throbber
www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMIVEERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 223 1 3- 1450
`
`11/004,617
`
`12/03/2004
`
`Rainer Kroepke
`
`3321-P30886
`
`8148
`
`
`
`
`
`Abel Sch1ll1nger, LLP
`8911 N. Capital of Texas Hwy
`Bldg 4, Suite 4200
`Austin, TX 78759
`
`WANG’ SHENGJUN
`
`ART UNIT
`1627
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/12/2019
`
`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):
`
`hmuensterer @ abel-ip. com
`mail@ Abel-IP.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte RAINER KROEPKE, LUDGER KOLBE,
`ANETTE BUERGER, and CLAUDIA MUNDT
`
`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,6171
`Technology Center 1600
`
`Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
`
`TAWEN CHANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`This Appeal2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involves claims 101—138
`
`(Final Act.3 2). Examiner entered rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and
`
`obviousness-type double patenting. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 6(b).
`
`We AFFIRM.
`
`1 Appellants identify “Beierdorf AG” as the real party in interest
`(Appellants’ April 3, 2018 Appeal Brief (App. Br.) 3).
`2 This Appeal is related to Appeal 2015-002324 (Application 11/004,617),
`Decision affirming-in-part entered December 5, 2016.
`3 Examiner’s September 5, 2017 Final Office Action.
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Appellants’ disclosure “relates to cosmetic or dermatological
`
`preparations that include a combination of a dye and an anti-inflammatory
`
`active ingredient, and particularly to preparations for the prophylaxis and
`
`treatment of sun-irritated skin that aid the body’s own repair mechanisms”
`
`and to the use of such preparations comprising such combinations” (Spec.4
`
`126—10). Appellants’ claim 101 is representative and reproduced below:
`
`101. A cosmetic or dermatological preparation, wherein the
`preparation comprises from 0.01 % to 5 % by weight of at least
`one red light-filtering dye, at least one white pigment, and from
`0.0001 % to 10 % by weight of at least one anti-inflammatory
`active ingredient which comprises at least one aqueous extract
`of Glycyrrhiza inflata.
`
`(App. Br. 24.)
`
`Grounds of rejection presented by Examiner:
`
`1. Claims 101, 106, 112, 113, and 120—122 stand provisionally
`
`rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
`
`patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of US Patent Application
`
`No. 10/985,733 in combination with Wenninger and Bara.
`
`11. Claims 101, 106, 112, and 120—122 stand rejected under the
`
`judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over the claims of US Patent No. 7,799,256 in combination
`
`with Wenninger and Bara.
`
`III. Claims 101 and 120—122 stand rejected under the judicially
`
`created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
`
`4 Appellants’ December 3, 2004 Specification.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`over the claims of US Patent Nos. 8,470,349 or 9,017,707 in combination
`
`with Wenninger and Bara.
`
`IV. Claims 101—138 stand rejected under the judicially created
`
`doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
`
`the claims of US Patent Nos. 7,824,717 in combination With Hahn,
`
`Nagatani, Wenninger, Millikan, Demko, Bara, and Kryzysik.
`
`V. Claims 101—117, 119—131, 133, 134, and 136—138 stand rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hahn,5
`
`Shibata,6 Nagatani,7 Wenninger,8 Millikan,9 Demko,10 Bara,11 Oto,12 and
`
`Bikowski.13
`
`VI. Claims 118, 132, and 135 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as unpatentable over the combination of Hahn, Shibata, Nagatani,
`
`Wenninger, Millikan, Demko, Bara, Oto, Bikowski and Kryzysik.14
`
`5 Hahn et al., US 5,804,203, issued Sept. 8, 1998.
`6 Shibata et al., Inhibitory Efl’eets ofLieoehalcone A Isolatedfrom
`Glycyrrhiza inflate Root on Inflammatory Ear Edema and Tamour
`Promotion in Mice, 57 PLANTA MED. 221—24 (1991).
`7 Nagatani et al., US 2001/0007677 A1, published July 12, 2001.
`8 International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook 301—07 (7th
`ed., vol. 1, eds. John A. Wenninger et al., THE COSMETIC, TOILETRY, AND
`FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION, Washington, DC) (1997).
`9 Millikan, The Proposed Inflammatory Pathophysiology ofRosaeea.‘
`Implications for Treatment, 2 DERMATOLOGY FOR THE CLINICIAN 43—47
`(2003).
`10 Demko, US 3,873,687, issued Mar. 25, 1975.
`11 Bara et al., US 5,478,555, issued Dec. 26, 1995.
`12 Oto et al., JP 2001-170226, published Dec. 18, 2002, as translated in PTO
`1 1-1219.
`
`13 Bikowski, The Use of Therapeatie Moisturizers in Various Dermatologie
`Disorders, 68 CUTIS 3—11 (2001).
`14 Krzysik et al., US 6,440,437 B1, issued Aug. 27, 2002.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`Obviousness-lype Double Parenting:
`
`Appellants state that the obviousness-type double patenting Rejections
`
`I—IV “are n_ot presented for review” (App. Br. 22). Therefore, because
`
`Appellants do not these rejections, they are summarily affirmed. See
`
`MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 1205.02 (“If a
`
`ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s
`
`brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the
`
`Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew
`
`the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”).
`
`Obviousness:
`
`ISSUE
`
`Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
`
`a conclusion of obviousness?
`
`FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
`
`We adopt Examiner’s findings concerning the scope and content of
`
`the prior art (Final Act. 22—34; Ans.15 3—14), and provide the following
`
`findings for emphasis.
`
`FF 1. Examiner relies on Millikan to disclose “that rosacea is known in the
`
`art to be characterized by facial redness and inflammation” (Final Act. 25;
`
`see generally Millikan 43—47).
`
`FF 2. Bikowski discloses that “moisturizers can serve as important
`
`adjunctive therapeutic modalities for patients with various dermatologic
`
`disorders, including .
`
`.
`
`. rosacea” (Bikowski, Abstract; see Ans. 26).
`
`15 Examiner’s June 29, 2018 Answer.
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`FF 3. Hahn discloses, inter alia, topical formulations, including
`
`moisturizers, With “ingredients Which can suppress skin irritation due to
`
`chemical or environmental exposure, or due to tissue inflammation, injury or
`
`other skin pathology” (Hahn 9: 53—56; id. 17: 55 — 18: 56; see generally
`
`Final Act. 22—23).
`
`FF 4. Hahn discloses formulations comprising anti-inflammatory agents
`
`such as licorice extract (Hahn 11: 1—6; Final Act. 23).
`
`FF 5. Hahn discloses formulations comprising, inter alia, dyes, colorants
`
`and/or pigments (Hahn 18: 8—25; see id. at 33: 55 — 34: 67 (exemplifying a
`
`composition comprising more than one pigment); see also Final Act. 22—23).
`
`FF 6. Examiner finds that Hahn does:
`
`not exemplify [an] aqueous extract of Glyeyrrhiza inflata as a
`preferred species of licorice for producing an anti-inflammatory
`extract and its amounts .
`.
`.
`; red light-filtering dye .
`.
`.
`particularly those claimed pigments as green .
`.
`.
`, blue .
`White .
`.
`.
`, and their amounts and ratios.
`
`,
`
`.
`
`.
`
`(Final Act. 24.)
`
`FF 7. Shibata discloses that “Licochalcone A .
`
`.
`
`. from the root of
`
`Glyeyrrhiza inflata Beta (Leguminosae) .
`
`.
`
`. showed anti-inflammatory
`
`action towards mouse ear edema induced by arachidonic acid (AA) and 12-
`
`O-tetradecanoylphorbol 13-acetate (TPA) by topical application” (Shibata,
`
`Abstract; see Final Act. 24 (Shibata establishes that Licochalcone A can be
`
`extracted from Glycyrrhiza inflata)).
`
`FF 8. Nagatani “relates to a cosmetic composition Which can change the hue
`
`of the skin While giVing the skin a feeling of transparence” (Nagatani 11 2;
`
`see generally Final Act. 24).
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`FF 9. Nagatani discloses that:
`
`[i]n order to cover a reddish face or acne spots [] the hue of the
`skin [is changed] by using a pigment of a green color that is
`complementary to red or using a pigment of a blue or violet
`color so as to give the skin a feeling of transparence.
`
`(Nagatani 11 6; Final Act. 24.) In this regard, Nagatani discloses that
`
`[V]arious color tones may be prepared [by Nagatani’s] hollow
`plate powder []by controlling the optical thickness (coating
`thickness) of the metal oxide layer of the metal oxide-coated
`plate powder prior to the dissolution of the base material. For
`example, those powder which exhibit a blue to violet
`interference light do not become a dull color and can give a
`feeling of transparence toward the skin; those powder which
`exhibit a green interference light do also not become a dull
`color and can prevent the skin from looking red; and those
`powder which exhibit an orange to red interference light can
`make the skin look healthy and cover a dull looking skin.
`
`(Nagatani 11 19; see Final Act. 17; see also Nagatani 11 77 (exemplifying
`
`compositions comprising more than one pigment).)
`
`FF 10. Examiner relies on Wenninger to disclose the routine use of “green,
`
`white and blue pigments .
`
`.
`
`. in the formulation of cosmetic preparations”
`
`(Final Act. 24; see generally Wenninger 303 and 305 (describing CI 77491,
`
`CI 77492, CI 77499, and CI 77289)).
`
`FF 11. Demko discloses cosmetic coloring compositions for application to
`
`the human body, which comprise:
`
`[i]norganic colorants capable of masking the dye color while
`the composition is in applicator form but which does not mask
`the staining colorant dye when the composition is applied to
`human skin are the various heavy metal oxides and hydrates
`such as various iron oxides (CI 77491, CI 77492 and Cl
`77499)[,] chromium sesquioxide hydrate (CI 77289) and the
`like.
`
`(Demko 3:28—34; see Final Act. 24—25.)
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`FF 12. Demko discloses that the concentration of “colorant material may
`
`range from about 0.001 to about 6 percent of the total amount of coloring
`
`agents” in a formulation (Demko 3:37—39; see id. at 1:52—56; Final Act. 24—
`
`25).
`
`FF 13. Examiner finds that Bara discloses cosmetic compositions
`
`comprising “pigments such as CI 77289 (green), .
`
`.
`
`. CI 77891 (white), [and]
`
`CI 77007 (blue)” in amounts “from 0.5 to 20% by weight” of the total
`
`weight of the composition (Final Act. 25; see Bara 4: 1—8 and 21—22).
`
`FF 14. Oto discloses a licorice root extract obtained extracting a mixture of
`
`Glychyrrhiza glabra and Glychyrrhiza inflata in an extraction solvent, which
`
`may be water (see Oto W 17, 18, 53, and 54; see also Ans. 6—7).
`
`FF 15. Examiner finds that Oto discloses compositions comprising “1% or
`
`5% by weight” licorice root extract (Ans. 7 (citing Oto 1111 7 5—77); see also
`
`Oto 11 78 (exemplifying a composition comprising 5 % of licorice root
`
`extract)).
`
`FF 16. Examiner finds that the combination of Hahn, Shibata, Nagatani,
`
`Wenninger, Millikan, Demko, Bara, Oto, and Bikowski fails to disclose
`
`“PPG-6 decyltetradeceth-30” and relies on Krysik to make up for this
`
`deficiency (Ans. 33).
`
`Rejection V:
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`The evidence of record supports Examiner’s conclusion of
`
`obviousness. As Examiner explains, “rosacea is known in the art to be
`
`characterized by facial redness and inflammation,” and the art also teaches
`
`that moisturizing compositions are useful in the treatment of rosacea (FF 1—
`
`2). In addition, the evidence of record establishes that cosmetic
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`compositions comprising pigments and dyes, such as CI 77289 (green), CI
`
`77007 (blue), and CI 77891 (white) are routinely used in the cosmetic
`
`industry, are useful in covering a reddish face, and are used in amounts of
`
`from 0.5 to 20% by weight of the total weight of the composition (see FF 3—
`
`8; see also Spec. 7:9—10 (disclosing that green pigments are red light-
`
`filtering dyes); Spec. 10: 24 (disclosing “[r]ed light-filtering dyes, in
`
`particular green pigments”)).
`
`Hahn discloses a composition comprising a moisturizer, dyes,
`
`colorants, and/or pigments, and an anti-inflammatory, such as licorice
`
`extract (FF 9—11). Although Hahn does not disclose the source of licorice
`
`extract (FF 12), Shibata discloses that licorice extract may be obtained from
`
`Glycyrrhiza inflata and Oto discloses aqueous extracts of Glycyrrhiza inflata
`
`(FF 13—14). In addition, Oto discloses composition comprising 1% or 5%
`
`licorice root extract (FF 15).
`
`Therefore, based on the combination of Hahn, Shibata, Nagatani,
`
`Wenninger, Millikan, Demko, Bara, Oto, and Bikowski, we find no error in
`
`Examiner’s conclusion that, at the time Appellants’ invention was made, it
`
`would have been prima facie obvious to prepare a cosmetic or
`
`dermatological composition comprising a moisturizer, 05—20% of at least
`
`one red light-filtering dye, at least one white pigment, and 1% or 5% by
`
`weight of an anti-inflammatory agent, such as an aqueous extract of
`
`Glycyrrhiza inflata (see FF 1—15; see also Ans. 7).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
`
`contentions that Examiner’s rejection is based in improper hindsight (see
`
`App. Br. 8 (“Examiner apparently has used the instant claims as [a] template
`
`for finding documents which contain portions which can allegedly be
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`combined with .
`
`.
`
`. [Hahn] .
`
`.
`
`. to afford the subject matter of the rejected
`
`claims”); id. at 12, 14—15, and 17).
`
`Millikan discloses that rosacea is “characterized by facial redness and
`
`inflammation” (FF 1). Bikowski discloses that moisturizing compositions
`
`are useful in the treatment of rosacea (FF 2). Nagatani discloses that it is
`
`known in the art to use compositions comprising pigments, such as a green
`
`pigment, to cover a reddish face (FF 4; see also FF 3). Hahn discloses
`
`compositions comprising a moisturizer, anti-inflammatory, and dyes,
`
`colorants, and/or pigments (FF 11). Therefore, we are not persuaded by
`
`Appellants’ contention that Examiner’s combination of Millikan and
`
`Nagatani with Hahn “is clearly based on hindsight” (App. Br. 8—9). To the
`
`contrary, Millikan and Nagatani build upon the foundation laid in Hahn and
`
`direct a person of ordinary skill in this art to select and use specific dyes,
`
`colorants, and/or pigments in Hahn’s composition. Therefore, we are not
`(C
`persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Hahn’s reference to the presence
`
`of dyes/pigments/colorants in the formulations of [Hahn] are unspecific and
`
`very general” (App. Br. 15 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 15—17; Reply
`
`Br. 2).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
`
`contention that because Hahn does not expressly disclose “the treatment of
`
`conditions which involve a reddish face,” a person of ordinary skill in this
`
`art, when considering the evidence as a whole, would not have found it
`
`prima facie obvious to use Hahn’s composition as modified by Shibata,
`
`Nagatani, Wenninger, Millikan, Demko, Bara, Oto, and Bikowski, to treat
`
`rosacea, which is characterized by facial redness and inflammation (see App.
`
`Br. 10; cf. FF 1—15). “The combination of familiar elements according to
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 US. 398, 416
`
`(2007); id. at 418 (stating that “[i]t is proper to “take account of the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ”); id. at 421 (stating that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a
`
`person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”).
`
`We acknowledge Appellants’ contention that Hahn’s composition
`
`includes strontium cations, but as Appellants recognize, Appellants’ claim
`
`101 does not exclude strontium cations (see App. Br. 10; see also id. at 11;
`
`cf. id. at 24; Reply Br. 2). See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
`
`(“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because .
`
`.
`
`. they are not based
`
`on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Therefore, Appellants’ contentions
`
`regarding strontium cations are not persuasive.
`
`Because Hahn expressly discloses a composition comprising an anti-
`
`inflammatory, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that “it is not
`
`seen that [Hahn] discloses “topical anti-inflammatory compositions,” such as
`
`at least one aqueous extract of Glyeyrrliiza inflata (App. Br. 11; Reply Br.
`
`2—4; cf. FF 10).
`
`We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions regarding Hahn’s
`
`claims, which fail to consider the full scope of Hahn’s disclosure (see App.
`
`Br. 11—12; see also id. at 18 (contending that Hahn “fails to teach that
`
`licorice extract is a preferred (optional) anti-inflammatory agent in the
`
`compositions of [Hahn]) (emphasis omitted)). See generally In re Lamberti,
`
`545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) (explaining that a reference disclosure is
`
`not limited only to its preferred embodiments, but is available for all that it
`
`discloses and suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art). For the same
`
`10
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Hahn only
`
`mentions some ingredients “in passing” and exemplifies the use of
`
`“panthenol in a hair conditioner/scalp protectant” (App. Br. 13—14 (emphasis
`
`omitted); see also Reply Br. 2—3). See Merck & CO. Inc. v. Biocraft Labs,
`
`Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Disclos[ure of] a multitude of
`
`effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less
`
`obvious.”).
`
`As discussed above, Millikan discloses that rosacea is characterized
`
`by, inter alia, inflammation (FF 1). Thus, we find no error in Examiner’s
`
`conclusion that it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in this art to treat rosacea with the composition suggested by
`
`the combination of Hahn, Shibata, Nagatani, Wenninger, Millikan, Demko,
`
`Bara, Oto, and Bikowski, which includes an anti-inflammatory, i.e., an
`
`aqueous extract of Glycyrrhiza inflata (see FF 1—15). Further, Millikan’s
`
`suggestion that “topical metronidazole and certain systemic tetracyclines and
`
`macrolides .
`
`.
`
`. should be considered first-line therapy for all stages of
`
`rosacea,” does not preclude the use of alternative treatment regimens, such
`
`as the use of an anti-inflammatory composition, i.e., a composition
`
`comprising an aqueous extract of Glycyrrhiza inflata to treat inflammation
`
`associated with rosacea. See generally DePay Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
`
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference
`
`does not teach away .
`
`.
`
`. if it merely expresses a general preference for an
`
`alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise
`
`discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed”) (citing In re Falton,
`
`391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, we are not persuaded by
`
`Appellants’ contention to the contrary (see App. Br. 13).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`Shibata discloses that an anti-inflammatory may be extracted from
`
`Glyeyrrhiza inflata, therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
`
`contentions regarding Shibata (App. Br. 19). In this regard, we find no
`
`evidence of record to support a finding that an anti-inflammatory would not
`
`treat inflammation. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
`
`contention that “the mode of action suggested by [Shibata] clearly has
`
`nothing to do with the mode of action which according to [Millikan] is
`
`necessary for a substance that is intended to treat (an inflammatory form of)
`
`rosacea, i.e., the blocking or modulating of neutrophilic activity (id). See In
`
`re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a
`
`brief cannot take the place of evidence”). For the same reason, we are not
`
`persuaded by Appellants’ extrapolation of Oto’s disclosure, and contention
`
`based thereon, that Oto’s licorice extracts “do not have an anti-inflammatory
`
`effect (or at least only a negligible anti-inflammatory effect), thereby making
`
`them unsuitable as an (optional) anti-inflammatory agent[] in the
`
`compositions of [Hahn]” (App. Br. 20 (emphasis omitted)).
`
`For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
`
`contention that the evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to provide a
`
`motivation to combine or make obvious a composition comprising the
`
`amounts of ingredients specified by Appellants’ claim 101 (see App. Br. 20).
`
`Rejection VI:
`
`Based on the combination of Hahn, Shibata, Nagatani, Wenninger,
`
`Millikan, Demko, Bara, Oto, Bikowski, and Krysik, Examiner concludes
`
`that, at the time Appellants’ invention was made, it would have been prima
`
`facie obvious to incorporate PPG-6-decyltetradeceth—30 into the composition
`
`12
`
`

`

`Appeal 2018-008640
`Application 1 1/004,617
`
`suggested by the combination of Hahn, Shibata, Nagatani, Wenninger,
`
`Millikan, Demko, Bara, Oto, and Bikowski (see Ans. 14; see also FF 1—16).
`
`Having found no deficiency in the combination of Hahn, Shibata,
`
`Nagatani, Wenninger, Millikan, Demko, Bara, Oto, and Bikowski, we are
`
`not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Kryzysik fails to make up for
`
`Appellants’ asserted deficiency in Hahn, Shibata, Nagatani, Wenninger,
`
`Millikan, Demko, Bara, Oto, and Bikowski (see App. Br. 21).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner supports a
`
`conclusion of obviousness.
`
`The rejection of claim 101 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable
`
`over the combination of Hahn, Shibata, Nagatani, Wenninger, Millikan,
`
`Demko, Bara, Oto, and Bikowski is affirmed. Claims 102—117, 119—131,
`
`133, 134, and 136—138 are not separately argued and fall With claim 101.
`
`The rejection of claims 118, 132, and 135 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`unpatentable over the combination of Hahn, Shibata, Nagatani, Wenninger,
`
`Millikan, Demko, Bara, Oto, Bikowski and Kryzysik is affirmed.
`
`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).
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`13
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket