`
`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
`
`