Ex Parte 8,057,835 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2015

95002309 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2015)

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.
95/002,309 09/14/2012 8,057,835 MONS:321 2663
73905 7590 04/29/2015
DENTONS US LLP
P.O. BOX 061080
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080
EXAMINER
DIAMOND, ALAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
Requester and Cross Appellant

v.

MONSANTO COMPANY
1

Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before MARK NAGUMO, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Monsanto Company (“Patent Owner”) appeals from the Patent
Examiner’s decision rejecting pending claims in the inter partes

1
Monsanto Company is the parent company of Monsanto Technology LLC,
the assignee of record.
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

2

reexamination of U.S. Patent 8,057,835 B2 (hereinafter the “’835 patent”).
2

Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief 1, dated April 24, 2014 (hereinafter “PO App.
Br.”); Patent Owner’s Respondent Brief, dated June 27, 2014 (hereinafter
“PO Res. Br.”); Patent Owner’s Rebuttal Brief, dated August 8, 2014 (herein
after “PO Reb. Br.”). The Board’s jurisdiction for this appeal is under
35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134, and 315. We AFFIRM.

I. BACKGROUND
A request for inter partes reexamination under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-318
and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.902-1.997 for the ’835 patent was filed on
September 14, 2012, by a Third-Party Requester, E. I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company (hereinafter “Requester”). See Request for Inter Partes
Reexamination 1 (hereinafter “Request”); Requester’s Supplemental Cross-
Appeal Brief, dated May 27, 2014 (hereinafter “Req. App. Br.”);
Requester’s Supplemental Respondent Brief, dated June 17, 2014
(hereinafter “Req. Res. Br.”); Requester’s Rebuttal Brief, dated
August 8, 2014 (hereinafter “Req. Reb. Br.”).
An oral hearing was scheduled for April 1, 2015. However, the
parties subsequently waived oral hearing. See Responses to the Notice of
Hearing filed January 30, 2015 and February 2, 2015. Accordingly, this
case has been decided entirely on the briefs of record.
The ’835 patent is directed to soy oils having a low level of trans-fatty
acids and improved flavor and performance attributes especially suitable for
food applications and processes for the preparation thereof. ’835 patent,

2
The ’835 patent issued November 15, 2011, to Vallabh Makadia, et al.
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

3

col. 1, ll. 11-15. According to the ’835 patent, α-linolenic acid affects
oxidative stability, odor and flavor stability of oils extracted from soybeans
because it oxidizes faster than other fatty acids with fewer double bonds.
Id.at col. 1, ll. 41-48. Thus, the ’835 patent is particularly directed to a soy
oil composition with low linolenic acid content, namely less than 3 wt. %
α-linolenic acid or derivatives thereof based upon the total weight of fatty
acids or derivatives thereof in the composition. Id. at col. 1, ll. 48-51 and
63-66.
The ’835 patent originally contained claims 1-5, of which claim 5 was
not subject to reexamination. During reexamination, Patent Owner added
claims 6-34 and ultimately cancelled claims 2-10, 12-16, 33 and 34. Thus,
claims 1, 11 and 17-32 currently are pending and stand rejected by the
Examiner. See Right of Appeal Notice dated January 24, 2014 (“RAN”) 2.
Patent Owner appeals the rejection of all of the claims. PO App. Br. 1.
Requester appeals the Examiner’s decision not to adopt proposed rejections
of all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
3
for lack of
enablement and/or lack of written descriptive support for the presently
claimed soybean oil composition.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim in this appeal, is representative,
and reads as follows (with underlining showing added language and brackets
showing deleted language over the original patented claim):

3
All references to U.S. statutes are as written prior to the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act signed into law on September 16, 2011. See AIA
§ 6(c)(3)(C) (2011).
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

4

1. An unblended soy oil composition comprising
[either:
(a)] not more than [about 8 wt.%] 3 wt.% α-linolenic acid
or a derivative thereof, from [about] 55 to [about 85 wt.%]
80 wt.% oleic acid or a derivative thereof, [and from about 2 to
about 35] from 5 to less than 10 wt.% linoleic acid or a
derivative thereof, and [not more than] from 9% to about
10 wt. % saturated fatty acid or a derivative thereof based upon
the total weight of fatty acids or derivatives thereof in the
composition[;
(b) not more than about 4 wt.% a-linolenic acid or a
derivative, from about 20 to about 30 wt.% stearic acid or a
derivative thereof, not more than about 40 wt.% linoleic acid or
a derivative thereof, not more than about 30 wt.% oleic acid or
a derivative thereof, and not more than about 10 wt. % palmitic
acid or a derivative thereof, based upon the total weight of fatty
acids or derivatives thereof in the composition].
REJECTIONS BASED ON FILLATTI
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fillatti.
4

The claims require 1) not more than 3% wt.% α-linolenic acid or a
derivative of it; 2) from 55-80 wt% oleic acid or derivative of it; 3) from 5 to
less than 10 wt.% linoleic acid or a derivative of it; and 4) from 9% to about
10 wt.% saturated fatty acid or a derivative of it.
Fillatti teaches a soybean oil composition containing 1) 6% or less by
weight linolenic acid, 2) 65 to 80% by weight oleic acid, 3) 10 to 30% by
weight linoleic acid, and 4) 2 to 8% by weight of saturated fatty acids.
Fillatti, p. 32, ll. 15-17. Fillatti further teaches alternative embodiments in
which the ranges for each of oleic acid, linoleic acid, and linolenic acid, and

4
WO 03/080802, published October 2, 2003, naming Joanne J. Fillatti et al.
as inventors.
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

5

saturated fatty acids are even closer to the recited ranges. Id. at p. 32, l. 21
to p. 33, l. 15. For example, Fillatti teaches “3% or less” linolenic acid (p.
33, ll. 7-9), which is identical to the claimed range of “not more than 3
wt.%.” Fillatti teaches 55 to 80% weight oleic acid (p. 32, ll. 21-23), which
is identical to the claimed range of 55 to 80% oleic acid. Fillatti teaches
7-10% saturated fatty acids (p. 33, ll. 11-15), which closely overlaps the
claimed range of “from 9% to about 10 wt.% saturated fatty acid.”
However, Filliatti teaches 10 to 20% linoleic acid (p. 32, l. 30 to p. 33, l. 1),
which is immediately adjacent but does not overlap the claimed range of
“from 5 to less than 10 wt.% linoleic acid.”
Even though Fillatti does not teach the precise ranges for saturated
fatty acids and linoleic acid, the Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious to a skilled artisan “to have optimized the oleic acid, linoleic
acid, linolenic acid, and saturated fatty acids content of Fillatti’s soybean oil
composition so as to arrive at a composition suitable for cooking and frying
with oxidation stability, fewer objectionable odors and colors and reduced
off-flavors” and that “a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected no
appreciable difference in properties in Fillatti’s soybean oil having a linoleic
acid concentration of 10% by weight compared to the instantly claimed soy
oil composition having a concentration slightly less than 10% by weight.”
RAN 8 (citing Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,
783 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Patent Owner initially argues that modifications of the soy oil
composition identified by the Examiner would have required lowering the
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

6

linoleic acid content and raising the saturated fatty acid content, both of
which are taught against in Fillatti.
With respect to the saturated fatty acid content, Patent Owner argues
that Fillatti describes a preference for “less than 8% by weight” of saturated
fatty acid, problems associated with saturated fatty acids, and a consumer
preference for low saturated fatty acid levels. PO App. Br. 4. Thus,
according to Patent Owner, Fillatti teaches away from modifying a saturated
fatty acid content greater than 5%, as taught in the soy oil composition relied
upon by the Examiner. Id. However, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore
Fillatti’s express teaching of embodiments that include saturated fatty acid
concentrations as high as 15% by weight, and, specifically, 7 to 10% by
weight (id. at p. 33, ll. 11-15), which encompasses the recited range of from
9 to about 10% by weight. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument of a teaching
away is not persuasive. Based on the teachings of Fillatti, a skilled artisan
would have had an expectation of success using any of the percentages
between 7 and 10% by weight, including the narrower range of 9 to 10% by
weight, as recited in the claims. Patent Owner has not persuasively
demonstrated criticality for the narrower range of saturated fatty acid
content.
With respect to the recited linoleic acid content of “from 5 to less than
10 wt.%,” Patent Owner argues that Fillatti teaches away from a linoleic
acid content of less than 10% in stating that “[w]hen the proportion of
linoleic acid is less than 10% of the total fatty acids, the new composition
raises LDL-cholesterol compared to control soybean oil, even though the
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

7

saturated fat content is lowered to 5% of the total fatty acids.” PO App. Br.
4-5 (citing Fillatti, p. 58, l. 27 to p. 59, l. 2).
While the lower limit of linoleic acid taught by Fillatti is exactly 10%,
we agree with the Examiner that the skilled artisan would not have expected
significant differences in the effect of a soybean oil on LDL-cholesterol
between 10% linoleic acid and some amount slightly less than 10%, the
latter of which is incorporated by the scope of the recited “from 5 to less
than 10 wt.% linoleic acid.” Moreover, the comparison data demonstrating
an undesirable resulting change in serum lipids is with respect to 3% linoleic
acid content, which is less than the lower end of the range recited in the
claims. See Fillatti, p. 58, l. 22 through p. 59, Table 6 (comparing linoleic
acid contents of 3%, 10%, 20%, 21%, and 30% with a native soy oil control
and demonstrating desirable results with all but the 3% linoleic acid content,
including good results with 10% linoleic acid content). Accordingly, the
evidence suggests that the undesirable LDL-cholesterol would not have
resulted from using slightly less than 10 wt.% linoleic acid.
Fillatti further teaches a large number of potential ranges as well as
each separate individual fatty acid percentage within the broadest range, for
each of the fatty acids. See Fillatti, p. 32, l. 21 to p. 33, l. 15. Thus, Fillatti
evinces that altering the soy oil fatty acid content to provide a soy oil
composition having any of the described percentages would have been
routine in the art. The skilled artisan would have routinely adjusted the
values for each of the different fatty acids in a soy oil composition within the
broadly recited ranges. Patent Owner provides no persuasive evidence to
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

8

suggest that such routine modifications would have been outside the skill of
the ordinary artisan.
5

Fillatti further describes a variety of known advantages and
disadvantages for each of the fatty acids in soy oil compositions used for
cooking and frying. See Fillatti, p. 29, l. 24 to p. 32, l. 20. For example,
Fillatti teaches that saturated fatty acids “have high melting points which are
undesirable in many applications,” but Fillatti also teaches that saturated
fatty acids “have no double bonds in the acyl chain [such that] they remain
stable to oxidation at elevated temperatures [and] are important components
in margarines and chocolate formulations.” Id.at p. 29, l. 24 to p. 30, l. 8.
Similarly, Fillatti teaches that linoleic acid “is a major precursor of fried
food flavor substances such as 2,4 decadienal, which make fried foods taste
good,” but Fillatti also teaches that linoleic acid “has limited stability when
heated,” “has cholesterol-lowering properties, although dietary excess can
reduce the ability of human cells to protect themselves from oxidative
damage, thereby increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease,” and a “lower
melting point than oleic acid [that] further contributes to improved cold flow
properties.” Id.at p. 30, l. 20 to p. 31, l. 10. Accordingly, the skilled artisan
would have recognized the trade-offs in adjusting, e.g., the saturated acid

5
Additionally, were Patent Owner to have asserted that adjusting the values
of fatty acids in a soy oil composition were outside of the skill of the
ordinary artisan or would constitute undue experimentation, Requester
contends that such an alternative understanding of the ordinary artisan’s skill
would draw into question whether the ’835 patent would have had written
descriptive and enabling support for the skilled artisan to have arrived at the
recited percentages for the various fatty acids in the pending claims. See
generally Req. App. Br. Since Patent Owner did not make such an assertion,
we decline to address the merits of Requester’s contention.
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

9

content and the linoleic content, in attempting to achieve the known
advantages or reduce the known disadvantages for optimum oxidative
stability, melting and cold-flow properties, flavor, and perceived healthiness.
For this reason, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “[t]o
arrive at the specific oil presently claimed, one of skill in the art would
therefore not only have to modify the necessary components in the correct
amount, but would have to avoid all other changes that would make the
composition less like that which is claimed.” PO App. Br. 3. Such selective
modification appears to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, as evinced
by Fillatti.
Likewise, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that
“one of skill in the art would not expect the claimed oils to have the same
properties as any other soy oil disclosed in Fillatti (Exhibit C) or the prior art
in general.” PO App. Br. 7. The present claims are not directed to any
particular soy oil composition properties, only the particular amounts of fatty
acid content. As established by the teachings in Fillatti, the skilled artisan
would have expected changes in fatty acid content to affect oil composition
properties, such as melting temperature, cold-flow properties, oxidative
stability, and perceived healthiness of the oil. See Fillatti, p. 29, l. 24 to p.
32, l. 20. Thus, a skilled artisan would have modified the various fatty acid
contents in a soy oil composition particularly described in Fillatti to optimize
the known advantages and/or reduce the known disadvantages of each of the
fatty acids.
Further, Patent Owner provides no persuasive evidence of criticality
or unexpected properties for the particularly claimed ranges.
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

10

The law is replete with cases in which the difference between
the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other
variable within the claims. These cases have consistently held
that in such a situation, the applicant must show that the
particular range is critical, generally by showing that the
claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior
art range.
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations
omitted).
Considering the evidence as a whole, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of all the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fillatti.

REJECTIONS BASED ON KNOWLTON
Claims 1 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated
by Knowlton.
6
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious in view of Knowlton.
Knowlton teaches a soybean oil composition containing 78.4% by
weight oleic acid (C18:1), 6.9% by weight linoleic acid (C18:2), 2.8% by
weight linolenic acid (C18:3), and 10.6% by weight of saturated fatty acids
(combined 6.9% palmitic (C16:0) and 3.7% stearic (C18:0)). Knowlton,
p. 25, Table 9, Example 10, fourth composition. The soybean oil
composition is made from a blend of 10% normal soybean oil and 90% high
oleic soybean oil. Id.
With respect to claims 1 and 23, the composition’s content for each
fatty acid, with the exception of the saturated fatty acid total, fall squarely

6
WO 97/40698, published November 6, 1997, naming Susan Knowlton as
the inventor.
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

11

within the ranges recited in the claims. The Examiner determines that the
total content of saturated fatty acids of 10.6% in Example 10 “reads on the
claimed upper limit of ‘about 10 wt. %,’” because the scope of the term
“about” extends to some degree above precisely 10%. RAN 9. Patent
Owner does not dispute the Examiner’s finding. See generally PO App. Br.
7-11; PO Reb. Br. 5-7. In the alternative, the Examiner determines that
10.6% is sufficiently close to 10% that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have expected them to have the same properties as the soy oil composition
claimed. RAN 12 (citing Titanium Metals, 778 F.2d at 783).
Although the claims are directed to an “unblended” composition, the
Examiner determined that Knowlton’s blended composition is anticipatory
despite the fact it is made from a blending of soybean oils because the
concentrations of the fatty acids are the same as claimed. Id.
Patent Owner argues that the limitation “unblended” in the preamble
of the claims “is a structural limitation” and that blended and unblended oils
are structurally distinct. PO App. Br. 7. Patent Owner relies on the
declaration evidence of Dr. Toni Voekler
7
who testifies that an unblended
soy oil could have a different triacylglyceride (TAG) profile than a blended
soy oil, while the fatty acid compositions are identical. Third Voekler Decl.
¶¶ 6-9 (November 25, 2013). Dr. Veokler provides an example in which the
TAG profiles of two hypothetical soy oils are compared. The first

7
Dr. Toni Voekler testifies to having 28 years of experience in plant
genetics, including working in the development of genetically modified
soybeans, and the development and functional testing of plant fatty acid
compositions for Monsanto since 1997. First Voekler Decl. ¶¶ 7 and 8
(December 19, 2012). Thus, Dr. Voekler is qualified as an expert to testify
as to the field of genetically modified soybeans.
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

12

hypothetical soy oil A is produced by blending an oleic acid only source
(having only an oleic TAG profile) with a stearic acid only source (having
only a stearic TAG profile) to achieve soy oil A with 50% oleic acid and
50% stearic acid composition, in which the TAG profile includes
triglycerides with only all oleic or all stearic components. The second
hypothetical soy oil B is a natural soy oil having a 50% oleic acid and 50%
stearic acid, in which oleic acid and stearic acid are present as TAG sources
in a ratio of 1:1 and there are no other fatty acids available as TAG sources.
The resulting TAG profile includes triglycerides that are not found in Oil A,
despite having identical fatty acid compositions. Third Veokler Decl. at ¶¶
6-9.
Patent Owner has not shown that the claimed oil and the prior art oil
have different properties. The claims and the ’835 patent are silent as to any
TAG profile for an unblended soy oil. The Third Veokler Declaration does
not identify the scope of variety of TAG profiles that distinguish a blended
oil from an unblended oil. Moreover, Fillati teaches that “[t]he oil of the
present invention can be a blended oil, synthesized oil or in a preferred
embodiment an oil generated from an oilseed having an appropriate oil
composition.” Fillati, p. 31, ll. 21-22. In other words, blended oils,
synthesized oils, and oils from seed are substantially identical oils despite
the method of making the oils. See also ’835 patent, col. 11, ll. 56-57
(“[A]ny of the preceding oil compositions described above can be blended
oil compositions.”).
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

13

Additionally, Dr. Voekler did not show that the hypothetical blend
which specifically selected pure TAG oils
8
would be representative of the
blends described in Knowlton, e.g., the particular TAG profile of a blend of
two soybean oils, with one genetically modified to have a high oleic content
in addition to other fatty acids and the other a natural soybean oil having a
blend of fatty acids. See Knowlton, p. 4, ll. 18-20 (“A high oleic soybean
seed is a soybean seed wherein oleic acid accounts for greater than 65
percent of the fatty acid moieties in the oil and, preferably, greater than 75
percent of the fatty acid moieties in the oil.”). Patent Owner has not
demonstrated that the TAG profiles would be patentably and structurally
different in a combination in which both oils have TAG profiles “assembled
in oilseeds at the endoplasmic reticulum by several enzymes.” See Third
Voekler Decl. ¶ 8.
Thus, the term “unblended” is interpreted properly as a process
limitation that does not, on the present record, distinguish a composition
having identical acid components as the claimed composition. “Where a
product-by-process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to
be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon
the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious
difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re
Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

8
Oil B is just one type of unblended oil, and it was compared to a
hypothetical Oil A which was specifically selected to have a homogenous
TAG content with only two types of triglycerides. Indeed, if the oil of Oil B
was subsequently blended with one of the oils in Oil A, the blended oil
would have a more similar TAG profile to the unblended Oil B. The
comparison is thus unavailing.
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

14

With respect to the remaining claims, the Examiner contends that
“[t]he third, fourth, fifth and sixth soy oil compositions in Knowlton’s
Table 9 are so close to those here claimed that prima facie one skilled in the
art would have expected them to have the same properties as the soy oil
compositions here claimed.” RAN 11 (citing Titanium Metals, 778 F.2d at
227). Moreover, the Examiner contends that the skilled artisan would have
adjusted at least the oleic acid content and the saturated fat content for
optimum oxidative stability, taste for frying, and desirable low saturated fat
content for consumer heath interests as was known in the art. RAN 12-13.
In addition to the TAG profile argument found unpersuasive above,
Patent Owner argues that Exhibit D of Knowlton teaches away from an
unblended composition because it specifically teaches a blended oil
composition and does not contemplate alternative methods of forming oils.
We disagree.
“Under the proper legal standard, a reference will teach away when it
suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to
produce the objective of applicant’s invention. A statement that a particular
combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear
discouragement of that combination.” Syntex (USA) LLC v. Apotex, Inc.,
407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citation deleted). In this case,
the objective of the invention, namely “improved stability in terms of taste
and smell and low levels of trans-fatty acids” (’835, col. 3, ll. 15-16), is
achieved in the substantially identical blended oil of the prior art. Thus,
there is no teaching away. Knowlton has no clear discouragement from
forming an identical soy oil composition from seed or by processing.
Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

15

Patent Owner further argues that the compositions in Knowlton are
not close enough for the skilled artisan to expect them to have the same
properties. PO App. Br. 13-14. Patent Owner provides no persuasive
evidence or reasoning in support of this position. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that the differences demonstrated by the Examiner (see RAN 10-
12) are so different or outside of a critical range that alternative properties
would have been expected.
Considering the evidence as a whole, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by
Knowlton and the rejection of all of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knowlton.

REMAINING REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
In affirming the rejection of all the claims on appeal on other grounds,
we decline to address the merits of additional grounds of rejection
maintained by the Examiner and appealed by the Patent Owner. Further, we
decline to address the merits of additional proposed, but non-adopted,
grounds of rejection appealed by the Requester. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that obviousness rejections need not be
reached upon affirming a rejection of all claims as anticipated); cf. Beloit
Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (having decided a
single dispositive issue, the ITC was not required to review other matters
decided by the presiding officer).

Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

16

SUMMARY
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the following Examiner’s
rejections:
1. Claims 1, 11 and 17-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fillatti;
2. Claims 1 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Knowlton;
3. Claims 1, 11 and 17-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knowlton.
Since we affirm rejections of each claim on appeal, we decline to
address the merits of additional grounds of rejection maintained by the
Examiner and appealed by the Patent Owner. Further, we decline to address
the merits of additional proposed, but non-adopted, grounds of rejection
appealed by the Requester.
In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and
appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must
timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2015-000204
Reexamination Control 95/002,309
Patent 8,057,835 B2

17

PATENT OWNER:
Dentons US, LLP
P.O. Box 061080
Chicago, IL 60606-1080

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

Dickstein Shapiro, LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5403