New Chapter, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 22, 2020

2019006046 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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.
15/627,709 06/20/2017 Taryn Louise Forrelli 13529D 6743
27752 7590 12/22/2020
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL IP SERVICES
CENTRAL BUILDING, C9
ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2020 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):
centraldocket.im@pg.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TARYN LOUISE FORRELLI,
GRAHAM ROBERT MICHAEL RIGBY, and
PAUL SCHULICK
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709
Technology Center 1700

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–17, and 19–21. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The
Procter & Gamble Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A method of supporting the nutritional needs of a
breastfeeding woman by administering a daily intake
comprising:
a. about 5 mg to about 18 mg iron;
b. greater than about 5 mg vitamin B6;
c. iodine;
d. greater than about 600 IU vitamin D3;
e. at least about 5 mg supercritical extract of turmeric
having hydrophobic compounds; and
f. fermented herbs.
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Manning2 in view of Smith3, Chang4, Sarich5, Rosenbloom6, Alberte7
Toomey8, Herbs & Seeds9, New Chapter10 and Stovsky11.
2. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Manning, in view of Smith, Chang, Sarich,
Rosenbloom, Alberte, Toomey, Herbs & Seeds, Nutten12, New Chapter, and

2 US 2006/0088574 A1; pub. Apr. 27, 2006.
3 US 2008/0213401 A1; pub. Sept. 4, 2008.
4 US 2010/0143533 A1; pub. June 10, 2010.
5 Christina Sarich, 11 Herbs to Naturally Improve Lactation in Nursing
Mothers, Natural Society, 1–7 (2013).
6 US 6,592,896 B2; iss. July 15, 2003.
7 US 2010/0098788 A1; pub. Apr. 22, 2010.
8 Provisional Application No. 61/953,105, cited from US 2015/0257425 A1;
pub. Sept. 17, 2015.
9 Health Benefits of Black Cumin (http://humannhealth.com/health-benefits-
of-black-cumin/119/) (last visited Mar. 28, 2019).
10 Perfect Prenatal® – Easy to Digest Multi-Vitamin,
(http://web.archive.org/web/20130707112907/http:/www.
newchapter.com/multi-vitamins/perfect-prenatal) (last visited Feb. 20,
2020)).
11 Jill Stovsky, Do I need to take a prenatal vitamin if I’m breastfeeding?
(https://www.babycenter.com/404_do-i-need-to-take-a-prenatal-vitamin-if-
im-breastfeeding_2446.bc) (last visited Mar. 28, 2019)).
12 US 2012/0142580 A1; pub. June 7, 2012.
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

4
Stovsky, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Traditional
Medicinals13 and The Little Herbs14.
3. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Manning, in view of Smith, Chang, Sarich, Rosenbloom,
Alberte, Toomey, Herbs & Seeds, Nutten, New Chapter, and Stovsky, as
applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Nelson15.
4. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Manning, in view of Smith, Chang, Sarich, Rosenbloom,
Alberte, Toomey, Herbs & Seeds, Nutten, New Chapter, and Stovsky, as
applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Traditional Medicinals and The
Little Herbs, as applied to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 15 above, and further
in view of New Chapter 116.
5. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Manning, in view of Smith, Chang, Sarich, Rosenbloom, Alberte,
Toomey, Herbs & Seeds, Nutten, New Chapter, and Stovsky, as applied to
claim 1 above, in further view of Nelson.

13 Traditional Medicinals Organic Mother’s Milk Shatavari Cardamom
Women’s Tea (https://us.amazon.com/Traditional-Medicinals-Organic-
Shatavari-Cardamom/dp/B00JJOGISQ) (last visited Mar. 28, 2019).
14 The Little Herbal, Herbs for Nursing Mothers
(http://web.archive.org/web/20131210194451/http://thelittleherbal.com/2013
/12/10/herbs-for-nursing-mothers/) (last visited Mar. 28, 2019).
15 US 6,149,933; iss. Nov. 21, 2000.
16 New Chapter Perfect Prenatal Vitamin Fermented with Probiotics + Folate
+ Iron + Vitamin D3 + B Vitamins + Organic Non-GMO Ingredients,
http://www.amazon.com/New-Chapter-Fermented-Probiotics-
Ingredients/dp/BOOWJW9DXM/ref=cm‒cr‒arp‒d‒product‒top?ie=UTF8.
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

5
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Manning, in view of Smith, Chang, Sarich, Rosenbloom, Herbs &
Seeds, Nutten, New Chapter, and Stovsky, as applied to claim 1, in further
view of Traditional Medicinals and The Little Herbs, as applied to 2, 3, 5, 6,
9, 10, and 15 above, further in view of Bland17.
7. Claims 16, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Manning, in view of Smith, Chang, Sarich,
Rosenbloom, Alberte, Toomey, Herbs & Seeds, Nutten, New Chapter,
Stovsky, Traditional Medicinals, The Little Herbs, Nishiguchi18 and Zemel19
as evidenced by Mother Earth News20.
OPINION
Appellant presents separate arguments for claims 1, 9, and 16. Appeal
Br. 3, 8–10. We therefore limit our discussion to these claims. Each of the
dependent claims included in the rejection will stand or fall with the
independent claim from which it depends. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellant’s claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we

17 US 2002/0192310 A1; pub. Dec. 19, 2002.
18 Tomizo Nishiguchi et al., Vitamin K prophylaxis to prevent neonatal
vitamin K deficient intracranial haemorrhage in Shizuoka prefecture, 103
British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 1078–84 (Nov. 1996).
19 WO 2014/078459 A1; pub. May 22, 2014.
20 Health Benefits of Kelp (https://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-
health/health-benefits-kelp-zmaz99aszsto) (last visited Mar. 28, 2019).
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

6
sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and affirm,
with the following emphasis.
Rejections 1 and 3
The Examiner’s position for Rejection 1 is set forth on pages 4–11 of
the Answer.
Appellant’s position for Rejection 1 is set forth on pages 3–7 of the
Appeal Brief. Therein, Appellant argues that the applied art does not
suggest all elements, and in particular, a method of supporting the nutritional
needs of breastfeeding women by administering a daily intake comprising
“greater than about 5 mg vitamin B6” as recited in independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 3–4. Appellant states that the rejection uses Smith to teach this
claimed range of vitamin B6. On page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner relies
upon Example 1 of Smith for teaching 10 mg of vitamin B6 which
encompasses the claim of greater than about 5 mg vitamin B6 as recited in
claim 1.
Appellant argues that Example 1 of Smith discloses, in part, “Vitamin
B-6 (as Pyridoxal Alpha Ketoglutarate) . . . 5 mg”. Smith p. 7. Appeal Br.
4. Appellant submits that pyridoxal alpha ketoglutarate is made of two
substances: pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and alpha-ketoglutarate (an amino acid
compound of vitamin B6 and a precursor to glutamine). Appellant argues
that Smith therefore does not teach “greater than about 5 mg vitamin B6”
because Smith discloses a combination of compounds totaling 5 mg, not 5
mg of vitamin B6. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

7
We are unpersuaded by the aforementioned line of argument for the
reasons explained by the Examiner on pages 25–26 of the Answer. Therein,
the Examiner states that when taking the rejection as a whole, Smith teaches
the use of “Vitamin B6 as Pyridoxal-alpha-ketoglutarate in the amount of
from “about 2 to about 20 mg” (Smith ¶ 9), which does provide greater than
about 5 mg vitamin B6, even if taking into account Appellant’s assertion that
pyridoxal alpha ketoglutarate is made of two substances: pyridoxine
(vitamin B6) and alpha-ketoglutarate (an amino acid compound of vitamin
B6 and a precursor to glutamine). Ans. 26. Notably, Appellant does not
specifically challenge these findings. The Examiner further states that with
specific regard to Appellant’s argument that Smith does not teach the form
of vitamin B6 claimed (pyridoxine), Manning is relied upon for teaching that
vitamin B6 is administered from pyridoxine ( ¶¶ 300, 303). The Examiner
further states that Smith is provided for teaching encompassing amounts of
B6 as claimed. The Examiner adds that Smith actually does provide
pyridoxine since Pyridoxal Alpha Ketoglutarate is a type of pyridoxine,
commonly known as Pyridoxine Alpha Ketoglutarate. Ans. 26. Again, this
is not challenged by Appellant. We note that the test for obviousness is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art; one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097-98 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

8
Appellant next argues that one considering how to support the
enhanced nutritional needs of breastfeeding women would not have been
motivated to even look to Smith for the level of vitamin B6, as Smith
discloses a nutritional supplement “for supporting healthy memory and
optimizing mental energy and methods for improving, preventing, and
treating mental disorders or deterioration.” Smith, Abstract. Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant argues that Smith discloses nothing about the unique nutritional
needs of breastfeeding women, let alone the level of vitamin B6 that would
provide a benefit to such breastfeeding women. Appellant further submits
that the applied art provides no motivation to increase the level of vitamin
B6 to greater than about 5 mg, which is at least double the level explicitly
disclosed by Manning as the most preferred quantity of vitamin B6 for
lactating women. Manning, Page 24, Table. Appeal Br. 4.
We are unpersuaded by this line of argument. As the Examiner states
on page 28–29 of the Answer, while the benefits in Smith are not explicitly
taught as being for lactating women, lactating woman are not excluded from
such nutritional benefits discussed therein. Ans. 28–29. The Examiner states
that the nutrition provided is for human consumption, which is a group that
lactating women belong. We agree. With regard to the amount of B6 being
greater than about 5 mg which is double the amount in Manning, we agree
with the Examiner’s response made on page 25 of the Answer. Therein, the
Examiner states that it is noted that Manning, in the Table on page 24, shows
broad ranges of B6 of from 0–50 mg. See Merck & Co v. Biocraft
Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(“all disclosures of the
prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.”)(quoting
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

9
In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). Disclosed examples and
preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader
disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3,
169 USPQ 423, 426 n.3 (CCPA 1971).
Appellant next argues that there is no identified reason that would
have prompted one skilled in the art to have selected the claimed vitamins
and minerals from Manning and combine it with the levels and additional
ingredients disclosed in the 9 additional secondary references to result in the
claimed invention in a method of supporting the nutritional needs of a
breastfeeding woman for the reasons set forth on pages 4–6 of the Appeal
Brief.
We are unpersuaded by the line of argument for the reasons stated by
the Examiner on pages 28–29 of the Answer. As mentioned supra, the
Examiner states that the nutrition that is provided as taught in the applied
references is for human consumption, a group in which lactating women
belong. It is also noted that “[a]s long as some motivation or suggestion to
combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law
does not require that the references be combined for the reasons
contemplated by the inventors.” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
Appellant also argues that there is no motivation to increase the level
of vitamin D3 to greater than about 600 IU, when Manning discloses the
most preferred quantity of vitamin D is 400 IU, for lactating women.
Manning, Page 24, Table. Appeal Br. 5. We agree with the Examiner’s
stated response made on page 25 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

10
states that Manning teaches broad ranges of D3 of from 0–800 IU.
Manning, Table, p. 24.
Appellant next argues that one considering how to support the
nutritional needs of breastfeeding women would not have been motivated to
have looked to Rosenbloom for the level of supercritical extract of turmeric
of at least about 5 mg as claimed because Rosenbloom discloses a
composition for “treating symptoms such as symptoms of a common cold, a
sore throat, congestion, laryngitis, mucous membrane inflammation and
sialorrhea”. Rosenbloom, Abstract. Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that
Rosenbloom discloses nothing about the nutritional needs of breastfeeding
women, let alone the level of supercritical extract of turmeric, that would
provide a benefit to such breastfeeding women. Appellant also argue that
there is no motivation to select supercritical extraction out of the turmeric
extraction methods described in either Alberte or Toomey and combine it
with the turmeric of Rosenbloom. Appeal Br. 6. Finally, Appellant submits
that one considering how to support the nutritional needs of breastfeeding
women would not have been motivated to look to Alberte or Toomey for a
supercritical extract of turmeric in the first place, as Alberte discloses a
composition for treating or preventing neurodegenerative disorders and
inflammatory disorders (Alberte, Abstract) and Toomey discloses a
composition for maintaining a healthy immune response (Toomey,
Abstract). Appeal Br. 6.
We agree with the Examiner’s stated response made on pages 29–30
of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner explains that Manning’s teaching
does not discuss the use of turmeric, therefore Sarich is relied upon to show
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

11
that it is known to use herbal remedies administered while breastfeeding, for
the benefit of reducing inflammation in nursing mothers’ breasts so that they
can continue to breastfeed for a longer duration. Ans. 29–30. The Examiner
states that Rosenbloom is applied to show that encompassing amounts of
turmeric were known for a similar use. Ans. 29–30. The Examiner notes
that Alberte and Toomey are combined with the modified teaching of
Manning. Ans. 29. The Examiner states that Alberte and Toomey were
applied to show that it was known to treat/prevent inflammatory disorders
with claimed species of turmeric, one that was made by supercritical
extraction. Ans. 30. We thus are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument, and
note that “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references”. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (The test
for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Therefore, arguments
not directed to the combined teachings as relied upon by the Examiner’s
stated position are unpersuasive.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner cannot selectively pick-and-
choose various components from the encyclopedic disclosures found in the
multiple cited documents and reassemble them unerringly to arrive at the
present invention. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that piecemeal
reconstruction of an invention by assertedly finding its individual elements
in disparate documents, and then combining them to arrive at the invention,
amounts to hindsight reconstruction. Appeal Br. 6–7.
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

12
We are unpersuaded by such argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s response made on page 31 of the Answer. Therein, the
Examiner disagrees with Appellant’s position, and explains that the applied
reference are each directed toward the supplementation of humans, which is
the generic type of consumer claimed. Ans. 31. The Examiner states that
none of the applied references exclude a specific type of human from taking
the supplements disclosed, such as breast feeding women, and that none of
the applied references discuss conditions that would prevent breast feeding
women from taking the supplementation. The Examiner states that the
applied references show that the rejections take into account knowledge of
those of skill in the art at the time the claims were filed, not knowledge
taken only from the pending disclosure. We agree.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejections 1 and 3.
Rejection 2, 4, 5, and 6 (claim 9)
Appellant’s position for claim 9 is presented on page 8 of the Appeal
Brief. The position is similar to the position taken with regard to claim 1
pertaining to the claim range of vitamin B6 and vitamin D3. In claim 9, the
claim range of vitamin B6 is from “about 8 mg to about 12 mg”. Claim 9
also recites “about 1000 IU to about 2500 IU” vitamin D3.
Appellant submits that the applied references provide no motivation to
increase the level of vitamin B6 to about 8 mg to about 12 mg vitamin B6,
which is more than triple the level disclosed by Manning as the most
preferred quantity of vitamin B6 for lactating women. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant submits that there is also no motivation to increase the level of
vitamin D3 to about 1000 IU to about 2500 IU as claimed when Manning
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

13
teaches that the most preferred quantity of vitamin D3 is 400 IU for lactating
women. Manning, Table, p. 24. Appeal Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner refers to the reply given with regard to
Appellant’s argument for claim 1. Ans. 32. The Examiner’s rejection is set
forth on pages 12–18. Therein, the Examiner relies upon Manning in the
same fashion as discussed, supra, with regard to claim 1. The Examiner
relies upon Chang for teaching use of an amount of from 200 to 2,000 IU of
vitamin D3 (Chang ¶107). Ans. 13. It is the Examiner’s position that it
would have been obvious to have modified the amount of vitamin D3 in
Manning according to Chang to arrive at the claimed range. With regard to
the claimed amount of vitamin B6, as discussed supra, the Examiner states
that Manning suggests the claimed amount in view of the teachings found in
the Table on page 24 of a range of vitamin B6 of from 0–50 mg. Ans. 25.
While Appellant argues that there is insufficient motivation to increase the
amount of vitamin D3 disclosed in Manning, we are unpersuaded by such
argument, and again note that “[a]s long as some motivation or suggestion to
combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law
does not require that the references be combined for the reasons
contemplated by the inventors.” In re Beattie, at 1312. As discussed by the
Examienr on page 4 of the Final Rejection and on page 6 of the Answer,
Chang illustrates that the art finds vitamin D, as being suitable for similar
intended use, including methods of making nutritional compositions
comprising vitamins and minerals, including vitamin D.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejections 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

14
Rejection 7 (claim 16)
Appellant’s position for claim 16 is presented on pages 9–10 of the
Appeal Brief. Claim 16 recites, inter alia, “about 10 mg vitamin B6” and
“about 2000 IU vitamin D3”.
Appellant submits that the applied references provide no motivation to
increase the level of vitamin B6 to about 10 mg vitamin B6, which is 4 times
the level explicitly disclosed by Manning as the most preferred quantity of
vitamin B6 for lactating women. Manning, Table, p. 24. In addition,
Appellant submits that there is also no motivation to increase the level of
vitamin D3 to about 2000 IU when Manning teaches the most preferred
quantity of vitamin D3 is 400 IU for lactating women. Manning, Table, p.
24. Appeal Br. 9–10.
We refer to the Examiner’s rejection (Rejection 7) as set forth on
pages 20–24 of the Answer. Therein, it is the Examiner’s position that it
would have been obvious to have modified the amount of vitamin D3 in
Manning according to Chang to arrive at the claimed range. With regard to
the claimed amount of vitamin B6, as discussed supra, the Examiner states
the Manning suggests the claimed amount in view of the teachings found in
the Table on page 24 of Manning of a range of vitamin B6 of from 0–50 mg.
Ans. 25. While Appellant argues that there is insufficient motivation to
increase the amounts of vitamin D3 disclosed in Manning, we are
unpersuaded by such argument, and again note that “[a]s long as some
motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior
art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

15
combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventors.” In re Beattie, at
1312.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 7.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision.

Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

16
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Manning,
Smith, Chang,
Sarich,
Rosenbloom,
Alberte, Toomey,
Herbs &
Seeds, Nutten,
New Chapter,
Stovsky
1
2, 3, 5, 6, 9,
10, 15
103 Manning,
Smith, Chang,
Sarich,
Rosenbloom,
Alberte, Toomey,
Herbs &
Seeds, Nutten,
New Chapter,
Stovsky,
Traditional
Medicinals, The
Little Herbs
2, 3, 5, 6, 9,
10, 15

7, 8 103 Manning,
Smith, Chang,
Sarich,
Rosenbloom,
Alberte, Toomey,
Herbs &
Seeds, Nutten,
New Chapter,
Stovsky, Nelson
7, 8
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

17
11, 12 103 Manning,
Smith, Chang,
Sarich,
Rosenbloom,
Alberte, Toomey,
Herbs &
Seeds, Nutten,
New Chapter,
Stovsky,
Traditional
Medicinals, The
Little Herbs, New
Chapter 1
11, 12
14 103 Manning,
Smith, Chang,
Sarich,
Rosenbloom,
Alberte, Toomey,
Herbs &
Seeds, Nutten,
New Chapter,
Stovsky, Bland
14
13 103 Manning,
Smith, Chang,
Sarich,
Rosenbloom,
Alberte, Toomey,
Herbs &
Seeds, Nutten,
New Chapter,
Stovsky,
Traditional
Medicinals, The
Little Herbs, Bland
13
Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

18
16, 17, 19,
21
103 Manning,
Smith, Chang,
Sarich,
Rosenbloom,
Alberte, Toomey,
Herbs &
Seeds, Nutten,
New Chapter,
Stovsky,
Traditional
Medicinals, The
Little Herbs,
Nishiguchi, Zemel,
Mother Earth
News
16, 17, 19,
21

Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–17,
19–21

Appeal 2019-006046
Application 15/627,709

19
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED