Ex Parte HaleyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201714588766 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/588,766 01/02/2015 Jeffrey T. Haley 15001.201C1 8108 39124 7590 03/30/2017 CAROL NOTTENBURG 264 SENECA PLACE NW RENTON, WA 98057 EXAMINER BECKHARDT, LYNDSEY MARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2017 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): c arol. nottenburg @ cougarlaw. com chris.pratt@cougarlaw.com cnot@comcast.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY T. HALEY1 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 Technology Center 1600 Before ERIC B. GRIMES, TAWEN CHANG, and TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges. CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a dimpled, adhering troche, which have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE “The present disclosure relates to a mucoadhering patch capable of being . . . adhered to a moist surface of a mucous membrane or teeth in 1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as OraHealth Corp. (Appeal Br. 4.) 1 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 humans or other animals. More particularly, it relates to a patch that has a dimple on the adhering side.” (Spec. 12.) Claims 1—8 and 10 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A dimpled, adhering troche, comprising: a. a convex surface; b. a concave surface that is capable of adhering to a surface in a mouth and that is opposite the convex surface; wherein the troche comprises pressed powders; wherein the pressed powder on the side having the concave surface comprises an adhesive that adheres in a mouth; and wherein the troche is at least 5 mm in each of at least two dimensions. (Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App’x).) The Examiner rejects claims 1—4, 6, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeFoney.2 (Ans. 3.) The Examiner rejects claims 1—4, 6—8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeFoney and Lemer.3 (Ans. 5.) The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeFoney, Lemer, and Turner.4 (Ans. 6.) I. Issue The Examiner has rejected claims 1—4, 6, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over DeFoney. The Examiner finds that DeFoney teaches 2 DeFoney et al., U.S. Patent No. 3,911,099, issued Oct. 7, 1975. 3 Lemer et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,197,331 Bl, issued Mar. 6, 2001. 4 Turner et al., U.S Patent No. 4,406,882, issued Sept. 27, 1983. 2 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 tablets formed by compressing powders .... The tablets are taught to have a concave and convex surface, wherein the tablets are round and have a diameter of 0.5—0.8 inches (12.7 mm to 20.32 mm). An adhesive is taught as used to adhere the tablet in the desired position, with the adhesive fixed to the face of the tablet wherein the concave surface is taught as placed against the inner contour of the mouth, thus teaching application of the adhesive to the concave surface of the tablet. [DeFoney] teaches the coating on the tablet includes carboxy[]methyl[]cellulose, wherein carboxy methyl cellulose is taught to be adhesive, thus meeting the limitation of the pressed powder comprising an adhesive. (Ans. 3 (citations omitted).) The Examiner concludes that [i]t would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an adhesive on the oral tablet as [DeFoney] teaches the coating includes carboxy[Jmethyl cellulose and [DeFoney] teaches adhesives used in combination with the tablet include sodium carboxy methyl cellulose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a combination of carboxy methyl cellulose and gelatin as [DeFoney] teaches it was known to use a combination of gelatin and carboxy[]methyl cellulose on the oral tablet. (Id. at 4—5.) Appellant contends that DeFoney does not suggest a troche “wherein the pressed powder on the side having the concave surface comprises an adhesive.” (Appeal Br. 9—12.) Appellant further contends that the Examiner did not articulate a “rational underpinning” for the rejection, showing why a skilled artisan would modify DeFoney to arrive at the claimed invention. (Id. at 12-15.) Appellant does not separately argue claim 2-4, 6, 8, and 10. (Id. at 12.) The issue with respect to this rejection is whether the evidence of 3 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious over DeFoney. Findings of Fact 1. DeFoney teaches “compositions and articles for providing odor- masking substances or medicaments ... in a sustained release vehicle, and in a physical configuration or with a suitable adhesive which will allow the article ... to remain in a relative fixed position adjacent to or adhered to the oral mucosa.” (DeFoney 1:50—57; see also id. at Abstract, 2:1—14.) 2. DeFoney teaches that, in a preferred embodiment of the invention, suitable micro-capsules containing odor-masking compositions are wholly or partially covered with an intraoral adhesive, which will adhere the capsules to the oral mucosa. . . . When the micro-capsule form of the invention is utilized, the invention can be dispensed as a tablet or powder ... in a manner which is well known in the art. . . . In another embodiment of the invention, the odor-masking composition or medicament, in liquid or in powder form, is incorporated into a sustained release tablet. . . . The purpose of the sustained release tablet is to present a substantial quantity of the odor- masking composition or medicament, in powdered form, in the tablet, covered by or located within a sustained release binder or coating, which will allow the gradual release into the oral cavity of the odor- masking or other compositions at the desired rate and over a prolonged period of time, under the action of the saliva in the mouth. Suitable polymeric materials which are usable as sustained release coatings are carboxy methyl[]cellulose, vinyl acetate resins and polyvinyl pyrillidone [sic] and salts thereof. {Id. at 4:49-53, 63-66, 5:14—25.) 4 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 3. DeFoney’s Figs. 1 and 2 are excerpted below: F/g. 1 __f ig. 2 (Id. at Figs. 1, 2.) Fig. 1 is “a top plan view of a preferred form of tablet in accordance with [DeFoney’s] invention.” (Id. at 2:65—66.) Fig. 2 is “a cross sectional view of the tablet of Fig. 1, taken along line 2—2.” (Id. at 2:67—68.) 4. DeFoney teaches that, [i]n one form of the invention, the tablet, in sustained release form, is manufactured in the configuration illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, which is an optimum configuration for allowing the tablet to reside, without the necessary use of an adhesive, in the comers of the mouth against the oral mucosa. Viewing FIG. 2, the tablet is seen as having a curved inner surface 12 and a curved outer surface 14 which are designed to fit comfortably along the contour of the mouth at the oral mucosa. . . . The curvature of the tablet at the bases 12 and 14 is [preferably] a gradual curvature, in order to provide for optimum configuration to match the inner contour of the mouth. However, this can be varied somewhat while retaining a comfortable fit of the tablet within the mouth. (Id. at 5:26-34, 50-55.) 5. DeFoney teaches that, [i]n the preferred embodiment of the invention shown in FIG. 1, the tablet will have a longitudinal dimension, from the end 16 toward the end 18 of approximately 0.75 and up to about 1.25 inches, a vertical dimension of from about 0.4 to about 0.7 inches, and a thickness of about 0.3 and up to about 0.5 inches, so that it can comfortably fit in the mouth without being unduly bulky. It is to be noted that a minimum thickness of about 0.25 inches is desirable in order to allow the tablet more readily to be held in place by the weight of the cheek. . . . The height of the tablet, from the bottom surface 20 to the top surface 22 is most desirably approximately 0.5 inches, in order to 5 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 provide an optimum size in tablet for dispensing without being unduly uncomfortable. {Id. at 5:34—50.) 6. DeFoney teaches that the tablet can be tableted in a more conventional form . . . without the requisite shape . . . illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2. In that event, in order to permit the tablet to remain affixed in the oral cavity for a substantially long period of time, it is desirable to use pharmaceutically acceptable oral adhesive, to adhere the tablet in the desired position. . . . This adhesive would be fixed, in a small patch, or in spots, to the largest face of the tablet.... {Id. at 6:14—23, 32—34.) 7. DeFoney teaches an example in which tablets of its invention were produced by mixing magnesium stearate, talc, peppermint oil, spearmint oil, silicon dioxide, dicalcium phosphate, and ethylcellulose; granulating and screening the mixture; drying and re-screening the resulting particles; compressing the mixture in tableting dies; and coating the resulting tablets with a water-soluble gum. {Id. at 7:50-8:24.) DeFoney teaches that “[t]he base material for the tablet, ethylcellulose, is only one of several such saliva soluble materials which may be used in the tablet. . ., which includes carboxy[]methyl[]cellulose, hydroxypropylcellulose, and methylcellulose and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof.” {Id. at 9:44-49.) 8. Claim 1 of DeFoney claims “[a] product for the differential flavor release of odor-masking flavoring materials in the oral cavity of humans comprising a multiplicity of saliva solubilized micro-capsules,” where “a pharmaceutically acceptable oral adhesive vehicle cover[s] at least a portion of the surface of each of said microcapsules to provide said 6 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 microcapsules with prolonged oral cavity residence time.” {Id. at claim 1.) DeFoney further claims a tablet of “flavored oral adhesive vehicle” for releasing microcapsules as defined in claim 1, where the tablet comprises among other things “[a]n elongated oral adhesive vehicle body,” where “[s]aid body ha[s] at least one face having a concave curvature and adapted to fit comfortably along the upper surface of the gums at the side of the mouth,” and an “inner core” of said microcapsules. {Id. at claim 5.) 9. The Specification states: The patch [of the invention] comprises an adhesive. The adherent side of the patch comprises one or more natural or synthetic polymers that have adhesiveness to the wet mucous surface or a combination of said polymers and, in some embodiments, an active ingredient, such as a medicament. Adhesive molecules include acacia gum, gelatin, alginate, starch, pectin, polyvinylpyrolidone [sic], carboxy[]methyl[]cellulose, hydroxymethylcellulose, polyvinyl acid, polyacrylic acid, and carbopol. Concentrations of these adhesive molecules are well-known. (Spec. 115.) 10. The Specification states: For an oral patch made by a tablet pressing process, the typical size is about 100 to 150 milligrams for total tablet weight. An exemplary patch formulation is made by combining the active ingredient with collagen and with binder ingredients. Collagen, which is the organic molecule that makes up skin and the lining of the mouth (a form of skin), tends to adhere very well to itself, making it glutinous, and therefore adheres very well to the lining of the mouth. ... As the collagen molecules slough off the patch while it slowly dissolves (erodes), they tend to adhere to the nearby mouth lining, forming a film. This film significantly reduces the sensitivity of the ulcer, both to touch and to chemical irritants. {Id. at 116.) 7 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 Analysis DeFoney discloses a tablet having a convex surface and a concave surface capable of adhering to a surface of the mouth that is opposite of the convex surface. (FF1—FF4, FF8.) DeFoney teaches tablets comprising micro-capsules that are wholly or partially covered with an intraoral adhesive (FF2, FF8), a base material or coating comprising carboxy methyl cellulose (FF2, FF7), and/or an adhesive fixed to a face of the tablet to adhere the tablet to the desired position in the oral cavity (FF6). DeFoney teaches that tablets of its invention may be formed by compressing a mixture of particles in a tableting die (FF7), and further teaches a preferred embodiment where the tablet is at least 5mm in at least two dimensions (FF5). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that DeFoney renders claim 1 obvious. Appellant contends that DeFoney does not suggest a troche “wherein the pressed powder on the side having the concave surface comprises an adhesive.” (Appeal Br. 9-12.) Appellant first argues that DeFoney teaches using an adhesive with the tablets of its invention only when the tablet’s surface is other than concave. (Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3.) We are not persuaded. DeFoney teaches that a tablet with the configuration illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2 (i.e., with opposing convex and concave surfaces) “allow[s] the tablet to reside, without the necessary use of an adhesive, in the comers of the mouth against the oral mucosa.” (FF4 (emphasis added).) This disclosure suggests that adhesive may be used when the tablet has a concave surface, even though such adhesive may not be necessary. Indeed, DeFoney claims a tablet comprising “an oral adhesive vehicle body” where “[s]aid body hav[e] at least one face having a concave curvature.” (FF8.) 8 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred in finding that DeFoney teaches a tablet comprising a concave surface and an adhesive because DeFoney discloses tablets comprising a coating of carboxy methyl cellulose. (Appeal Br. 9—10.) Appellant argues that DeFoney does not teach or suggest carboxy methyl cellulose as an adhesive but instead teaches its use in a sustained release coating. (Id.) We are not persuaded. The Specification discloses carboxy methyl cellulose as an adhesive molecule. (FF9.) “Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical . . . the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citation omitted). Appellant has not shown that the carboxy methyl cellulose in DeFoney does not also act as an adhesive. Appellant further argues that, even assuming DeFoney suggests adding an adhesive to a concave side of its tablet, the limitations in claim 1 that “the troche comprises pressed powders” wherein “the pressed powder on the side having the concave surface comprises an adhesive that adheres in a mouth” require that “the adhesive [be] contained within the troche and . . . not ‘fixed to the face of the tablet’ as disclosed in [DeFoney].” (Appeal Br. 10-12.) We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, “during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, while the Specification suggests that “pressed powder . . . comprising] an adhesive” encompasses combining the active ingredient with the adhesive prior to manufacturing the tablet (FF10), we find that the 9 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase in light of the Specification does not exclude the adhesive being affixed to the pressed powder as, e.g., a coating. In any event, DeFoney suggests embodiments where the adhesive is contained within a tablet rather than fixed to the surface of the tablet, because it teaches a tablet made of micro-capsules wholly or partially covered with an intraoral adhesive. (FF2, FF8 (claiming a tablet comprising “inner core” of such microcapsules).) Likewise, DeFoney suggests using carboxy methyl cellulose—described in the Specification as an adhesive molecule (FF9)—as a base material for the tablet. (FF7.) Finally, Appellant contends that the Examiner did not articulate a “rational underpinning” for the rejection, such as why a skilled artisan would modify DeFoney to arrive at the claimed invention. {Id. at 12—15.) We are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above. (See also Ans. 3—4, 8—12.) Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over DeFoney. Claims 2—4, 6, 8, and 10, which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. See App. Br. 12; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Issue II. The Examiner has rejected claims 1—4, 6—8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over DeFoney and Lemer. The Examiner finds that, to the extent the claims require the adhesive to be “part of the pressed powders on the side [of the tablet] having the concave surface,” Lemer teaches controlled release solid composition for the oral cavity or pharmaceutical oral patch that adheres to hard dental surfaces such as teeth and dentures and release an active pharmaceutical agent into the oral cavity and has sustained release of the composition. The patch of 10 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 [Lemer] has a concave and convex surface. The drug containing composition may be self-adherent wherein the adhesive polymer forms the matrix of the composition. The adhesives are taught to be cellulose polymers and gelatin. (Ans. 5 (citations omitted).) The Examiner concludes that [i]t would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the adhesive materials taught by [Lemer] to form the tablet taught by [DeFoney] because [Lemer] teaches oral patches formed from adhesive polymers. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success as [DeFoney] teaches th[at] an oral tablet that remains in contact with the oral mucosa is taught to contain a large amount of cellulose polymer wherein cellulose and gelatin polymers may be used in the composition and [Lemer] teaches oral patches formed of polymers including cellulose polymers and gelatin. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have motivation to use the adhesive polymers of [Lemer] to form the oral tablet of [DeFoney] because [DeFoney teaches that] the oral tablet is desired to be adjacent to oral mucosa for long period of times (abstract) and teaches the use of adhesive polymers with the oral tablet and [Lemer teaches] patches to be adhered in the oral cavity. (Ans. 5—6 (citations omitted).) Appellant contends that the combination of DeFoney and Lemer does not teach or suggest “a troche having a pressed powder on the concave side comprising an adhesive.” (Appeal Br. 16—17.) Appellant further contends that the Examiner has not shown a reason to combine DeFoney and Lemer. (Id. at 18-20.) Appellant does not separately argue claims 2—4, 6—8, and 10. (Id. at 21.) The issue with respect to this rejection is whether the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 is obvious over DeFoney and Lemer. 11 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 Findings of Fact 11. Lemer is “directed to a sustained or controlled release solid composition for the oral cavity or ‘pharmaceutical oral patch’ that adheres to hard dental surfaces, such as teeth and dentures, and releases a pharmaceutical agent.” (Lemer 1:9—12; see also id. at 6:47—53 (describing the need for oral controlled-release pharmaceutical delivery device that is easily removable but that hold to the attachment site for an extended period of time); 7:25—28.) 12. Lemer’s Fig. 1 is excerpted below: <> SiOC ROFiU: OF THE DENTAL PATCH ..X'd.-fz b. VIEW PROM ABOVE 35.00 A CAVITY POP THE GLUE S - 80QY or THE DENTAL PATCH Figure 1 (Id. at Fig. 1.) Lemer’s Fig. 1 depicts the “side profile” and “view from above” of the dental patch of its invention. (Id.) 13. Lemer teaches that “[an] important consideration for [the] shape and size [of its patch] is that the patch does not confer unusual sensation to the patient when applied.” (Id. at 12:36—38; see also id. at 12 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 6:43—45 (“Patient comfort is provided in that the device is comfortable and does not impart a ‘foreign’ feeling to the oral cavity.”).) 14. Lemer teaches that the patch of its invention “can comprise a single adherent release layer or a non-adherent layer adhered in the oral cavity by a separate adherent layer.” (Id. at 1:17—20; see also id. at 7:50-55 (drug-containing composition can be self-adhesive), 7:60-67, 8:50-52 (stating that “[wjhere the release layer is self-adherent, the minimal essential components include at least one polymer, at least one pharmaceutical, and at least one plasticizer”), 10:1—3 (stating that “several general embodiments are covered by the invention, including embodiments in which the entire patch is self-adherent”), 10:32—33 (stating that “[t]he patch can be a self-adhesive drug-containing composition”), 10:39-45 (describing the invention as being “directed to a liquid composition comprising at least one pharmaceutical and at least one polymeric component that is capable of drying to form a composition that will effectively release the pharmaceutical in the oral cavity, which itself is adhesive when dried or which can be adhered to an adhesive composition which, in turn, can adhere to the hard structures in the oral cavity”), 11:41—44 (describing alternative embodiments where “a polymer that is not self-adherent. . . can be mixed with an adhesive component so that the patch does not need to be adhered separately”), claim 11 (single layered composition that is a substantially degradable adhesive and from which pharmaceutically active agent is released into oral cavity).) 15. Lemer teaches that in preferred embodiments of the patch “the dmg is embedded in a polymeric matrix” and that suitable polymers may include, e.g., cellulose derivatives and gelatin. (Id. at 10:50-53, 11:15—22.) 13 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 Analysis As discussed above, we find claim 1 to be obvious over DeFoney. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is also obvious over the combination of DeFoney and Lemer. Furthermore, Lemer teaches an oral patch that is a “self-adhesive drug-containing composition.” (FF14.) We therefore find that Lemer suggests the limitation of a troche comprising “pressed powder . . . comprising an adhesive that adheres in a mouth,” even under Appellant’s constmction of the phrase requiring the adhesive to be “within” the troche rather than fixed to its surface. We further agree that a skilled artisan would have reason to combine DeFoney and Lemer to arrive at the claimed invention. Both DeFoney and Lemer teach sustained release vehicles intended to be retained in the oral cavity through, e.g., the use of adhesives. (FF1, FF2, FF6, FF8, FF11, FF14.) DeFoney teaches a tablet having the claimed shape and dimensions and further teaches that tablets of its invention may be manufactured through compression in tableting dies. (FF3—FF5, FF7.) Assuming that claim 1 requires the adhesive to be incorporated within the troche rather than fixed to the surface, and assuming that DeFoney does not suggest this limitation, it would still have been obvious for a skilled artisan to make the tablet of DeFoney self-adhesive by incorporating the adhesive within the troche as suggested by Lemer. “Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious.” In re Font, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982). In addition to reiterating the arguments discussed above with respect to DeFoney, Appellant further cites to Fig. lb in Lemer and argues that “[t]he device in [Lemer] is molded from aqueous ingredients and dried” and 14 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 that, “[i]f an adhesive is included, it is applied to the surface of the device, much like in [DeFoney].” (Id. at 16—17 (citations omitted).) Appellant also argues that, like DeFoney, Lemer does not “disclose a device with an adhesive on a concave surface.” (Id. at 17.) We are not persuaded. Appellant’s arguments with respect to DeFoney have been addressed above. With respect to Lemer, Appellant points to an embodiment in Lemer in which adhesive is added to a cavity in the patch but does not address alternative self-adhesive embodiments also taught by Lemer. However, “[i]t is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Likewise, assuming for argument’s sake that neither DeFoney nor Lemer individually suggests a device with an adhesive on a concave surface,5 we find that the combination of Lemer and DeFoney would suggest such a device given that Lemer teaches a self-adhesive oral patch and DeFoney teaches a tablet with a concave surface. Finally, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the cited references for reasons already discussed. Appellant specifically argues that the Examiner has not shown a reason for a skilled artisan to look to Lemer for an adhesive for the tablet in DeFoney, assuming the Examiner is correct that DeFoney already discloses tablet with “a concave surface [that is] already adhesive.” (Appeal Br. 20.) As discussed above, however, substitution of one equivalent (e.g., the adhesive 5 But see FF8 (DeFoney claiming flavored oral adhesive vehicle body having a concave surface) and FF12 (Fig. la of Lemer showing side profile of dental patch including a concave surface). 15 Appeal 2017-003523 Application 14/588,766 method disclosed in DeFoney) for another (e.g., the self-adhesive device disclosed in Lemer) would have been obvious. In re Font, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over DeFoney and Lemer. Claims 2-4, 6—8, and 10, which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. See App. Br. 21; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). III. The Examiner has rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over DeFoney, Lemer, and Turner. Appellant does not make any arguments specific to claim 5 and argues only that Turner does not cure the deficiencies of DeFoney and Lemer. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 over DeFoney, Lemer, and Turner for the reasons discussed above. SUMMARY For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—8 and 10. 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 16 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation