TACTILE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2021

2021003668 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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. 15/284,870 10/04/2016 Darren Jay WENNEN 0408.000022US01 4663 26813 7590 12/14/2021 MUETING RAASCH GROUP 111 WASHINGTON AVE. S., SUITE 700 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 EXAMINER MOON, MATTHEW RYAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3785 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2021 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): ptodocketing@mrgs.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DARREN JAY WENNEN, WADE ANDREW ZANDER, DANIEL G. CHASE, KRISTIAN DIOR GAMBLE, MARK R. RILEY, ALISON HUMBLE GOLLA, SUNDAY JO HOY, JULIE LOUISE GREEN, JASON GRANT TILK, JASON R. ERTEL, RACHEL NOTTINGHAM COLOSIMO, CAROLYN MARIE MCNEELEY, and REBECCA L. BLICE Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-14 and 17-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Tactile Systems Technology, Inc.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Subject Matter The Appellant’s field of disclosure “relates generally to the use of compression garments and compression garment systems and to methods for applying pressure to a portion of the body (e.g., a portion of a head and a neck of a body).” Spec. ¶ 4. In this field, compression garments may provide therapy for lymphedema, edema, wound healing, etc. See id. ¶ 6. For example, compression garments may include cells that inflate to one or more different pressures in a variety of sequences to provide treatment to a patient by moving lymph from one region of the body to another. See id.; see, e.g., id. Fig. 9. Claims 1, 22, and 26 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A compression garment system comprising: a garment configured to be donned on a head and a neck of a body, wherein the garment comprises: a static garment portion configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy period, and a dynamic garment portion comprising one or more pressure applying regions controllable to apply pressure to the head and neck, wherein the one or more pressure applying regions comprises one or more cells configured to receive a fluid to apply pressure; and a controller configured to control pressure applied by the one or more pressure applying regions to one or more portions of the head and neck during the compression therapy period. Appeal Br., Claims App. Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 3 References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Rosett US 1,795,893 Mar. 10, 1931 De Besme et al. (“De Besme”) US 3,094,118 June 18, 1963 Domenighini et al. (“Domenighini”) US 6,039,704 Mar. 21, 2000 Berns et al. (“Berns”) US 9,320,307 B2 Apr. 26, 2016 Waldridge et al. (“Waldridge”) US 2003/0032905 A1 Feb. 13, 2003 Tseng US 2007/0088234 A1 Apr. 19, 2007 Stryker et al. (“Stryker”) US 2014/0276271 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Kim et al. (“Kim”) US 2017/0105893 A1 Apr. 20, 2017 Gorin2 FR 2731349 A1 Sept. 13, 1996 Nour3 FR 2939642 A1 June 18, 2010 Rejections We have set forth the Examiner’s rejections in an order different than that of the Final Office Action and Appeal Brief. Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosett, Tseng, and Waldridge. Claims 4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, and De Besme.4 2 The Examiner includes a machine translation for Gorin; hereinafter, we refer to the foreign reference as “Gorin” and the machine translation as “Gorin Translation.” 3 The Examiner includes a machine translation for Nour. 4 Although the Examiner sets forth separate statements for the rejection of claims 4 and 11 (Final Act. 8) and claim 12 (id. at 12), we consolidate the statements into a single ground of rejection because they are each based upon same the combination of references. Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 4 Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, and Kim. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, and Nour. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, Nour, and Stryker. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, Nour, and Berns. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Domenighini and Rosett. Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gorin and Nour. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gorin, Tseng, and Nour. ANALYSIS The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 8-10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosett, Tseng, and Waldridge Independent claim 1 recites, “[a] compression garment system” that includes “a static garment portion” and “a dynamic garment portion,” where the former is “configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy period.” Supra. The Examiner finds that Rosett teaches a compression garment system that includes a dynamic pressure portion, but lacks a static garment portion. See Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner turns to Tseng’s teachings to remedy this Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 5 deficiency.5 Final Act. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Tseng teaches a static garment portion (i.e., the combination of buckles 12, belt 13, and chin guard 14) that is “configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion under a chin of the head during a compressive therapy period.” Id. (citing Tseng ¶ 34, Figs. 1-10). The Examiner explains that Tseng teaches that the “length of belt 13 is adjusted so that there is no space between the chin and chin guard, which covers a portion under the chin, prior to inflation of the bladder 2.” Id.; see Tseng ¶ 34. Thereafter, the Examiner modifies Rosett’s compression garment system in view of Tseng’s teaching of a static garment portion “for the purpose of accommodating a variety of head sizes by allowing the static pressure portion to stabilize movement of the head with respect to the dynamic pressure portion during the dynamic pressure.” Final Act. 3-4 (citing Tseng ¶ 34). The Appellant argues that “nothing was identified by the Examiner within Rosett in view of Tseng and Waldridge . . . that teaches or suggests [‘]a static garment portion configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy period[,’] as recited in independent claim 1.” Appeal Br. 8. In regards to the Examiner’s finding to the contrary, the Appellant contends “adjusting the chin guard of Tseng so that there is no space between the chin guard and the chin of the user does not teach or suggest being [‘]configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy[,’] as recited in independent claim 1.” Id. at 9. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. 5 The Examiner does not rely on Waldridge to teach a static garment portion. See Final Act. 2-5. Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 6 At the outset, we note that the construction of the terms “configurable” and “static pressure” are significant to the issue of whether Tseng teaches “a static garment portion configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy period,” as recited in claim 1. As for the term “configurable,” we find that the Specification lacks a definition of the term in the Specification. The Examiner understands the term “configurable” to mean “capable of being configured.” Final Act. 23; Ans. 24. We agree with the Examiner. Additionally, we note that the Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s understanding of the term “configurable” in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. As for the term “static pressure,” the Appellant submits that “static pressure is defined as preventing fluid from movement into the regions upon which the static pressure is being applied during the therapy time period.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Spec. ¶ 154). In response, the Examiner finds that the “Appellant did not provide an explicit definition of ‘static pressure’ in paragraph [0154], or any section of the originally filed specification.” Ans. 25. Paragraph 154 of the Specification recites, with added emphasis: The static and dynamic garment portions may be combined to assist in moving lymph at least from a portion under the chin, a portion of each of the left and right cheeks, and a portion of the posterior of the head towards a portion of the neck. For example, the one or more pressure applying regions may be controllable to apply a dynamic pressure during a therapy time period to move lymph at least from a portion under the chin, a portion of each of the left and right cheeks, and a portion of the posterior of the head towards a portion of the neck, while one or more static garment portions (e.g., such as the under chin garment portions 125, 925 illustrated in FIGS. 1A-1B, 3, and 9-10; or the forehead garment portions 132, 932 Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 7 illustrated in FIGS. 1A-1B, 3, and 9-10) are used to prevent fluid from movement into the regions upon which the static pressure is being applied during the therapy time period. We agree with the Examiner that there is no explicit definition in paragraph 154 for the term “static pressure.” The disclosure in this paragraph concerns an example of how the static and dynamic garment portions may be combined together to achieve an objective, i.e., to assist moving lymph from the chin, cheeks, and posterior of the head towards a portion of the neck. Additionally, we find this paragraph lacks a definitive statement concerning the breadth of the term “static pressure.” The Specification elsewhere instructs one of ordinary skill in the art that “static pressure” is an example of “constant pressure.” See Spec. ¶ 146; Appeal Br. 3 (“[A]t least a portion of the garment may apply a constant pressure (e.g., a static pressure) on a portion of the body during a compression therapy”); see also Spec. ¶ 48. The Specification contrasts the term “static pressure” with “dynamic pressure” by instructing one of ordinary skill in the art that “dynamic pressure” is an example of “varying pressure.” See id. ¶¶ 146, 155 (“The garment . . . may include a plurality of pressure applying regions controllable to apply dynamic pressure (e.g., varying pressure over a period of time) to a portion of the body”), 156, 157; Appeal Br. 3 (“[A]t least a portion of the garment may apply a varying pressure (e.g., a dynamic pressure) on a portion of the body during the compression therapy). Moreover, the Specification instructs one of ordinary skill in the art that a “dynamic garment portion may apply a static pressure” by “strapping a dynamic garment portion tight against the portion of the body to apply a pressure without varying any dynamic pressure applying elements” or “positioning a dynamic garment portion against the portion of Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 8 the body and applying a static pressure using the controller (providing fluid to a cell) without varying the pressure being applied.” Spec. ¶ 147. Therefore, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “static pressure,” in light of the Specification, to include a constant pressure, not necessarily from a static garment portion, over a period of time. Additionally, we note that the Specification provides an example of static pressure being applied to a portion of a chin of a user by tightening the garment system’s chin garment portion. Id. ¶¶ 150, ¶ 137 (“[T]he under chin garment portion 925 may apply pressure by pulling a strap (e.g., strapping across the lower head garment portion 920) to tighten the under chin garment portion 925 against and under the chin.”); see also id. ¶ 58 (“Any suitable connection apparatus may be used for donning the head garment portion 120 or any other garment portion described herein, such as flexible or rigid connection elements, hook and loop fasteners, straps connected to the garment, additional or separate connection garment elements or straps, mating hooks, elements shaped to form to a body part (such as the bridge of the nose), etc.”), ¶ 59. Turning to the Examiner’s rejection, the Examiner finds that Tseng’s inflatable massaging device 1 is a compression garment that includes a static garment portion (i.e., buckles 12, belt 13, and chin guard 14), which is “configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion under a chin of the head during a compressive therapy period.” Final Act. 3 (citing Tseng ¶ 34, 10); see Tseng, Figs. 1, 2. Tseng teaches that before inflation “there is no space between the chin guard 14 and the chin of the user” (id. ¶ 34), which is tantamount to chin guard 14 contacting a user’s chin. See Appeal Br. 9 Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 9 (“Appellant submits that mere contact (e.g., ‘no space’) between the chin guard of Tseng and the chin . . .”); Final Act. 5 (“surface of chin guard 14 that is in contact under chin of user”); Ans. 25. Additionally, Tseng describes that having “no space” between chin guard 14 and a user’s chin can be achieved by adjusting belt 13. Tseng ¶ 34, Figs. 17, 18. The Appellant contends that “no space” (i.e., contact) between the chin guard 14 and a user’s chin does not mean that static pressure is being applied. Appeal Br. 9. The Appellant’s contention is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention. The claim recites, “a static garment portion configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy period.” Supra (emphasis added). As discussed above, the term “configurable” means “capable of being configured.” Therefore, the relevant question at issue is not whether the combination of Tseng’s buckles 12, belt 13, and chin guard 14 applies a static pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy period. Rather, the relevant question is whether the combination of Tseng’s buckles 12, belt 13, and chin guard 14 is capable of being configured to apply a static, i.e., constant, pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy period. We answer this question in the affirmative because the combination of Tseng’s buckles 12, belt 13, and chin guard 14 may be adjusted (e.g., tightened) to provide static pressure to a portion of a chin of a user of the garment system. See Ans. 24-25. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Tseng’s buckles 12, belt 13, and chin guard 14 corresponds to “a static garment portion configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion of the head during Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 10 a compression therapy period,” as recited in claim 1, is adequately supported. The Appellant also contends that Tseng discloses a preference that the device is adjustable to provide a loose fit (i.e., two fingers between the inside of portion 16 and the back of the head) prior to inflation. Appeal Br. 9-10 (citing Tseng ¶ 36); see Reply Br. 2. The Appellant asserts that because of this loose fit and Tseng does not teach or suggest applying a static pressure with the chin guard. See Appeal Br. 9. The Appellant’s contention is not persuasive. First, the contention does not affect Tseng’s teaching that before inflation “there is no space [(i.e., there is contact)] between the chin guard 14 and the chin of the user.” Tseng ¶ 34. Second, the Appellant’s contention does not directly relate to the adjustability of Tseng’s buckles 12, belt 13, and chin guard 14 to create a tighter fit. Third, any inflation of Tseng’s device would tighten the device as a whole on a user’s head by lessening the space between internal surface of the belt 13 and chin guard 14 and the internal surface of housing 3 during inflation of Tseng’s device. See id. ¶¶ 33, 34, 36, Figs. 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18. In the Reply Brief at pages 2-3, the Appellant contends, for the first time on Appeal, that the rationale that the Examiner provides in modifying Rosett’s therapeutic device in view of Tseng’s teachings (see Final Act. 3- 4), lacks adequate support. This argument is not responsive to an argument raised in the Examiner’s Answer. The Appellant fails to show good cause for not presenting this argument in the opening brief, i.e., the Appeal Brief. Therefore, we will not consider this argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer, Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 11 including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”); id. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”). Thus, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 8-10, and 17, which are not argued separately. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 4-7, 11, 12, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, and De Besme, Kim, Nour, Nour and Stryker, or Nour and Berns The Appellant argues that the rejections of dependent claims 4-7, 11, 12, and 18-21 are not adequately supported for the reasons presented for the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Rosett, Tseng, and Waldridge. See Appeal Br. 19-20. As discussed above, we determine that the Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 4-7, 11, 12, and 18-21. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Domenighini and Rosett Independent claim 1 recites “a static garment portion configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy period.” Supra. The Examiner finds that Domenighini teaches a compression garment system that includes a static garment portion (i.e., adjustable straps 54 and 43'). Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that adjustable straps 54 and 43' “are adjustable to secure front shell 38 to back shell 20 and to fit the complete Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 12 structure to various head sizes, therefore the static garment portion is configurable to apply a static pressure during the compression therapy period.” Final Act. 6; see Ans. 28-29. The Appellant argues that straps 54, 43' “are not configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy.” Reply Br. 5. The Appellant points out that Domenighini describes the straps as part of a connection structure between front shell structure 38 and back shell structure 20. Id. at 4-5; see Appeal Br. 12 (citing Domenighini, col. 4, ll. 1-17). The Examiner finds “that adjustability of the straps 54,43' of Domenighini for a given user provides that the straps 54,43' are inherently capable of providing static pressure to a portion of head of the user (e.g. pressure to the sides of the head due to tensioning force of the straps).” Ans. 28. The Examiner, however, does not provide adequate support for this finding. For example, the Examiner fails to explain on the record why it is necessarily the case that straps 54, 43' directly contact a portion of a user’s head such that constant pressure is applied to the portion of the head during a compression therapy period. The Examiner suggests that claim 1 does not call for a direct application of static pressure. See id. at 29. In other words, an indirect application of force may correspond to the claimed application of static pressure. Specifically, the indirect “tension force created by the straps 54,43' [that] applies static pressure to a portion of user’s head by bringing the front and back shells close together and in contact with head of user.” Id. However, the Examiner does not provide nor direct attention to any support -- nor do we find any support -- on this record that one of ordinary Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 13 skill in the art would have understood that an indirect application of force corresponds to an application of a static pressure to a portion of the user’s head during a compression therapy period. See Appeal Br. 11, 12-13; Reply Br. 4-5. In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Appellant’s argument is persuasive; the Examiner fails to adequately explain on the record how straps 54, 43' corresponds to “a static garment portion configurable to apply a static pressure to a portion of the head during a compression therapy period,” as recited in claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 13 and 14, which depend therefrom. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gorin and Nour The Examiner finds that Gorin teaches a garment that includes compartments Z1-Z5, which correspond to the claimed “plurality of pressure applying regions” and compartment Z1, which corresponds to the claimed “outer head pressure applying region.” Final Act. 17-18 (citing Gorin Translation, col. 4, ll. 125-134; Gorin, Fig. 2B). The Appellant argues that “the Examiner failed to show that Gorin teaches or suggests [‘]an outer head pressure applying region extending along an edge of the garment positionable from a right cheek of the head around an upper posterior of the head and towards a left cheek of the head[’] as recited in independent claim 22.” Appeal Br. 16. The Appellant submits that Gorin’s compartment Z1 “is only positioned at the edge of the garment at a region proximate the left and right temples of the user and does not Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 14 extend along the edge from the right cheek, around the upper posterior, and towards the left cheek of the head.” Id.; see id. at 15 (citing Gorin, Fig. 2B). The Appellant’s argument is persuasive. Claim 22 recites: wherein the plurality of pressure applying regions are arranged from an outer head pressure applying region extending along an edge of the garment positionable from a right cheek of the head around an upper posterior of the head and towards a left cheek of the head to a lower posterior pressure applying region positionable about a lower posterior of the head and the neck. Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). The Appellant construes “[t]he phrase ‘positionable from a right cheek of the head . . .’ [a]s modifying the entire phrase ‘an outer head pressure applying region extending along an edge of the garment.’” Reply Br. 6. We agree with this construction. But see Ans. 30 (The Examiner suggests that the edge of the outer head pressure applying region is not modified by the claim recitation “adapted to be positioned from a right cheek of the head around an upper posterior of the head and towards a left cheek of the head.”). We note that the Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the edge of the garment of Gorin is “capable of being positioned” from a right cheek of the head around an upper posterior of the head and towards a left cheek of the head (e.g. when a user is putting on/removing/adjusting the head garment on the head, the edge is capable of being positioned at these regions of the head of the user). The claim does not require that the edge of the garment is positioned this way during operation or that the edge is positioned at each of these regions simultaneously. Id. at 31. In response, the Appellant contends that the Examiner’s determination is “wholly unreasonable” because it “appears to be suggesting that an edge of the garment could be moved around to different locations on Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 15 the head (for which it was not intended) merely to be proximate a region identified by the claim.” Reply Br. 8. The Appellant’s contention is persuasive. Gorin teaches, as shown in Figure 2B, a user wearing inflatable garment 1 with compartment Z1 corresponding to the frontal region of the head/skull. Gorin Translation 3:91-98. We appreciate the Appellant’s position that the edge of compartment Z1, as shown in Figure 2B, is situated at the left temple. We cannot agree with this position because the figure does not show adequate facial features to support the position. However, for the same reason, even if we were to assume that the edge of Gorin’s compartment Z1 were to be positioned at a right cheek of a user’s head, we determine that it would be speculative to then find that compartment Z1 would be positioned towards the left cheek of the user’s head. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner fails to adequately explain on the record how the edges of compartment Z1 are capable of being positioned from a right cheek of the head around an upper posterior of the head and towards a left cheek of the head. Further, the Examiner fails to rely on Nour’s teachings in any manner that would remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection as discussed above. See Appeal Br. 16. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 22 and claims 23-25, which depend therefrom. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gorin, Tseng, and Nour Independent claim 26 is similar to claim 22 in that it recites, “[a] garment comprising a plurality of pressure applying regions arranged from Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 16 an outer head pressure applying region extending along an edge of the garment positionable from a right cheek of the head around an upper posterior of the head and towards a left cheek of the head to a lower posterior pressure applying region positionable about a lower posterior of the head and the neck.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Similar to the rejection of claim 22, the Examiner relies on Gorin’s compartment Z1 to correspond to the “outer head pressure applying region,” of claim 26. Final Act. 20-21 (citing Gorin, Fig. 2B). For similar reasons as discussed above, we determine that the Examiner’s finding is inadequately supported. See Appeal Br. 18-19. Further, the Examiner fails to rely on Tseng or Nour in any manner that would remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection as discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 26. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 8-10, 17 103 Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge 1-3, 8-10, 17 4, 11, 12 103 Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, De Besme 4, 11, 12 5-7 103 Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, Kim 5-7 18, 19 103 Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, Nour 18, 19 Appeal 2021-003668 Application 15/284,870 17 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 20 103 Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, Nour, Stryker 20 21 103 Rosett, Tseng, Waldridge, Nour, Berns 21 1, 13, 14 103 Domenighini, Rosett 1, 13, 14 22-25 103 Gorin, Nour 22-25 26 103 Gorin, Tseng, Nour 26 Overall Outcome 1-12, 17-21 13, 14, 22-26 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). AFFIRMED IN PART