Milliken & Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 18, 2020

15421621 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2020)

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.
15/421,621 02/01/2017 Eduardo Torres 6801B 1011
25280 7590 09/18/2020
Legal Department (M-495)
P.O. Box 1926
Spartanburg, SC 29304
EXAMINER
HAVLIN, ROBERT H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1639
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2020 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 EDUARDO TORRES and
GREGORY SCOT MIRACLE
________________

Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621
Technology Center 1600
________________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16. Claims 2–4, 9,
11–13, 15, and 17 are withdrawn. Final Act. 1; Amend. 2–5 (Sept. 4, 2018).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Milliken &
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

2

Summary of the Disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “[l]aundry care
compositions comprising thiophene azo carboxylate fabric shading dyes and
methods of treating a textile comprising such laundry care compositions.”
Abstract.
Representative Claim (Key Limitations Emphasized)
1. A composition comprising a thiophene azo carboxylate dye
having the structure of Formula I:
Formula I
wherein R1 is selected from the group consisting of H and
electron-withdrawing groups; wherein R2 is (CH2CH2O)yQ and
R3 is (CH2CH2O)y′Q′;
wherein y and y′ are integers independently selected from 1 to
39,
wherein 8 ≤ (y + y′) ≤ 40;
wherein Q and Q′ are independently selected from the group
consisting of H and Y wherein Y is as defined below; with the
proviso that the dye comprises at least one Q or Q′ group that is
Y;
and wherein Y is an organic radical represented by Formula II
Formula II
wherein independently for each Y group,
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

3

M is H or a charge balancing cation; m is 0 to 5; n is 0 to 5; the
sum of m + n is 1 to 10; each R4 is independently selected from
the group consisting of H, C3–18 linear or branched alkyl, and
C3–18 linear or branched alkenyl.
Appellant previously elected a species without traverse
described as:
R1 = hydrogen
Q = Y
Q′ = Y
R4 = hydrogen
m = 0 or 1
n = 0 or 1
M = Na+
Appeal Br. 2; Response to Restriction Requirement (Oct. 23, 2017).
The Examiner’s rejections and cited references
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Valenti et al. (US 2012/0178665 A1;
published July 12, 2012) (“Valenti ’665”) and Kluger et al. (US 4,912,203;
issued Mar. 27, 1990) (“Kluger”). Final Act. 3–9; Ans. 3–8.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 2012/0304398 A1;
published Dec. 6, 2012) (“Miracle ’398”), Valenti ’665, and Kluger. Final
Act. 9–10; Ans. 8–10.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 on grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–12 of Torres et al. (US 9,163,146 B2; issued Oct. 20, 2015)
(“Torres ’146”) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Final Act. 10; Ans. 10–
11.
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

4

The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 on grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–7 Miracle (US 8,993,508 B1; issued Mar. 31, 2015) (“Miracle
’508”) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Final Act. 10; Ans. 11–13.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 on grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–19 of Miracle et al. (US 8,888,865 B2; issued Nov. 18, 2014)
(“Miracle ’865”) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Final Act. 10–11; Ans.
13–14.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 on grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 9–16 of Miracle et al. (US 8,858,651 B2; issued Oct. 14, 2014)
(“Miracle ’651”) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Final Act. 11; Ans.
14–15.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 on grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1 and 2 of Valenti et al. (US 8,138,222 B2; issued Mar. 20, 2012)
(“Valenti ’222”) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Final Act. 11; Ans. 15–
17.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 on grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–9 of Valenti et al. (US 8,022,100 B2; issued Sept. 20, 2011)
(“Valenti ’100”) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Final Act. 11; Ans. 17–
18.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 on grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

5

claims 1–12 of Valenti et al. (US 7,642,282 B2; issued Jan. 5, 2010)
(“Valenti ’282”) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Final Act. 12; Ans. 18–
20.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 on grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–10 of Miracle (US 9,267,098 B2; issued Feb. 23, 2016) (“Miracle
’098”) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Final Act. 12; Ans. 20–21.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16 on grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–19 Miracle et al. (US 9,371,507 B2; issued June 21, 2016)
(“Miracle ’507”) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Final Act. 12; Ans.
21–22.
The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, and 16
on grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1–17 of Torres et al. (US App. No. 14/476,847)
(“Torres ’847”) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger because Torres ’847 is
abandoned. Final Act. 13; Ans. 22–23; Notice of Abandonment, US App.
No. 14/476,847 (May 7, 2018).
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and
we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide
the following explanation for emphasis.
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

6

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 (Valenti ’665 and Kluger)
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Valenti ’665 and Kluger, the
Examiner finds that whitening agent example number 10 of Valenti ’665—
identified as Violet thiophene_5EO_COCH2CHRCOOH_RC8H17—teaches
or suggests a compound similar in structure to the compound of claim 1.
Final Act. 3–7 (citing, e.g., Valenti ’665 ¶¶ 30–40, 155, 168, Table 1A).
The Examiner finds that “[t]he difference between the Valenti [’665]
compound example 10 and [the compound recited in claim 1] is the number
of repeating polymer units EO (ethylene oxide) and the R4 of CH3 vs. H.”
Final Act. 7. The Examiner also finds claim 1 requires “between 8 and 40
[repeating polymer units EO] while the prior art teaches an example with the
value of 5 along with the preferred range of 2 to 20 (more preferably 2 to
10).” Id. The Examiner concludes:
One of ordinary skill in the art would be well versed in
techniques of optimizing the chemical structure of a compound
to improve physico-chemical properties of the whitening agent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would consider routine and well
within their technical grasp the process of altering the length of
a polymeric unit such as EO to tune physical properties and
optimize molecular size for a given application. Valenti [’665]
specifically describes such an optimization using the Hansen
solubility parameter[2] and physical trapping on the substrate.
Id. (citing Valenti ’665 ¶¶ 44, 47).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding the combined teachings and suggestions of Valenti ’665 and

2 Both the Examiner and Appellant refer to the dispersion component δd of
the Hansen Solubility Parameter as simply “Hansen Solubility Parameter” or
“HSP.” See, e.g., Final Act. 7; Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

7

Kluger. Rather, Appellant argues that Valenti ’665 teaches away from claim
1, which Appellant argues is directed to molecules suitable as shading dyes
that are larger than the whitening agents Valenti ’665 teaches are suitable.
Appeal Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant argues that Valenti ’665 “repeatedly,
over and over again, describes the importance of [a Hansen Solubility
Parameter (HSP) dispersion component] less than or equal to 17 MPa0.5.” Id.
(citing Valenti ’665 ¶¶ 179, 186, Figure 1). Appellant argues Valenti ’665
teaches that whitening agent example 10, in contrast, “has a Hansen
Solubility Parame[ter dispersion component] of 18.5 MPa0.5.” Id. (citing
Valenti ’665 Table 4).
The Examiner acknowledges that Valenti ’665 whitening agent
example 10 has an HSP dispersion component of 18.5. Ans. 23 (citing
Valenti ’665 Table 4). But the Examiner notes that “[a]lthough the cited
parts of Valenti [’665] show that the color value b is . . . correlated with [the
HSP dispersion component], it does not show that the cited art teaches away
from the claimed invention.” Id. at 25 (emphasis added).
While Valenti ’665 teach that compounds with an HSP dispersion
component less than or equal to about 17 MPa0.5 are “ideal” for use in
laundry care, Valenti does not restrict the compounds useful for this purpose
to such value, but rather discloses that compounds having this value are
“preferable.” Valenti ’665 ¶¶ 2, 45 (cited in Appeal Br. 5). Specifically,
Valenti teaches that there is “a relatively linear correlation between the
blueing parameter, CIELab b*, and the dispersion component value of the
Hansen Solubility Parameter,” such that the “color value b* decreases (i.e.[,]
blueing performances increases) linearly as δd decreases).” Id. ¶ 179 (cited in
Final Act. 8; Ans. 24). This blueing performance is desirable in a whitening
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

