Ex Parte LU et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2019

14299945 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/299,945 06/09/2014
66024 7590 02/04/2019
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY
200 SOUTH WILCOX DRIVE
KINGSPORT, TN 37660-5147
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JUNLU
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
85683US02 6602
EXAMINER
GUGLIOTTA, NICOLET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
jlmcglothlin@eastman.com
rlwhite@eastman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN LU and WENJIE CHEN
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299 ,945
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14--17, and 19--23, which are all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM.
1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 9, 2014 ("Spec.");
Non-Final Office Action dated October 4, 2016 ("Non-Final Act."); Appeal
Brief filed February 13, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer dated
June 27, 2017 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed August 23, 2017 ("Reply
Brief').
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Solutia Inc., which is also the real party in
interest and, according to the Appeal Brief, a subsidiary of Eastman
Chemical Company. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
The Claimed Invention
Appellant's disclosure relates to polymer interlayers for multiple layer
panels and multiple layer panels having at least one polymer interlayer sheet,
and the polymer interlayers comprising a thermoplastic resin and at least one
high refractive index plasticizer. Spec. ,r 2; Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (Appeal
Br. 28) (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded):
1. A multiple layer polymer interlayer comprising:
poly(vinyl butyral) resin; and
at least one high refractive index plasticizer having a
refractive index of at least about 1.460;
wherein the multiple layer polymer interlayer has at least
one soft layer and at least one stiff layer, wherein the soft layer
comprises a poly(vinyl butyral) resin having a residual
hydroxyl content from 8 to 21 wt.%, and wherein the stiff layer
comprises a poly(vinyl butyral) resin having a residual
hydroxyl content from 16 to 3 5 wt.%, and wherein the residual
hydroxyl content between the adjacent soft and stiff layers
differs by at least 2 wt.%, and wherein the difference between
the refractive index of the soft layer and the stiff layer (Delta
RI) is less than about 0.010.
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Chen et al.
(hereinafter "Chen")
Bourcier et al.
(hereinafter "Bourcier")
Meise et al.
(hereinafter "Meise")
US 2008/0268270 Al Oct. 30, 2008
US 7,883,761 B2 Feb. 8, 2011
US 2013/0022824 Al Jan. 24, 2013
2
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections (Ans. 2):
1. Claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11, 12, 14--16, 21, and 22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meise in view of Chen
("Rejection 1 "). Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 2. 3, 4
2. Claims 17, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Meise in view of Bourcier ("Rejection 2").
Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 2.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Meise and Chen, as applied to claim 1, and further in view
of Bourcier ("Rejection 3"). Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 2, 11.
4. Claims 1, 2, 4--6, 10, 17, and 19--23 are provisionally rejected
on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8-14, and 16-24 of copending Application No. 14/299,975
("Rejection 4"). Non-Final Act. 10.
3 The Examiner's rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Meise in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, is
withdrawn at page 2 of the Answer.
4 The Examiner's Statement of Grounds for Rejection 1 has been corrected
to include claim 22, which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from
the statements of rejection provided in both the Answer (Ans. 2) and Non-
Final Office Action (Non-Final Act. 3). At pages 4--5 of the Non-Final
Action, however, the Examiner does analyze and reject claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meise in view of Chen. See also
id. at 5 (rejecting "claims 1, 11 & 21-33").
3
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner's
rejections based on the fact-finding and reasoning set forth in the Answer
and Non-Final Office Action, which we adopt as our own. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments below.
Reiection 1
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 11 as a group and does not
present any additional substantive argument for the separate patentability of
claims 2, 4--9, 12-16, 21, and 22. Appeal Br. 12, 20. We select claim 1 as
representative and claims 2, 4--9, 11-16, 21, and 22 stand or fall with claim
1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Meise and Chen
suggests a multilayer polymer intermediate (interlayer) satisfying all of the
limitations of claim 1 and, thus, concludes the combination would have
rendered claim 1 obvious. Non-Final Act. 3-5 (citing Meise ,r,r 21, 41, 44,
47, 50, 74; Chen, Abstract, ,r,r 7, 10, 19, 21, 22).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection should be reversed
based primarily on alleged deficiencies in Meise's disclosure. Appeal Br.
12-20; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellant argues that (1) Meise does
not disclose a multiple layer interlayer having a soft layer and a stiff layer,
such that the soft layer has a lower glass transition temperature and/or a
significantly higher plasticizer level, and where the difference in residual
hydroxyl level between the layers is at least 2 wt. % (Appeal Br. 14); (2)
Meise does not have a Delta RI to eliminate or minimize and does not
disclose or recognize a need for reducing or minimizing a Delta RI (id. at 14,
4
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
16); (3) there is no motivation in Meise to select high refractive index
plasticizers from the list of plasticizers disclosed (id. at 15); and ( 4) one
skilled in the art would not have considered the addition of a filler, such as
Si02, to a polymer, such as polyvinyl butyral to change the refractive index
of a layer (id. at 15).
Appellant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have had motivation to combine the teachings of Meise and Chen because
( 1) both references are already directed to improving impact strength, and
neither Meise nor Chen is directed to minimizing or eliminating optical
defects by selecting a different plasticizer (Appeal Br. 12-13); (2) Chen
teaches away from the disclosure of Meise (id. at 17); and (3) the proposed
modification of Meise with Chen would likely render Meise inoperable (id.
at 17). Appellant also argues that the "Examiner is impermissibly using
hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose elements from unrelated
references to reconstruct [Appellant's] claimed invention." Id. at 18.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection. On the record before us, we find that a
preponderance of the evidence and sound technical reasoning support the
Examiner's analysis and determination (Non-Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3-10) that
the combination of Meise and Chen suggests all of the limitations of claim 1,
and conclusion that the combination would have rendered the claim obvious.
Meise, Abstract, ,r,r 21, 27, 41, 42, 44, 47, 50, 74; Chen, Abstract, ,r,r 7, 10,
19, 21, 22.
Appellant's first argument, that Meise does not disclose a multiple
layer interlayer having a soft layer and a stiff layer with the soft layer having
a lower glass transition temperature and/or a significantly higher plasticizer
5
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
level and where the difference in residual hydroxyl level between the layers
is at least 2 wt.% (Appeal Br. 14), is not persuasive of reversible error
because Appellant attacks the references individually rather than the
combined teachings of the prior art as a whole. One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981). Appellant's argument is premised on what Appellant contends Meise
teaches individually, and not the combined teachings of Meise and Chen as a
whole and what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
As the Examiner finds (Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 7), Meise teaches a
multilayer polymer interlayer comprising layers A, B, and C with each layer
comprising poly(vinyl butyral) (PBV) resin and one or more high refractive
index plasticizers. Meise ,r,r 21, 27, 41, 42, 44, 47, 74. As the Examiner
further finds (Non-Final Act. 4), Meise teaches that at least one of the three
layers can be made rigid (stiff) by adding Si02 in the amount of 0.001-20
wt.% and the concentration of Si02 may be adjusted to obtain desired soft
or stiff layers. Meise ,r,r 50, 74.
As the Examiner also finds (Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 7), Chen teaches a
polymer interlayer structure comprising multiple PVB layer interlayers with
the middle (stiff) layers of the PVB interlayer having a residual hydroxyl
content that is less than 30% and outer (soft) layers of the PVB interlayer
having a residual hydroxyl content that is less than 28%. Chen, Abstract,
,r 22. As the Examiner finds (Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 7), Chen explicitly
teaches that the inner (stiff) layer can be at least 0.5% to at least 10% greater
than the residual hydroxyl content of the outer (soft) layers (id. ,r 21 ), which
6
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
overlaps the recited residual hydroxyl content range of "at least 2 wt. %" of
claim 1.
Appellant's argument that Meise does not have a Delta RI to eliminate
or minimize, and does not disclose or recognize a need for reducing or
minimizing a Delta RI (Appeal Br. 14, 16), is not persuasive based on the
fact-finding and reasoning provided by the Examiner at pages 3-5 of the
Non-Final Office Action and pages 4--8 of the Answer. In particular, as the
Examiner observes, Appellant's argument in this regard is based on certain
examples disclosed in Meise. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 17 ( arguing that "Meise
states in the Examples that the starting plasticizer amounts in all layers was
identical" and "there is preferably little difference in plasticizer content
between the layers"). As the Examiner, however, correctly points out (Ans.
4, 7), Meise' s teachings are not limited to the working examples. In re
Mills, 470 F.2d 649,651 (CCPA 1972) ("[A] reference is not limited to the
disclosure of specific working examples."); cf In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442,
445--46 ( CCP A 1971) ( disclosure of particularly preferred embodiments
does not teach away from broader disclosure).
Rather, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 7-8), because Meise broadly
teaches that the layers may have different amounts of plasticizer with
different refractive indices (Meise ,r,r 41, 42, 44, 4 7), each layer may include
a plurality of plasticizers (id. ,r,r 41, 42, 4 7), the layers can be made rigid
(stiff) by adding Si02 in the amount of 0.001-20 wt.%, and the
concentration of Si02 may be adjusted to obtain desired soft or stiff layers
(id. ,r,r 50, 74), it follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood and had a reasonable expectation that the different compositions
7
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
encompassed by Meise' s teachings would have different refractive indices
and, thus, result in a "Delta RI" between the layers.
Appellant's argument that there is no motivation in Meise to select
high refractive index plasticizers from the list of plasticizers disclosed
(Appeal Br. 15) is not well-taken because the fact that a reference suggests a
multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular
formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F.2d
804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). As the Examiner finds (Non-Final Act. 3--4; Ans.
8) and Appellant does not dispute, paragraphs 44 and 47 of Meise disclose
several high refractive index plasticizers "having a refractive index of at
least about 1.460," as recited in the claim. The fact that Meise discloses
these high refractive index plasticizers in a list with other plasticizers,
without more, does not weigh in favor of non-obviousness or otherwise
establish reversible error in the Examiner's findings and analysis in this
regard. Merck, 874 F.2d at 807.
Appellant's contention that one skilled in the art would not have
considered the addition of a filler, such as Si 0 2, to a polymer, such as
polyvinyl butyral to change the refractive index of a layer (Appeal Br. 15) is
not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection because it is
conclusory and based on attorney argument. Attorney argument is not
evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As the
Examiner finds (Ans. 7-9), and as previously discussed above, Meise
teaches adding Si02 to the layers to obtain desired soft or stiff layers, the
layers having different amounts of plasticizer with different refractive
indices, and that each layer may include a plurality of plasticizers. Meise ,r,r
41, 42, 44, 47.
8
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
Appellant's argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined the teachings of Meise and Chen is equally unpersuasive.
Contrary to what Appellant argues, we find that the Examiner does provide a
reasonable basis and identifies a preponderance of the evidence in the record
to evince why one of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings
Meise and Chen to arrive at Appellant's claimed invention. Ans. 3; Non-
Final Act. 5 ( explaining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
reason to combine Chen's teachings regarding varying the residual hydroxyl
content of the PVB and the plasticizer concentrations between the layers
with Meise' s polymer interlayer structure with layers containing high
refractive index plasticizers to provide a high level of impact protection for
safety glass and bulletproof glass applications); Chen, Abstract, ,r,r 7, 10, 19,
21, 22. See also KSR!nt'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,420 (2007)
( explaining that any need or problem known in the art can provide a reason
for combining the elements in the manner claimed).
Appellant fails to direct us to sufficient evidence or provide an
adequate technical explanation to establish why the Examiner's articulated
reasoning for combining the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention lacks a rational underpinning or is otherwise based on some other
reversible error.
We do not find Appellant's contentions that Chen teaches away from
the disclosure of Meise (Appeal Br. 17) and that the proposed modification
of Meise with Chen would likely render Meise inoperable (id. at 17)
persuasive of reversible error because they are conclusory and Appellant
does not direct us to sufficient evidence in the record or provide an adequate
technical explanation to support them. De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 699; see also
9
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (finding that there is no teaching away
where the prior art's disclosure "does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the solution claimed"). We will not read into the references a
teaching away where no such language exists. Cf DyStar Textilfarben
GmbH v. CH Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appellant's contentions that both references are already directed to
improving impact strength and that neither Meise nor Chen is directed to
minimizing or eliminating optical defects by selecting a different plasticizer
(Appeal Br. 12-13) are not persuasive of reversible error because the
references and Examiner's reasoning for combining the references do not
have to address the same problem that Appellant's claimed invention
addresses. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420; see also Ans. 6. Moreover, the fact that
Appellant may have "recognized another advantage which would flow
naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis
for patentability when the difference would otherwise [have been] obvious."
Exparte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985).
Appellant's assertion that the "Examiner is impermissibly using
hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose elements from unrelated
references to reconstruct [Appellant's] claimed invention" (Appeal Br. 18) is
not persuasive of reversible error because it is conclusory. De Blauwe, 736
F.2d at 705; see also In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)
(acknowledging that "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense
necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning" but such
reconstruction is proper "so long as it takes into account only knowledge
which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention
10
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's
disclosure").
Here, as previously discussed above, we determine that the Examiner
provides a reasonable basis and identifies sufficient evidence in the record to
evince why one of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of the
cited references to arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9,
12-16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of
Meise and Chen.
Reiection 2
In response to the Examiner's rejection, Appellant presents
substantive arguments for the patentability of independent claim 1 7, but does
not present any additional substantive argument for the separate patentability
of dependent claims 19, 20, and 23. Appeal Br. 22, 26. We select claim 17
as representative and claims 19, 20, and 23 stand or fall with claim 17. 3 7
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 17 recites:
1 7. A multiple layer polymer interlayer comprising:
poly(vinyl butyral) resin; and
at least one high refractive index plasticizer having a
refractive index of at least about 1.460;
wherein the multiple layer polymer interlayer has at least
one soft layer and at least two stiff layers wherein the soft layer
is disposed between the stiff layers, wherein the soft layer
comprises a poly(vinyl butyral) resin having a residual
hydroxyl content from 8 to 21 wt.%, and wherein the stiff layer
comprises a poly(vinyl butyral) resin having a residual
hydroxyl content from 16 to 3 5 wt.%, and wherein the residual
hydroxyl content between the adjacent soft and stiff layers
11
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
differs by at least 2 wt.%, and wherein the difference between
the refractive index of the soft layer and the stiff layers is less
than about 0.010.
Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App'x).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Meise and Bourcier
suggests a multilayer polymer interlayer structure satisfying all of the
limitations of claim 17 and thus, concludes the combination would have
rendered the claim obvious. Non-Final Act. 6-8 (citing Meise ,r,r 21, 27, 41,
42, 44, 47, 50, 74; Bourcier, col. 1, 1. 66, col. 2, 11. 3, 25-33, col. 5, 11. 12-16,
col. 6, 11. 3-7, 29-31, 41--43, 53-65, col. 16, 11. 18-23 (Example 1)).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 should be
reversed because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined
the Meise and Bourcier references to arrive at the claimed invention. Appeal
Br. 22-26. In particular, Appellant contends that because Meise is directed
to improving impact strength and Bourcier is directed to acoustic interlayers,
one skill in the art would not have combined the two references in the
manner claimed. Id. at 22-23. Appellant also contends Bourcier teaches
away from Meise (id. at 23) and that the Examiner's rejection is based on
impermissible hindsight (id. at 24).
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and reasoning set forth
by the Examiner at pages 6-8 of the Non-Final Office Action and pages 3-
12 of the Answer.
Contrary to what Appellant argues, on the record before us, we find
that the Examiner does provide a reasonable basis and identifies a
preponderance of the evidence in the record to evince why one of ordinary
skill would have combined the teachings of Meise and Bourcier to arrive at
12
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
the claimed invention. Non-Final Act. 8 (explaining that one of ordinary
skill would have had reason to form Meise's safety glass with desirable
sound suppression as taught by Bourcier by incorporating at least one soft
layer between two stiff layers of an interlayer laminate, and varying the
residual hydroxyl content of the PVB and the concentration of plasticizer
between the layers); Bourcier, col. 5, 11. 12-16, col. 6, 11. 3-7, 29-31, 41--43,
53---65, col. 16, 11. 18-23.
Appellant's contention that one of ordinary skill would not have
combined the references in the manner claimed because Meise is directed to
improving impact strength and Bourcier is directed to acoustic interlayers
(Appeal Br. 22-23) is not persuasive of reversible error because, as
previously discussed above regarding claim 1, the references need not be
directed to the same problem that Appellant's claimed invention addresses.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (in making an obviousness determination, cautioning
that it is error to "look only to the problem the patentee [or applicant] was
trying to solve").
We do not find Appellant's arguments that Bourcier teaches away
from Meise (Appeal Br. 23) and that the Examiner's rejection is based on
impermissible hindsight (id. at 24) persuasive for principally the same
reasons previously discussed above with respect to the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 (Rejection 1 ). In particular, we find that Appellant's arguments in
this regard are largely conclusory and, without more, insufficient to rebut or
otherwise establish reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. De Blauwe,
736 F.2d at 705.
13
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 17, 19, 20,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Meise and
Bourcier.
Reiection 3
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein the
multiple layer polymer interlayer further comprises a second stiff layer, and
wherein the soft layer is disposed between the stiff layers." Appeal Br. 29
(Claims App'x).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Meise, Chen, and
Bourcier suggests a multilayer polymer interlayer structure satisfying all of
the limitations of claim 10 and thus, concludes the combination would have
rendered the claim obvious. Non-Final Act. 5---6.
Although Appellant includes a separate heading and section of the
Appeal Brief in response to the Examiner's rejection regarding claim 10
(Appeal Br. 20), Appellant repeats and relies on principally the same
arguments previously presented in response to Rejections 1 and 2 (stated
above) regarding the patentability of claims 1 and 17, respectively. For
example, Appellants argues that
one skilled in the art would not combine Bourcier with Meise
and Chen because Bourcier is directed to interlayers having
improved acoustic properties having a stiff/soft/stiff
configuration, while Meise and Chen are directed to an
interlayer having high strength or impact.
Id. at 20. Appellant also repeats the argument that the "Examiner appears to
be using hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose elements from ...
unrelated and opposing references to arrive at [Appellant's] claimed
invention. Id. at 21.
14
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
We do not find these arguments persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection for principally the same reasons previously discussed
above in affirming the Examiner's Rejection 1 and Rejection 2.
Moreover, on the record before us, we find that a preponderance of
the evidence and sound technical reasoning support the Examiner's analysis
and determination that the combination of Meise, Chen, and Bourcier
suggests all of the limitations of claim 10, and conclusion that the
combination would have rendered the claim obvious. Meise ,r,r 21, 27, 41,
42, 44, 47, 50, 74; Chen, Abstract, ,r,r 7, 10, 19, 21, 22; Bourcier, col. 1, 1.
66, col. 2, 11. 3, 25-33, col. 5, 11. 12-16, col. 6, 11. 3-7, 29-31, 41--43, 53---65,
col. 16, 11. 18-23 (Example 1 ).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Meise, Chen, and
Bourcier.
Reiection 4
Appellant does not present a substantive argument in response to the
Examiner's provisional rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--6, 10, 17, and 19-23
nonstatutory double patenting (Rejection 3, stated above). See Appeal Br.
26 (requesting that "the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections
be held in abeyance until the remaining rejections are overcome and the
Examiner has indicated allowable subject matter").
Accordingly, because the Examiner's Rejection 4 has not been
withdrawn and is not disputed by Appellant, we summarily affirm this
rejection. Cf Hyattv. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential) ("If an
appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue - or, more
15
Appeal2017-010883
Application 14/299,945
broadly, on a particular rejection - the Board will not, as a general matter,
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection") ( cited with
approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14--17, and 19-23 are
affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed.
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