form of molecular
encapsulation, such as the inclusion complex with
cyclodextrin, coacevate microencapsulation wherein the
perfume droplet is enclosed in a solid wall material,
“cellular matrix” encapsulation wherein solid particles
containing perfume droplets stably held in the cells.
Perfume can also be more crudely embedded in a matrix,
such as a starch or sugar matrix.
Trinh 20:11—18; see Final Act. 4.
FF10. Trinh teaches that the production of cellular matrix microcapsules
include the following steps: “(1) forming an aqueous phase of the
polysaccharide and polyhydroxy compound in proper proportions,
with added emulsifier if necessary or desirable; (2) emulsifying the
perfumes in the aqueous phase; and (3) removing moisture while the
mass is plastic or flowable, e.g., by spray drying droplets of the
emulsion.” Trinh 23:23^42; see Final Act. 4, 8.
5
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
FF1 l.The Specification teaches that suitable “core material” includes water-
insoluble absorbent materials including, for example, clays such as
diatomaceous earth among others. See Spec 4:26—30.
FF12.The Specification teaches that “external absorbent material” includes,
for example, clays such as diatomaceous earth among others. See
Spec. 10:1-6.
FF13.The Specification teaches that “by ‘fragrance-encapsulating material’
is meant a barrier material effectively preventing the fragrance from
diffusing out of the delivery system.” Spec. 7. These barrier
materials include: modified polysaccharides, such as starch and
modified starch, dextrin, maltodextrin, sugars, sugar alcohols,
mannitol, inulin, trehalose, gums, as well as water soluble polymers.
See Spec. 7:7 to 8:2.
FF14. Example 2 of the Specification teaches the production of a delivery
system with an absorbent as the core material. Spec. 13. The first
step in the production of the delivery system includes the creation of a
fragranced material emulsion containing: fragrance oil, water,
mannitol, modified starch, and pigment. See Spec. 13:25 to 14:6.
“The mixture was homogenised . . . until a stable emulsion was
obtained having a mean particle size below 1 micron.” Spec. 14:5—6.
Illite clay was used as the absorbent material and placed in a fluidized
bed granulator, the fragranced material emulsion was then sprayed
onto the fluidized absorbent material and dried. See Spec 14:7—11.
Examples 3—5 similarly describe spraying a fragranced material
emulsion onto a core material. See Spec. 14—15.
6
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
Principle of Law
“If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). It is obvious to
those skilled in the art to substitute one known equivalent for another. See
In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
see also In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Because the
applicants merely substituted one element known in the art for a known
equivalent, this court affirms [the rejection for obviousness].”).
Analysis
The Examiner finds that Colbom teaches an animal litter composition
containing two types of particles. Particles that are coated with
microcapsule containing fragrance and the other particles that are not coated.
See Final Act. 3; see FF1—FF5. The Examiner finds that “Colbom does not
specifically teach that the delivery system contains a fragranced material
comprising microdroplets of a fragrance dispersed in a fragrance
encapsulating material.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Trinh for
teaching a delivery system wherein the fragrance material is encapsulated by
a hydrophilic material such as a polysaccharide. See Final Act. 4; FF6—
FF10. The Examiner concludes that based on the combined teachings “[o]ne
of ordinary skill in the art would . . . [have] recognize [d] that the
microcapsules of Trinh could have been desirably incorporated into the
animal litter composition of Colbom.” Final Act. 4.
We have reviewed Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1—7, 9-23 and 26 as obvious over Colbom and Trinh. See
Appeal Br. 5—12; see Reply Br. 2—10. We disagree with Appellants’
7
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
contentions and adopt the findings concerning the scope and content of the
prior art as applied to these claims set forth in the Examiner’s Answer and
the Final Action. For emphasis, we highlight and address the following:
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 12, Appellants contend that the
combination does not teach “microdroplets of a fragrance dispersed in a
fragrance-encapsulating material” as required by the claims. Appeal Br. 9;
see also Reply Br. 5 (“that there is no way that ‘fragranced material
comprising microdroplets of a fragrance dispersed in a fragrance
encapsulating material’ can mean microcapsules of fragrance, like those
taught in Colbom”). We are not persuaded by Appellants contention that the
references do not disclose fragranced material in the form of microdroplets.
The Examiner is not relying on Colbom’s microcapsules for teaching
microdroplets of fragrance dispersed in a fragrance encapsulating material
but instead is relying on the teaching of Trinh for this limitation. See Final
Act. 4; FF9&FF10.
We begin with claim constmction of the phrase “comprising
microdroplets of a fragrance dispersed in a fragrance-encapsulating
material,” giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). Although the term microdroplet is literally found in the
Specification (see Abstract, originally filed claims and on page 2 of the
Specification) the term is not otherwise described. Therefore, we look to the
remainder of the Specification for guidance in interpreting the term
“microdroplet.” Example 2 of the Specification describes the production of
a delivery system by spraying a fragranced material emulsion onto a
fluidized absorbent material in a conical fluidized bed granulator. FF14.
8
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
The emulsion is made by mixing “fragrance oil, water, mannitol, modified
starch, and pigment.” FF14. One of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that an emulsion is a suspension of small droplets of one liquid in
a second liquid. In this example the fragrance oil is suspended in the
solution of water, mannitol, and modified starch. The Specification further
describes applying the emulsion onto the absorbent material followed by
evaporating the water. See FF14. The resultant composition will have an
absorbent core surrounded by a layer of mannitol, modified starch and
pigment interspersed with fragrance oil droplets. Consistent with the
Specification we construe “microdroplets of a fragrance dispersed in a
fragrance-encapsulating material” to encompass fragrance oil droplets
surrounded by fragrance-encapsulating materials which include for example
polysaccharides and sugars. See FF13 & FF14. So construed, we agree with
the Examiner that Trinh discloses this element. See FF9 & FF10.
Appellants contend that “there is no way that ‘fragranced material
comprising microdroplets of a fragrance dispersed in a fragrance
encapsulating material’ can mean microcapsules of fragrance, like those
taught in Colbom” Reply Br. 5.
We are not persuaded. Just because the Specification exemplifies the
application of an emulsion onto a core particle (see FF14), this does not
mean that the claim is so limited. “[W]hile ‘the specification [should be
used] to interpret the meaning of a claim,’ courts must not ‘import[ ]
limitations from the specification into the claim. ’ . . . [I]t is improper to
‘confm[e] the claims to th[e] embodiments’ found in the specification . . . .”
In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
9
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
(quoting Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(citations omitted, bracketed text in internal quotes in original).
The Examiner finds that the microcapsules disclosed by Trinh meet
the limitations of “microdroplets of a fragrance dispersed in a fragrance-
encapsulating material” because these microcapsules are made by first
forming an emulsion and then spray drying the droplets to form
microcapsules. See Final Act. 4; FF10. We agree with the Examiner that
the claims do not limit the form in which the microdroplet of fragrance is
dispersed. Thus, the core material surrounded by fragranced material
encompasses core material to which an emulsion layer was directly applied
as disclosed in the Specification (FF14) as well as core material surrounded
by microcapsules that contain the fragrance oil droplets surrounded by
fragrance-encapsulating material as taught by Trinh. FF10. In both
application forms, whether as a layer of a dried emulsion (FF14) or a
microcapsule of a dried emulsion (FF10), the microdroplet of oil is
surrounded by fragrance-encapsulating material.
Claim 1 as written does not limit how the core material is surrounded
by the fragranced material comprising microdroplets of fragrance. Trinh
teaches that the microcapsules can be affixed to the animal litter by
sprinkling, mixing, or distributing the microcapsules onto the solid liquid
absorbent litter material. FF8. We find no error with the Examiner’s
conclusion that “that the microcapsules of Trinh could have been desirably
incorporated into the animal litter composition of Colbom.” Final Act. 4.
Appellants contend that “[t]he microcapsules [of Colbom] are sprayed
on to the particles in the form of a slurry that also contains an adhesive
agent, so that they adhere to the particles.” Reply Br. 4.
10
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
We recognize but are not persuaded by Appellants contention that
Colbom’s process is required in formulating core material surrounded by
fragrance containing material. The obviousness inquiry does not ask
“whether the references could be physically combined but whether the
claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a
whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed.Cir.1985) (en banc). Here,
Trinh teaches that “[mjoisture-activated matrix perfume microcapsules can
be applied to the animal litter by uniformly sprinkling, mixing, or
distributing the microcapsules onto the solid liquid absorbent litter material.”
FF8. Trinh does not teach the use of adhesives for affixing the
microcapsules to the core material. Therefore, we see no error with the
Examiner rationale that it would be obvious to use Trinh’s microcapsule
core material and mix it with core material that is not coated with
microcapsules as taught in Colbom to arrive at the claimed composition.
See Final Act. 4—5.
We are also not persuaded by the argument that the prior art does not
discloses “dispersing” two different types of particles, an external absorbent
material, and a separate fragrance delivery system dispersed therein. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 11. Colbom “teaches that not all of the particles are coated
with microcapsules.” Ans. 4. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Colbom teaches a product having two types of particles. As the Examiner
explains: “[although Colbom does not specifically teach dispersing the
delivery system into an external absorbent material form a solid, free-
flowing composition, the reference teaches that not all of the particles are
coated with microcapsules. . . . [T]hus, the reference teaches that not all of
the absorbent material is coated with microcapsules.” Ans. 4. See In re
11
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“If the product in a product-by­
process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the
claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different
process.”).
Insofar as Appellants contend that the absorbent core of the “delivery
system” and the “external absorbent material” must be different, this is also
not persuasive. The Specification provides that the same material is suitable
for use as both the “core material” and “external absorbent material.”
Compare FF11 & FF12. The Examiner relies on Colbom’s teaching that
some absorbent materials are covered by the microcapsules while others are
not. FF1. Here, the Examiner interprets that all that is required by the claim
is a composition that contains two different types of particles, one of which
is surrounded by a fragranced material and the other that does not contain
fragranced material.
Appellants contend that “the Examiner’s reliance upon Colbom and
Trinh is in error and is improper as being an impermissible ‘hindsight
reconstruction.’” Appeal Br. 10. We are not persuaded and agree with the
Examiner’s position that only information disclosed in the references was
relied upon in reaching a conclusion of obviousness. See Ans. 4—5.
Appellants’ argument regarding hindsight reasoning is unpersuasive because
Appellants have not directed us to information that could only have been
gleaned from the present Specification.
We conclude that the evidence cited by the Examiner supports a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1, and Appellants have
not provided sufficient rebuttal evidence that outweighs the evidence
supporting the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. As Appellants do not
12
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
argue the claims separately, claims 2, 4—7, 9, 10, 12—23, and 26 fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites the additional limitation that “the external absorbent
material has particle sizes ranging from 0 .2 to 10 millimetres [sic] and the
delivery system has particle sizes ranging from 0.5 to 4 millimetres [sic].”
With respect to claim 3 Appellants contend that the combined
teaching of the references fails because “the diameter range of Trinh’s
microcapsules does not teach or suggest the presently claimed delivery
system having particle sizes ranging from 0.5 to 4 millimeters.” Appeal
Br. 11.
We are not persuaded. As explained by the Examiner “it is noted that
the particle size [recited in the claim] is directed to the size of the absorbent
particle coated with microcapsules, and not to the size of the microcapsules
themselves.” Ans. 5 (emphasis added). Trinh teaches using absorbing
material having a size range from 0.075 to 5.6 mm. FF7. “Aprimafacie
case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed
composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” In re Peterson,
315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Examiner further finds that
Trinh teaches particles having 1.7 mm particle size {see FF7) and “this
particle size is useful because it helps to facilitate clumping in the animal
litter.” Ans. 5; see also Trinh 5:1 (“to encourage quick clumping response”).
We affirm the rejection of claim 3 for the reasons set out above and those
provided by the Examiner in the Final Action and Answer.
13
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
Claim 11
Claim 11 is directed to a method and recites “applying a fragranced
material emulsion to particulate core material such that the surface of the
particulate core material is homogeneously exposed to the fragranced
material emulsion to form a delivery system.”
Appellants contend that “the presently claimed invention [as recited in
claim 11] doesn’t use microcapsules.” Reply Br. 10.
With respect to claim 11 we find that Appellants have the better
position. The claim requires that the fragranced material is applied directly
to the core particle in the form of an emulsion. We do recognize that Trinh
teaches directly applying a slurry to animal litter followed by a drying step.
See Trinh 40:11—30. Trinh, however, teaches that the perfume is contained
or encapsulated in a carrier to prevent premature loss to the atmosphere.
FF9. The encapsulation taught in Trinh includes “molecular encapsulation,
such as the inclusion complex with cyclodextrin, coacevate
microencapsulation wherein the perfume droplet is enclosed in a solid wall
material.” FF9. The Examiner has not explained how the formation of an
inclusion complex or a coascervate as taught by Trinh would meet the
emulsion requirement of claim 11. The Examiner also has not explained
why it would be obvious based on the teaching of Trinh to use the emulsion
as disclosed in the process of making microcapsules (see FF10) and apply it
directly onto the animal litter. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection as it
applies to claim 11 that requires the application of an emulsion containing
fragrance onto the absorbent particle.
14
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
II. Obviousness over Colborn, Trinh, and Rutherford
The Examiner acknowledges that “Colborn does not specifically teach
a composition comprising particles that are coated with a microcrystalline
cellulose or a hydroxyethyl cellulose.” Final Act. 10. The Examiner finds
that Rutherford teaches embedding fragrances in a polymer. Specifically,
teaching the use of a hydroxyethyl cellulose polymer. See Final Act. 10.
The Examiner concludes that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would
therefore have been motivated to select starch as the fragrance-encapsulating
material [as taught by Trinh] when preparing microcapsules for use in the
combined method of the prior art.” Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 6 (“the use
of a cellulosic binder is common in the art and that a suitable binder could
have been selected from other binders that had been used in the preparation
of fragranced coatings at the time of the invention”).
The Examiner interprets claim 8 as requiring an additional coating, an
optional component in claim 1. The Examiner’s position is that “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of a cellulosic
binder is common in the art and that a suitable binder could have been
selected from other binders that had been used in the preparation of
fragranced coatings at the time of the invention.” Ans. 6. This is merely the
substitution of one equivalent for another. See In re Omeprazole Patent
Litigation, 483 F.3d at 1374.
We find no error with the Examiner’s interpretation that the protective
coating in claim 8 could be selected from either microcrystalline cellulose or
hydroxyethyl cellulose or possibly a mixture of these two components.
However, the claim is structured in such a way that if the mixture is selected
15
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
as the coating material, then the coating also contains carrageenan,
maltodextrin and polyethylene glycol.
Applicants contend “that Rutherford fails to remedy the deficiencies
of Colbom and Trinh with respect to claim 1.” Appeal Br. 12. Specifically,
that the particle construction as disclosed in Rutherford does not resemble
the particles disclosed in Colbom or Trinh. See Reply Br. 11; see Ans. 13.
This argument is not persuasive because it does not take into account the
combined teaching of the references, which includes the use of binding
agents to attach the microcapsules onto the core material. See FF4; see also
Trinh 26:32—35 (using “a suitable binding agent in an effective amount to
help affix (improve the affixation) the solid powder active ingredients[, for
example a microcapsule,] to the animal litter substrate when the slurry is
sprayed thereon”). The argument also does not take into account the
Examiner’s rationale which is to substitute one known binding agent for
another.
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s rejection over Colbom, Trinh
and Rutherford with respect to claim 1. Claims 2—10, 12—23, 25, and 26
were not separately argued and fall with claim 1. We reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 over Colbom, Trinh and Rutherford
because the addition of Rutherford does not address the deficiencies in the
combination of Colbom and Trinh discussed above.
16
Appeal 2016-006608
Application 11/909,662
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Colbom and Trinh. Claims 2, 4—7, 9, 10, 12—23 and 26 were not
separately argued and fall with claim 1.
We reverse the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Colbom and Trinh.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Colbom in view of Trinh, and further in view of
Rutherford. Claims 2—10, 12—23, 25, and 26 were not separately argued and
fall with claim 1.
We reverse the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Colbom, Trinh, and Rutherford.
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-IN-PART
17