Mohamed Mahfouz

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 15, 2022

2021000136 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2022)

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. 14/515,483 10/15/2014 Mohamed Rashwan Mahfouz TMH01-MN001 1072 146902 7590 02/15/2022 Dorton & Willis LLP 9545 Kenwood Road Suite 202 Cincinnati, OH 45242 EXAMINER BRYAN, JASON B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2615 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): mblades@dortonwillis.com uspto@dortonwillis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MOHAMED RASHWAN MAHFOUZ Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LARRY J. HUME, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 and 71-73, which are all claims pending in the application. Appellant has canceled claims 21-70. See Appeal Br. 54 et seq. (“Claims Appendix”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as TechMah Medical LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The claimed subject matter is directed to “Bone Reconstruction and Orthopedic Implants.” See Spec. (Title). In particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to various aspects of orthopedics including bone and tissue reconstruction, patient-specific and mass customized orthopedic implants, gender and ethnic specific orthopedic implants, cutting guides, trauma plates, bone graft cutting and placement guides, patient-specific instruments, utilization of inertial measurement units for anatomical tracking for kinematics and pathology, and utilization of inertial measurement units for navigation during orthopedic surgical procedures. Spec. ¶ 2. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on Appeal (italics added to contested prior-art limitation; underlining added to contested written description limitations): 1. A method of constructing a patient-specific orthopedic implant comprising: comparing a patient-specific abnormal bone model, derived from an actual anatomy of a patient’s abnormal bone, with a reconstructed patient-specific bone model, also derived from the anatomy of the patient’s bone, where the reconstructed patient-specific bone model reflects a normalized anatomy of the patient’s bone using a statistical atlas, and where the patient-specific abnormal bone model reflects an actual 2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Apr. 6, 2020); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 5, 2020); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 4, 2020); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 6, 2019); and the Replacement Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 29, 2015) (claiming benefit of US 61/891,047, filed Oct. 15, 2013). Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 3 anatomy of the patient’s bone including at least one of a partial bone, a deformed bone, and a shattered bone, wherein the patient-specific abnormal bone model comprises at least one of a patient-specific abnormal point cloud and a patient-specific abnormal bone surface model, and wherein the reconstructed patient-specific bone model comprises at least one of a reconstructed patient-specific point cloud and a reconstructed patient-specific bone surface model; optimizing one or more parameters for a patient-specific orthopedic implant to be mounted to the patient’s abnormal bone using data output from comparing the patient-specific abnormal bone model to the reconstructed patient-specific bone model; and, generating an electronic design file for the patient- specific orthopedic implant taking into account the one or more parameters. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence: Name Reference Date Dean et al. (“Dean”) US 2012/0230566 A1 Sept. 13, 2012 Steines et al. (“Steines”) US 2013/0211531 A1 Aug. 15, 2013 Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 4 REJECTIONS R1. Claims 1-20 and 71-73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description support. Final Act. 3. R2. Claims 1-7, 10-20, 71, and 72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Steines and Dean. Final Act. 6.3 CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 15-52) and our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of written description Rejection R1 of claims 1-20 and 71-73 on the basis of representative claim 1; and we decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 1-7, 10-20 71, and 72 on the basis of representative claim 1.4 3 We note the Examiner failed to list claims 4-7 in the explicit statement of obviousness Rejection R2, but addressed these claims in the detailed rejection. We view this oversight as harmless error. We further note that no prior art rejection is before us with respect to claims 8, 9, and 73. 4 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 5 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are forfeited or waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports particular arguments advanced by Appellants with respect to written description Rejection R1 of claims 1-20 and 71-73 for the specific reasons discussed below. However, we disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 1-7, 10-20 71, and 72 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific findings, arguments, and legal conclusions regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. 1. § 112(a) Written Description Rejection R1 of Claims 1-20 and 71-73 Issue 1 Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 15-31; Reply Br. 3-7) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description support is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 6 Did the Examiner err in finding the limitations (1) “comparing a patient-specific abnormal bone model, derived from an actual anatomy of a patient’s abnormal bone, with a reconstructed patient-specific bone model,” and (2) “optimizing one or more parameters for a patient-specific orthopedic implant to be mounted to the patient’s abnormal bone using data output from comparing the patient-specific abnormal bone model to the reconstructed patient-specific bone model” lack written description support in the original disclosure in the context of claim 1? Principles of Law The test for compliance with the written description requirement is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id.; cf. U.S. v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.” (emphasis added)). Further, the Specification “need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims.” Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “If . . . the specification contains a description of the claimed invention, albeit not in ipsis verbis (in the Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 7 identical words), then the examiner . . . must provide reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the description sufficient.” In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Analysis (1) “Comparing” Limitation The Examiner finds Provisional application US 61/891,047 “makes no mention, let alone a complete description, of the concept of comparing bone models. . . . And [the] Specification fails to reasonably demonstrate possession of the limitations at the level of generality claimed.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner points to Specification paragraphs 170 through 188, and Figures 17-21 and 23 of Appellant’s disclosure as describing the comparing limitation (Final Act. 3), in which “[t]he comparison described is one designed ‘to discern what bone in the reconstructed 3D model is not present in the patient-specific 3D model.’” Final Act. 4 (citing Spec. ¶ 173). The Examiner further finds: The comparison itself is also questionably described since it seems to include two vague steps of generating correspondence and localizing. Claim 1 and its dependents 1, however, unreasonably extend beyond this limited description since the comparison action includes no limitations on how the comparison occurs or what its purpose is, which would indirectly limit the type of comparison performed and the type of data generated. Id. Appellant responds, “[c]ontrary to the allegations of the Office, broader limitations than what is disclosed in the specification do not per se result in unpatentability under § 112(a). This legal error by itself merits Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 8 reversal of the instant ground of rejection.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant also argues that the original Specification in paragraph 3 “fully discloses a method of constructing a patient-specific orthopedic implant.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant further argues that original claim 1 describes such a method by reciting, for example: . . . comparing a patient-specific abnormal bone model, derived from an actual anatomy of a patient’s abnormal bone, with a reconstructed patient-specific bone model, also derived from the anatomy of the patient’s bone. . . . Appeal Br. 16-17 (quoting original claim 1). In summary, Appellant argues, “[r]egarding claim 1, the limitation reciting, ‘comparing a patient-specific abnormal bone model . . . with a reconstructed patient-specific bone model,’ as part of a method of constructing a patient-specific orthopedic implant is verbatim described in original claim 1 and in paragraph [0003] of Appellant’s originally filed specification.” Appeal Br. 22-23. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument, and further note it appears the Examiner has conflated the requirements for written description with those for enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) by requiring, under the written description requirement, limitations on how the comparison occurs and the purpose of the comparison, to thereby limit the scope of comparison performed and type of data generated. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings, because we find error in the Examiner’s determination that the disputed “comparing” limitation lacks written description support, as argued by Appellant. Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 9 (2) “Optimizing” Limitation With respect to the “optimizing” limitation, the Examiner similarly finds the Provisional application and Specification “fail[] to reasonably demonstrate possession of the limitation[] at the level of generality claimed.” Final Act. 3. “The only evidence in [the] Specification related to optimization based on comparing is in determining fixation locations. A comparison between an abnormal bone model and a reconstructed bone model reveals defect location.” Final Act. 4. “Further, the Specification does not explain how the comparison can optimize the design of an implant beyond identifying locations to not fix an implant.” Final Act. 5. Appellant responds by arguing the Specification in paragraph 176 “fully supports the ‘optimizing’ limitation recited in claims 1 and 71, thus satisfying § 112(a).” Appeal Br. 28. [A]s depicted in FIG. [22] for example, the reconstructed 3D pelvis model may be utilized to obtain the radius of the acetabular cup, identification of pelvic bone comprising the acetabular cup circumferential upper ridge, and identification of the orientation of the acetabular cup with respect to the residual pelvis. Moreover, the parameters may be refined taking into account the implant loci so that the implant best/better fits the patient-specific anatomy. Spec. 176. We find this cited passage provides written description support for the recited “optimizing.” In addition, Appellant further argues that original claim 1 provides written description support for the contested “optimizing” limitation, i.e., “[o]riginal claim 1 recites, ‘1. A method of constructing a patient-specific orthopedic implant comprising: . . . optimizing one or more parameters for a patient-specific orthopedic implant to be mounted to the patient’s abnormal Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 10 bone using data output from comparing the patient-specific abnormal bone model to the reconstructed patient-specific bone model . . . .” Appeal Br. 7-8. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because, again, it appears the Examiner has conflated the requirements for enablement with those for written description. Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s written description rejection of independent claim 1, and also the rejection of claims 2-20 and 71-73 that depend from claim 1. 2. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claims 1-7, 10-20, 71, and 72 Issue 2 Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 32-52; Reply Br. 7-14) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Steines and Dean is in error. These contentions present us with the following issues: (1) Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests “[a] method of constructing a patient-specific orthopedic implant” that includes, inter alia, the step of “optimizing one or more parameters for a patient-specific orthopedic implant to be mounted to the patient’s abnormal bone using data output from comparing the patient- specific abnormal bone model to the reconstructed patient-specific bone model,” as recited in claim 1? Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 11 (2) Did the Examiner err in combining Steines with Dean in the manner suggested because Dean is allegedly nonanalogous art with respect to Appellant’s application? Principles of Law “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425. In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill . . . . [A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 12 Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be based on non-analogous art. Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field of endeavor. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325-26. “The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR . . . directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “The field of endeavor of a patent is not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016). During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 13 contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Analysis (1) All Limitations are Taught or Suggested The Examiner makes extensive findings citing Steines regarding the disputed “optimizing” limitation, which we quote below: The comparison’s isolated defects are added to a visual model to assist in preoperative planning, including the design of implant parameters, such as shape, size, thickness, location and fixation points. Steines at ¶¶ 283, 317-318, 405, 503, Table 1. Part of that design process includes automatically identifying interference between an implant, or guide tool, and the defects isolated in the comparison between the two bone models. Id. at ¶¶ 387-90, FIGs.12, 13. Parameters of the implant and guide tool are then optimized based on the interference analysis. See id. at ¶ 378. For example, the implant and guide are moved to avoid the interference. See id. Another automated optimization is to adjust the shape parameters of an implant to match the shape of an isolated osteophyte, other defect or the shape of the resulting tissue after the defect has been virtually removed. See id. at ¶¶ 363-66, FIGs.10, 11. Steines further describes this option in connection with a comparison between a patient- specific abnormal bone model and a patient-specific restored bone model. Id. at ¶¶ 575-77, FIG.27. Final Act. 7-8. Appellant contends “[n]either Dean nor Steines teaches using a comparison of bone models to optimize the parameters of a patient-specific orthopedic implant. . . . Steines teaches that his bone models are provided to a clinician and/or surgeon for pre-operative surgical planning. Steines never teaches that an output from any model comparison substantively impacts the design of the orthopedic implant.” Appeal Br. 47. Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 14 The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments by finding “[t]he step of optimization is claimed so broadly that the portions of Steines cited in the Office action sufficiently teach the optimization step.” Ans. 9. More particularly, the Examiner finds “Steines specifically mentions the defect examples of osteophytes and voids . . . and that defect detection can be enhanced in the comparative analysis. . . . Steines discusses how these defects can be taken into account in the design of an implant by either virtually removing them and designing the implant around the corrected area . . . or leaving them in and designing the implant around them.” Ans. 9-10 (citations to Steines omitted). The Examiner further finds: Clearly, the detection of the defect and communication of their presence/precise location to a surgeon through . . . the defect detection/isolation comparison method (see paragraphs 0385- 392) would impact the design of the implant (as discussed paragraphs 0363-0378, and shown in Figs. 10C, 11C, 10D, and 11D) as the defects would be mapped/detected prior to either designing around the defect, or virtually removing the defect, designing around the virtually modified area, and actually removing the defect. Also, since the claim language is so broad as to what parameter is being optimized and how, the optimization of a parameter would also correspond [to] the surgeon in Steines planning to remove a defect based on the comparison (see paragraph 0378 and 0391). Ans. 10 (citing Steines) (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner’s fact-finding regarding Steines’ teaching of the disputed “optimizing” limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and further note that Appellant did not dispute the Examiner’s specific findings related to Steines teaching of the Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 15 “optimizing” limitation in the Reply Brief, except to argue that “[c]laim 1 refers to ‘optimizing’ in the context of optimizing one or more parameters for a patient-specific orthopedic implant. Appellant’s Specification teaches that optimization of implant parameters refers to refining those aspects sufficient to define the underlying shape of the implant (i.e., parameters) to best/better fit the patient’s anatomy.” Reply Br. 3-4. Appellant reiterates, “‘optimizing one or more parameters’ in claim 1 refers to refining parameters that define the shape of the implant so that the implant best/better fits the patient-specific anatomy.” Reply Br. 4. We agree with the Examiner’s findings cited above regarding Steines’ disclosure of patient-adapted implant components, which we find teach or at least suggest refinement of parameters that define the shape of the implant to allow better patient fit, and thus teach or suggest “defin[ing] the shape of the implant so that the implant best/better fits the patient-specific anatomy,” as argued by Appellant. For example, as cited by the Examiner, Steines discloses: As mentioned above, certain embodiments include implant components designed and made using patient-specific data that is collected preoperatively. The patient-specific data can include points, surfaces, and/or landmarks, collectively referred to herein as “reference points.” In certain embodiments, the reference points can be selected and used to derive a varied or altered surface, such as, without limitation, an ideal surface or structure. For example, the reference points can be used to create a model of the patient's relevant biological feature(s) and/or one or more patient-adapted surgical steps, tools, and implant components. For example the reference points can be used to design a patient-adapted implant component having at least one patient-specific or patient- Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 16 engineered feature, such as a surface, dimension, or other feature. Steines ¶ 317. We find this portion of Steines, along with other sections cited by the Examiner, supra, teaches or at least suggests the contested “optimizing” limitation. (2) Dean is Properly Combinable with Steines Appellant argues “Dean is nonanalogous art with respect to the instant application.” Appeal Br. 45. Specifically, Dean teaches that his bone replacement is meant to preserve the patient’s natural anatomical shape and do so without requiring removal of patient anatomy. Orthopedic implants, on the other hand, are not attempting to seamlessly integrate with a patient’s tissue and avoid removal of patient anatomy. Instead, orthopedic implants in the context of Appellant’s invention are mechanical joint components that do not seamlessly integrate with the patient’s current tissue. And a reasoned reading of Dean confirms that his purpose and effect would lead a POSITA away from the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 45 (footnote omitted). The Examiner provides a detailed response to Appellant’s argument that we incorporate herein by reference, and adopt as our own. See Ans. 11- 12. We specifically find, in agreement with the Examiner, the Dean reference is analogous art at least by virtue of meeting the “reasonably pertinent” prong of Bigio. See Bigio 381 F.3d at 1325-26. Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 17 Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2-7, 10-20, 71, and 72, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. REPLY BRIEF To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-14) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown. CONCLUSIONS We AFFIRM IN PART the Examiner’s rejections. More specifically: (1) Appellant has persuasively argued that the Examiner erred with respect to written description Rejection R1 of claims 1-20 and 71-73 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), and we do not sustain the rejection. (2) Appellant has not persuasively argued that the Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 1-7, 10-20, 71, and 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art combination of record, and we sustain the rejection. Appeal 2021-000136 Application 14/515,483 18 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20, 71-73 112(a) Written Description 1-20, 71-73 1-7, 10-20, 71, 72 103 Steines, Dean 1-7, 10-20, 71, 72 Overall Outcome 1-7, 10-20, 71, 72 8, 9, 73 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED IN PART