8

agent because the color of textile substrates tend to fade and yellow as they
age “due to exposure to light, air, soil, and natural degradation of the fibers,”
thus use of blueing agents as whitening agents visually brightens textile
substrates by counteracting such fading and yellowing. Valenti ’665 ¶ 3.
Therefore, Valenti ’665 does not teach that compounds with an HSP
dispersion component greater than 17 MPa0.5 are not useful, but rather at
most might imply they are less than “ideal” and not “preferable” (i.e., that
they are inferior).
Simply because a product is described as or implied to be “inferior”
does not by itself constitute a teaching away from using the “inferior”
product. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “[J]ust because
better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior
combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d
1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Moreover, a teaching away is not dispositive,
but instead represents “a significant factor to be considered in determining
unobviousness.” Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553 (emphasis added). That is, although
it is “a useful general rule” that a reference that teaches away should not be
relied on to make a prima facie case of obviousness, “such a rule can not be
adopted in the abstract, for it may not be applicable in all factual
circumstances.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, “the nature of the teaching is
highly relevant, and must be weighed in substance.” Id.
Here, Valenti ’665 explicitly identifies example number 10 as one of a
number of “Inventive Whitening Agents” used to train (through linear
regression) models that use a compound’s HSP dispersion component to
predict the compound’s efficacy. Valenti ’665, Table 1A (cited in Final Act.
4); id. ¶ 179, Fig. 1 (cited in Appeal Br. 5); id. ¶¶ 180–82. Specifically,
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

9

Valenti ’665 teaches there is a “linear correlation between . . . color value[s]
b* . . . [and] δd” (Valenti ’665 ¶ 179 (cited in Final Act. 8) (emphasis
added)). The color value b (“CIELab b*”) indicates the whitening activity of
a compound with lower values indicating more whitening activity.
Whitening agent example 10 in fact has a lower CIELab b* than
several compounds with HSP dispersion component values of 17 or below.
This can be seen in Figure 1 of Valenti ’665 (cited in Appeal Br. 5), which is
reproduced below.

Figure 1 of Valenti ’665 depicts the dispersion component of the
solubility parameter in relation to the “COLOR VALUE b” of various
compounds described in Valenti ’665. Diamonds show the actual measured
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

10

color value b and a line shows the predicted values as calculated from
equations described in Valenti ’665.
Figure 1 of Valenti ’665 shows that the whitening agent example
number 10, labeled as “Violet_5EO_COCH2CHRCOOH_RC8H17,” has an
HSP dispersion component of 18.5 and a measured color value b of −5.76.
Valenti ’665, Tables 1A, 4. Figure 1 of Valenti ’665 depicts three whitening
agents having HSP dispersion components less than or equal to 17, the
preferred range of Valenti ’665, yet having measured color values b greater
than (i.e., inferior to) the measured color value b for whitening agent
example number 10. Specifically, example 3 (Violet thiophene_10EO,
labeled “Violet_10EO”) has an HSP dispersion component of 16.6 and a
measured color value b of −5.34. Id. Example 14 (Violet thiophene_QUAT,
labeled “Violet_QUAT”) has an HSP dispersion component of 16.8 and a
measured color value b of −5.36. Id. And example 15 (Triphenylmethane_
10EO, labeled “TPM_10EO”) has an HSP dispersion component of 16.8 and
a measured color value b of −5.46. Id. Thus, while example 10 has an HSP
dispersion component of 18.5, which is above the preferred value of 17,
example 10 also has a color value b that is lower (and thus better) than
compounds having an HSP in the preferred range.
Valenti ’665 provides additional evidence that whitening agent
example 10 is more effective than these three compounds in disclosing that
whitening agent example 10 has a Ganz Whiteness Index value of 127.03,
which is higher (i.e., that has “more blueing[] or whitening effect”) than the
Ganz Whiteness Index values of examples 3 (118.09), 14 (119.92), and 15
(125.44). Id. ¶ 175, Table 3.
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

11

Given that Valenti ’665 provides evidence that whitening agent
example 10—the compound the Examiner cites in rejecting claim 1 as
obvious—is more effective as a whitening agent than some compounds with
HSP dispersion components less than or equal to 17, we agree with the
Examiner that Valenti ’665 does not teach away from the use of whitening
agent example 10. Ans. 25.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection,
based on the combined teachings and suggestions of Valenti ’665 and
Kluger, of claim 1, and claims 5–8, 10, 14, and 16, which Appellant does not
argue separately with respect to this rejection. Appeal Br. 4–5.
35 U.S.C. § 103 (Miracle ’398, Valenti ’665, and Kluger)
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 as
being obvious over Miracle ’398, Valenti ’665, and Kluger, Appellant
explicitly relies on the arguments Appellant makes based on the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 based on Valenti ’665 and Kluger.
Appeal Br. 6. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed
above.
Appellant further argues that “Miracle [’398] teaches the exclusion of
Example 10 of Valenti [’665], thereby strengthening the argument above
that the combination of reference teache[s] the unsuitability of thiophene
compounds such as Example 10 from Valenti [’665].” Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant’s characterization of Miracle ’398 as excluding whitening agent
example 10 from Valenti ’665 accords with the proviso in Miracle ’398
regarding “a thiophene azo carboxylate dye containing a carboxylic acid
moiety” that excludes structures such as:
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

12

Miracle ’398 ¶ 25, claim 1. But as the Examiner correctly notes, “there is no
technical reason for one of ordinary skill in the art not to consider a
compound ‘provisoed’ out of a claim.” Ans. 26. Appellant fails to identify
anything in Miracle ’398 to show that this minimalistic proviso criticizes,
discredits, or otherwise discourages use of such compounds. In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, this proviso merely limits the
scope of infringement of claim 1 of Miracle ’398. Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner that Miracle ’398, Valenti ’665, and Kluger do not teach away
from the invention of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection,
based on Miracle ’398, Valenti ’665, and Kluger, of claim 1, and claims 5–8,
10, 14, and 16, which Appellant does not argue separately with respect to
this rejection. Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

13

Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Claims 1–12 of Torres ’146, Valenti ’665, and Kluger
Claims 1 and 2 of Valenti ’222, Valenti ’665, and Kluger
Claims 1–9 of Valenti ’100, Valenti ’665, and Kluger
Claims 1–12 of Valenti ’282, Valenti ’665, and Kluger
Claims 1–19 of Miracle ’865, Valenti ’665, and Kluger
Claims 9–16 of Miracle ’651, Valenti ’665, and Kluger
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 on grounds
of obviousness-type double patenting, based on claims 1–12 of Torres ’146
in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger, because
there is no teaching or suggestion in the claims of [Torres ’146]
to modify the dye of [Torres] ’146 to create the claimed
thiophene azo carboxylate dye which differs at least by the y +
y′ chain length of 8 to 40 (versus a value of 4 in [Torres ’146])
and by the absence of the G moiety (e.g., a substituted succinic
anhydride).
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–12 of Torres
’146 alone do not, however, show error in the Examiner’s reliance on claims
1–12 of Torres ’146 in combination with Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Ans. 10–
11, 27.
In particular Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings with
respect to Valenti ’665, but instead argues “that which is disclosed in
[Valenti ’665] cannot be used as the basis of a nonstatutory obviousness-
type double patenting rejection of” claim 1; rather, “only that which is
recited in the claims of a patent can be used as the basis of such a
rejection.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing MPEP § 804 II(B)(2)(a); Gen. Foods Corp.
v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly notes, Valenti ’665 “quali[fies] as 35 [U.S.C.] § 102(a)(1) prior art,
published more than 1 year before the earliest priority date of the instant
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

14

application.” Ans. 27. Obviousness-type double patenting rejections are
analogous to obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 even though
“that section is not itself involved in double patenting rejections because the
patent principally underlying the rejection is not prior art.” In re Braithwaite,
379 F.2d 594, 600 n.4 (CCPA 1967). Thus, the Examiner properly relied on
Valenti ’665 to establish that the rejected claims would have been obvious
based on the claims of the patent and the disclosure of Valenti ’665. The
Examiner also correctly distinguishes between art that does not qualify or is
not being used as prior art (e.g., Torres ’146) and art that does qualify and is
being used as prior art (e.g., Valenti ’665 and Kluger). See id. at 600. Such
distinction is particularly proper given the fundamental underpinning of the
obviousness-type double patenting doctrine that the
public should . . . be able to act on the assumption that upon the
expiration of the patent it will be free to use not only the
invention claimed in the patent but also modifications or
variants which would have been obvious to those of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made, taking into
account the skill of the art and prior art other than the invention
claimed in the issued patent.
In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892–93 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In re
Zickendraht, 319 F.2d 225, 232 (CCPA 1963) (Rich, J., concurring)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness-type double
patenting rejection, based on claims 1–12 of Torres ’146 in view of Valenti
’665 and Kluger, of claim 1, and claims 5–8, 10, 14, and 16, which
Appellant does not argue separately with respect to this rejection. Appeal Br.
6–8.
Appellant makes similarly unpersuasive arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 1, 5–8,
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

15

10, 14, and 16, based on (1) claims 1 and 2 of Valenti ’222, claims 1–9 of
Valenti ’100, claims 1–12 of Valenti ’282, claims 1–19 of Miracle ’865, or
claims 9–16 of Miracle ’651 (2) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Appeal
Br. 12–16. Therefore, we also sustain these rejections.
Appellant makes similarly unpersuasive arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 1, 5–8,
10, 14, and 16, based on (1) claims 1–7 of Miracle ’508, claims 1–10 of
Miracle ’098, or claims 1–19 of Miracle ’507 (2) in view of Valenti ’665 and
Kluger. Appeal Br. 8–9 and 16–18. These rejections are discussed below in
further detail with respect to additional arguments Appellant makes.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Claims 1–7 of Miracle ’508, Valenti ’665, and Kluger
Claims 1–10 of Miracle ’098, Valenti ’665, and Kluger
Claims 1–19 of Miracle ’507, Valenti ’665, and Kluger
With respect the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claim 1, based on claims 1–7 of Miracle ’508 in view of Valenti
’665 and Kluger, Appellant further argues “[t]he claims of the present
application cannot extend the term of protection for the invention of
[Miracle ’508] as the present application and [Miracle ’508] have the same
priority date.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because
even when patents issued for two co-pending applications would potentially
have the same patent term, double patenting rejections (including
obviousness-type double patenting rejections) are still valid and appropriate
for at least two reasons.
One reason is the terms of the patents may ultimately differ because of
patent term adjustments. MPEP § 804.02.VI. Another reason is that terminal
disclaimers used to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections
Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

16

include requirements that “serve to avoid the potential for harassment of an
accused infringer by multiple parties with patents covering the same
patentable invention.” Id. (citing In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944–48
(CCPA 1982)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness-type double
patenting rejection—based on claims 1–7 of Miracle ’508 in view of Valenti
’665 and Kluger—of claim 1, and claims 5–8, 10, 14, and 16, which
Appellant does not argue separately with respect to this rejection. Appeal Br.
8–9.
Appellant makes similarly unpersuasive arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 1, 5–8,
10, 14, and 16, based on (1) claims 1–10 of Miracle ’098 or claims 1–19 of
Miracle ’507 (2) in view of Valenti ’665 and Kluger. Appeal Br. 16–18.
Therefore, we also sustain these rejections.

Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

17

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
103 Valenti ’665, Kluger 1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
103 Miracle ’398,
Valenti ’665, Kluger,
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
Torres ’146,
Valenti ’665, Kluger,
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
Miracle ’508,
Valenti ’665, Kluger,
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
Miracle ’865,
Valenti ’665, Kluger,
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
Miracle ’651,
Valenti ’665, Kluger,
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
Valenti ’222,
Valenti ’665, Kluger,
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
Valenti ’100,
Valenti ’665, Kluger,
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
Valenti ’282,
Valenti ’665, Kluger,
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

Appeal 2020-000828
Application 15/421,621

18

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
Miracle ’098,
Valenti ’665, Kluger,
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16
Miracle ’507,
Valenti ’665, Kluger,
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

Overall
Outcome
1, 5–8, 10,
14, 16

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED