PIBED LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2020005887 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2021)

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.
15/784,487 10/16/2017 Louise GRIMADELL 20088CON 1085
293 7590 07/01/2021
DOWELL & DOWELL, P.C.
2560 HUNTINGTON AVE, SUITE 406
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22303
EXAMINER
CHICKOS, SARAH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 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):
DOWELL@DOWELLPC.COM
cgorham@dowellpc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOUISE GRIMADELL,
DAVID MICHAEL ROSS CREAGHAN, JOHN D. HINES, and
PIERRE BRUNO GRASCHA
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487
Technology Center 1600
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JOHN E. SCHNEIDER, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.
TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims to a non-aerosol dispenser containing a
foamable gritty formulation that foams upon being dispensed as being
obvious. 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 DEB IP
LIMITED. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Specification states:
Hand cleansers have been around for many years. The
combination of ingredients in these types of soaps can be
specified to achieve a broad range of cleaning characteristics.
(Spec.2 ¶ 4.) It is further noted that
[w]ith the addition of mechanical scrubbers, the cleaning
performance of lotion soaps can be enhanced.
(Id. ¶ 5.) Appellant’s Specification describes the benefits of foaming hand
cleansers compared to lotion hand cleansers as follows:
Foam products are quicker and easier to use since they are
delivered into the user’s hand in a lathered format. Foam hand
cleansers spread more effectively than lotion hand cleansers,
providing better cleaning performance with less product. Since
foaming hand cleansers are already lathered, there is less water
needed in the cleaning process and the user can clean their
hands in less time.
(Id. ¶ 9.) Appellant’s invention is directed to a non-aerosol dispenser that
contains a soap composition that includes particulate scrubbers suspended
therein that has the capability of foaming upon dispensing from that
dispenser. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 15.)
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1–3, 8–10, 13–17, 19, and 20 are on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-aerosol dispenser containing a foamable gritty
composition, the non-aerosol dispenser comprising an
unpressurized container having a dispenser pump configured to

2 We refer to the Specification of the published application
US 2018/0036211 A1, published Feb. 8, 2018.
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

3
mix air with the foamable gritty composition under low pressure
conditions during dispensing to form a gritty foam;
and the foamable gritty composition comprising:
a) constituents including
a solvent present in a range from about 0.5% w/w to about
30.0% w/w, said solvent including any one or combination of
D'limonene and sunflower oil methyl ester;
a particulate scrubbing agent present in a range from about
1.0% w/w to about 8% w/w;
a surfactant present in a range from about 0.5% w/w to
about 30.0% w/w;
skin conditioner present in a range from 0.01 % w/w to
about 5.00% w/w;
and
a non-Newtonian thickening agent present in a range from
about 0.05% w/w to about 10% w/w;
water; and
b) wherein the non-Newtonian thickening agent is selected to
give the foamable gritty formulation a critical strain force greater than
or equal to about 30 dynes/cm2, and a viscosity in a range from about
500 cPoise to about 4000 cPoise such that said foamable gritty
composition is dispensible as a foam from a nonaerosol foam
dispenser.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Schmucker-Castner et
al.
US 6,897,253 B2 May 24, 2005
Fernandez de Castro et
al.
US 2007/0258911 A1 Nov. 8, 2007
Abbas US 2005/0084470 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
Curtis US 7,754,770 B2 July 13, 2010

Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

4
The following ground of rejection by the Examiner is before us on
review:
Claims 1–3, 8–10, 13–17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schmucker-Castner, Fernandez de Castro, Curtis, and
Abbas.
DISCUSSION
Appellant’s dispute with respect to the Examiner’s rejection is limited
to contesting the prima facie case as to claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 5.) Thus,
we limit our discussion of the Examiner’s rejection to discussion of the
requirements of claim 1.
The Examiner found that Schmucker-Castner (“SC”) teaches an
aqueous cosmetic composition, such as a skin or body cleanser, that includes
an acrylate copolymer as a thickener, a surfactant, and an insoluble
particulate material that requires suspension or stabilization, such as
cornmeal or ground walnut shells—though it does not disclose the size of
the particulates. (Final Action 3–5, 7 (citing SC, Abstr., 12:1–5, claims 1
and 2).) The Examiner further found that SC teaches inclusion of polyols in
the composition. (Id. at 4–5 (citing SC 7:50–60).) The Examiner also found
that SC teaches the particulate material may be present in the composition in
an amount of from 0.1 to about 50% (SC 8:57–9:10), that the acrylate
copolymer may be present in an amount of about 0.1 to 10% (SC claim 3),
and the surfactant may be present in an amount of about 6 to 30% (SC 6:56–
61). (Id. at 4.) The Examiner noted that SC teaches that the insoluble
particulate material in such an aqueous composition is adequately stabilized.
(Id.) The Examiner further found that SC provides an example cleanser
composition that includes d-limonene. (Id. (citing SC, Example 13).)
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

5
The Examiner found that Curtis teaches a foaming antimicrobial
composition that includes a skin conditioning emollient such as
polyglycerin-6 where the emollient can be present in the composition in an
amount of about 0.01 to 2%. (Final Action 5 (citing Curtis, Abstr., 3:32–
66).) The Examiner further found that Curtis teaches “its composition
provide[s] broad spectrum antimicrobial activity, dries quickly and improves
the condition of the skin following use such that it leaves the skin feeling
smooth, dry and adequately moisturized.” (Id. (citing Curtis 2:21–40).) The
Examiner concluded from the foregoing teachings that it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included polyglycerin-
6 in the composition taught by SC in order to provide the skin conditioning
benefits taught by Curtis. (Id. at 6.)
Regarding the size of the insoluble particulate of SC, the Examiner
found that Abbas teaches a cosmetic cleanser composition that includes
particulates in the size range of between 0.01 to 200 microns, and that such
compositions provide “improvements in skin softness, smoothness and skin
exfoliation as well as other perceived benefits as experienced by the
consumer.” (Id. at 5–6 (citing Abbas, Abstr., ¶¶ 38, 94, 101).) The
Examiner concluded based on these teachings that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious “to have the walnut shell particulates [of
SC] be 0.01 to 200 microns” to provide the benefits taught by Abbas. (Id. at
6.)
As for the thickening agent being selected to provide the claimed
“greater than or equal to about 30 dynes/cm2, and a viscosity in a range from
about 500 cPoise to about 4000 cPoise,” which provides the composition to
be “dispensible as a foam from a non-aerosol foam dispenser,” the Examiner
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

6
found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected
that the composition taught by SC as modified by Curtis and Abbas to
include a skin emollient and the particulates in the size range claimed would
possess such properties. (Final Action 7.) The Examiner so concluded
because the modified composition of SC would include the ingredients
required by the claimed composition. (Id.)
Regarding the claimed “non-aerosol dispenser” “having a dispenser
pump configured to mix air” with the claimed composition “under low
pressure conditions,” the Examiner found that SC only teaches
unpressurized containers in which to keep the disclosed compositions.
(Final Action 4.) However, the Examiner found that providing the SC
composition in such a container would have been obvious in light of the
teachings of Fernandez de Castro (“FC”). (Id. at 5.)
In particular, the Examiner found that FC teaches an unpressurized
container that includes a dispenser pump configured to mix air with a
foamable composition contained therein. (Id. (citing FC, claim 1 and 2).)
The Examiner further found that FC “teaches that it is advantageous to have
foams that can be dispensed under non pressurized conditions for
convenience of the user.” (Id. (citing FC ¶ 15).) From these teachings, the
Examiner concluded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use the non-aerosol dispenser taught in FC with the
composition of SC “in order to have the consumer convenience of a foam
that can be dispensed under non pressurized conditions.” (Id. at 6.)
The Examiner “bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992). We determine that the Examiner has presented adequate evidence to
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

7
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. According to the Examiner, the
claimed critical strain force and viscosity required would have been
achieved by the composition of SC as modified by Curtis and Abbas because
all of the elements required by claim 1 would be present and the references
teach their use in amounts that overlap with the ranges required by the claim.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusion of
obviousness.
Appellant’s argument that the “present composition, as stated in the
specification, is a new category of soap compositions, and therefore cannot
be inherently taught by the lotion soap composition examples” of SC
(Appeal Br. 15) is not persuasive. The fact that Appellant’s Specification
asserts the claimed composition is a new category of soaps, i.e., “foaming
soap compositions with suspended particulates” (Appeal Br. 8 (citing Spec.
¶ 10)), does not establish that what is described by SC as modified by Curtis,
Abbas, and FC does not meet the limitations of the claimed invention.
Beyond that, however, we note that the adjective “foamable” in front
of “gritty composition” simply means that the composition has the capability
of being foamed upon mixing with air as it is being dispensed from the
dispenser. That is, the claimed device containing the composition does not
require that the composition so contained is one that is a foam. Indeed,
Appellant concedes as much when it notes that “[t]he apparatus of claim 1 is
intended to contain . . . and dispense [the composition] as a gritty foam.
(Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added)). Thus, the phrase “such that said foamable
gritty composition is dispensible as a foam from a non-aerosol foam
dispenser” is determined to be an intended use of the claimed device. In
order to establish prima facie obviousness of the claimed device, the
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

8
Examiner only had to establish that the claimed elements of the composition
and the device are taught or suggested by the prior art, not the intention to
dispense the composition to obtain a gritty foam. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc.
v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he
patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed
structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.”).
Moreover, we note that the teachings of SC are not limited to the
examples, it is relevant for all that it contains. In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d
1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968). That SC does not identify any particular
exemplified composition as being a foam soap (Appeal Br. 10) does not
evidence that the compositions described thereby and those that are
suggested would not foam when mixed with air upon being dispensed from a
non-aerosol dispenser.
Appellant’s argument that SC does not teach or suggest the claimed
“foamable gritty composition” (Appeal Br. 10) is also not persuasive.
According to Appellant, such a composition is not taught or suggested
because Example 13 of SC that includes d-limonene, an acrylate
crosspolymer and very low levels of surfactant has a viscosity of 6500 cP,
“is too thick to dispense as a foam,” and “no single composition” in SC “is
denoted as being a foam soap composition,” much less one that “is
dispensed as a gritty foam.” (Id. at 10–11.) We do not find these arguments
persuasive of non-obviousness because the Examiner’s rejection with
respect to the claimed composition is one that involves a combination of
prior art references to arrive at the claimed composition present in a non-
aerosol container that would provide air to the composition on being
dispensed. We note that it is the provision of air to the composition which
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

9
results in a composition that is foamed (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 3, 17) and FC
teaches such a non-aerosol foaming dispenser that provides air to the
composition (see FC ¶ 18). Whether or not SC’s examples alone do not
describe any composition as foaming is not determinative. If the
compositional elements are met, as noted above, a prima facie case of
obviousness has been established.
Appellant’s argument that SC’s problem to be solved is to stablilize or
suspend substantially insoluble materials in an aqueous composition
comprising surfactants (Appeal Br. 9) does not establish that the
compositions described by SC are not capable of foaming. Prima facie
obviousness does not require prior art references to recognize or even
suggest the problem that applicant attempted to solve. See In re Kemps, 97
F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
Appellant’s argument that SC does not teach a foamable gritty
composition that is dispensed as a gritty foam rests on the position that
“foam compositions having suspended particulates . . . could not be
dispensed by known dispensers without separating the suspended
particulates from the foam upon creation of the foam.” (Appeal Br. 11–12
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 11–12).) However, Appellant provides no evidence
demonstrating this contention to be true. Initially, we note that while
Appellant’s Specification provides one table describing “a broad class of
constituents that can be used to produce formulations for a gritty foam
dispenser” (Spec. ¶ 27 and Table 1) and one Table describing an “exemplary
formulation” that includes an acrylates copolymer and a particulate
scrubbing agent (Spec. ¶ 28 and Table 2), it does not provide any
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

10
comparative examples of formulations that do not foam although they
contain an acrylate crosspolymer and a particulate scrubbing agent as taught
by SC.
Second, we do not find Appellant’s Specification to support its
argument that compositions having suspended particulates could not be
dispensed by known dispensers as gritty foams because they separate the
suspended particulates from the foam upon creation of the foam. The
paragraphs Appellant refers to state:
[0011] Recently, a new type of pump capable of dispensing
hand cleansers with mechanical scrubber in a foam format
through a non-aerosol dispensing system has been developed
(see U.S. Pat. No. 8,002,151). This has allowed for the creation
of a new hand cleanser category. This category is foaming hand
cleansers with mechanical scrubbers. This new category will
allow the leveraging of all the benefits associated with foaming
hand cleansers with the enhanced cleaning performance
provided by mechanical scrubbers. Nevertheless, the
requirement remains for a suitable hand cleanser.
[0012] Thus, it would be very beneficial if a hand cleanser
could be formulated that can suspend particulate mechanical
scrubbers with particles sized from about 100 microns to about
800 microns that decreases in viscosity when exposed to high
shear rates and is capable of being foamed through a non-
aerosol, or unpressurized pump dispenser.
(Spec. ¶¶ 11, 12.)
This portion of the Specification does not state that compositions
having suspended particulates such as described in SC could not be
dispensed by dispensers such as referred to in FC without separating the
suspended particulates from the foam upon creation of the foam.3 Nor has

3 Moreover, we note that to the extent it is necessary to use the non-aerosol
system set forth in US Patent 8,002,151 referred to in Appellant’s paragraph
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

11
Appellant provided any factual evidence demonstrating compositions with
particles suspended therein by an acrylates crosspolymer and including a
surfactant such as described by SC could not provide a foamed gritty
composition when dispensed from a non-aerosol dispenser configured to mix
air during dispensing such as referred to in FC. Attorney argument (see
Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br 7) is no substitute for evidence. Johnston v.
IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). And to the extent
Appellant contends that the Specification, paragraph 10, is an assertion that
particulate compositions described by SC could not provide a foamed gritty
composition when dispensed from a non-aerosol dispenser configured to mix
air during dispensing such as referred to in FC, such conclusory statements
made in the Specification, unsupported by objective evidence, is insufficient
to establish the truth of the assertion, particularly where Appellant has not
established evidence that the particular device referred to in FC necessarily
has porous media at all, much less fine porous media that would sieve out

11 to achieve the gritty foam, Appellant’s claim does not even require such a
system. Thus, to the extent Appellant’s argument is that the claim requires
foaming of a gritty composition, which we disagree with for the reasons
discussed, and that a specially developed device is necessary to achieve such
foaming, it would be necessary to consider whether such broad claims meet
the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline
Corp., 134 F. 3d 1473, 1479–80 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding “one skilled in the
art would clearly understand that it was not only important, but essential to
Sproule’s invention, for the controls to be on the console” where the
“disclosure clearly identifies the console as the only possible location for the
controls” and determining that claims that did not require the recliner
controls to be located on the console were invalid for lack of written
description support).
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

12
mechanical scrubbers. See, e.g., In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA
1972).
Furthermore, we have considered the disclosure of US Patent
8,002,151, and determine that there is nothing in it that supports Appellant’s
position that compositions having suspended particulates such as described
in SC could not be dispensed by dispensers such as referred to in FC without
separating the suspended particulates from the foam upon creation of the
foam. The ’151 patent states that heavy duty cleansers with liquid particles
suspended therein overcome the limitation of settling or floating of the
particles by adding viscosity thickeners which typically results in a viscosity
that “prevents effective foaming behavior.” (’151 Patent 3:52–53.) That
statement does not mean that such compositions, when dispensed from a
container that adds air to the composition during dispensing, do not foam,
just that some sort of efficacy of foaming is prevented. Even if it were the
case that the SC Example 13 composition might result in a foam of poor
quality or that Example 13 that also includes a particulate scrubbing agent as
suggested by SC might result in a poor quality foam, Appellant’s claim does
not require any particular foam quality.
In addition to the foregoing, the ’151 Patent indicates that
liquids with highly non-Newtonian behavior can be
manufactured that exhibit viscosity at low shear rates that is
sufficient to maintain the particles in evenly distributed
suspension but conversely have very low viscosity when
exposed to high shear rates. Thus, these types of liquids would
be foamable.
(Id. at 3:55–60.) Appellant’s Specification teaches that a non-Newtonian
thickening agent that may be used in the claimed invention is an
acrylated/C10-C30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer. (Spec. ¶ 57.) SC teaches
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

13
using acrylates crosspolymers which provide a viscosity in water of 500 to
10,000 cPoise (SC 5:32–34) and in a range of from 0.1 to about 10% (SC
5:39–41), which overlaps with the claimed range of from about 0.05% w/w
to about 10% w/w, and Example 13 includes an acrylates crosspolymer, as
do the other Examples of SC. Consequently, it would have been reasonable
for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that these compositions would
exhibit non-Newtonian behavior, which according to the ’115 patent are
compositions that would be foamable. Moreover, “it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
And in light of the foregoing, we do not find persuasive of non-
obviousness Appellant’s argument that FC “is silent on dispensing foams
having suspended particulates” (Appeal Br. 12). As noted above, the
references need not recognize the problem solved by Appellant for a prima
facie case of obviousness to be established. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d at
1430; In re Beattie, 974 F.2d at 1312.
Appellant has provided no evidence that SC Example 13 cannot foam
at all when dispensed from the claimed non-aerosol dispenser and has
provided no evidence to establish that the viscosity range claimed would not
necessarily result with the addition of a particular scrubbing agent as taught
in SC. We note further in this regard that FC teaches the foaming capability
of a composition cannot necessarily be determined by simply observing, for
example that a composition is thick. As FC states:
Despite the work done to date it has been shown that there is
little specific knowledge on how foams react and are formed,
and surprisingly formulations that might seem not foamable
result in the best foam producing ones while other formulations
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

14
which seemed to have been producing foam even while being
prepared did not perform well at all in some non-aerosol foam
dispensers.
(FC ¶ 13.) Thus, for these reasons, we also do not find persuasive
Appellant’s argument that the composition of SC Example 13 “is too thick
to dispense as a foam” (Appeal Br. 10).
Furthermore, the mere fact that the viscosity of the composition of
Example 13 of SC is outside the range claimed does not establish that the
Example 13 composition of SC that also includes a particulate scrubbing
agent would not result in a composition having a viscosity in the claimed
range. We note that Example 6 of SC, which includes an acrylates
crosspolymer and suspended beads, provides a composition having a
viscosity between 4,000 and 6,000 cPoise, and Example 2A provides a
composition which includes an acrylates crosspolymer and a pearlizing
agent having a viscosity between 3,600 and 6,000 cPoise. Appellant’s
claimed viscosity range is between 500 and 4000 cPoise. Given the variety
of viscosities that can be achieved with the acrylate crosspolymer thickener
with various compositional elements, we conclude that there is sufficient
evidence to support the Examiner’s conclusion that the composition
suggested by SC, Curtis, and Abbas renders the claimed composition having
the critical strain force and viscosity within the claimed range, and being
foamable obvious. The burden, thus, shifted to Appellant to prove the prior
art SC composition that includes both the thickener, limonene, and a
particulate scrubbing agent does not necessarily have the claimed viscosity.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Appellant’s arguments
regarding Example 13 fail in that regard for the reasons already discussed.
Similarly, Appellant’s arguments with respect to Example 4A of SC (Appeal
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

15
Br. 14) similarly fail. Although Appellant points to Example 4A of SC as
being a facial scrub containing jojoba beads that has a viscosity greater than
the range claimed and thus cannot be foamed, just as with Example 13,
Appellant provides no factual evidence to support that such a composition
that includes the jojoba beads could not foam when dispensed from a
container such as described by FC. Furthermore, Example 4A does not
include limonene, and as discussed, SC demonstrates that different
compositional elements with an acrylate crosspolymer can change the
viscosity of the composition.
Given the foregoing, and given SC’s disclosure demonstrating that
varying the compositional elements that are together with an acrylate
crosspolymer can change the viscosity of the composition, we conclude that
Appellant has failed to provide persuasive evidence that the claimed
invention is not obvious from the teachings of the prior art, which provide
for an aqueous composition that includes (a) an acrylates copolymer as a
thickening agent, as taught by SC, (b) cornmeal or walnut shells as the
particulate scrubbing agent, as taught by SC, having the particle size
claimed, as taught by Abbas to achieve exfoliation/massaging (Abbas ¶ 9),
(c) lauryl sulphate as the surfactant, as taught by SC, and (d) polyglycerin-6
as the skin conditioner, as taught by Curtis.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 8–10, 13–17,
19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmucker-
Castner, Fernandez de Castro, Curtis, and Abbas.
Appeal 2020-005887
Application 15/784,487

16
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 8–10,
13–17, 19,
20
103(a) Schmucker-
Castner, Fernandez
de Castro, Curtis,
Abbas
1–3, 8–10,
13–17, 19,
20

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