Ex Parte Martin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

14217520 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/217,520 03/18/2014 Timothy M. Martin
111801 7590 11/30/2018
FMC I Fox Rothschild LLP
2929 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
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.
60955-USA 1006
EXAMINER
VANHORN, ABIGAIL LOUISE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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):
ipdocket@foxrothschild.com
Andrea.Small@fmc.com
patents@fmc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY M. MARTIN 1
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
Technology Center 1600
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC B. GRIMES, and DAVID COTTA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to an
insecticidal liquid fertilizer, which have been rejected for lack of adequate
written description, obviousness, and obviousness-type double patenting.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as FMC Corporation. Appeal
Br. 2. (The Appeal Brief lacks page numbers. We refer to the first page as
page 1, with the rest of the pages numbered consecutively.)
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
"[T]o enable the efficient elimination or control of unwanted insects
in combination with providing nutrients for plants ... it is desirable to
formulate an effective chemical insecticide for use in preparation of
insecticidal liquid fertilizers." Spec. ,r 3. The Specification discloses a
composition comprising bifenthrin ( a pyrethroid insecticide), a plant growth
promoter, a hydrated aluminum-magnesium silicate, and a dispersant. Id.
,r 4.
[T]he term 'plant growth promoter' refers to a composition
which will increase the growth and or vigor of the plant to an
extent exceeding that of identical plants not treated with the
plant growth promoter. Preferred plant growth promoters
include, but are not limited to, lipochitooligosaccharides,
brassinolides, and isoflavones ( e.g. formononetin).
Id. ,r 14. "The hydrated aluminum-magnesium silicate is preferably selected
from the group consisting of montmorillonite and attapulgite." Id. ,r 22.
Claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-21 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 10 are
illustrative and read as follows:
1. A composition comprising:
a) bifenthrin;
b) at least one plant growth promoter selected from the group
consisting of lipochitooligosaccharides, brassinolides and
isoflavones;
c) a hydrated aluminum-magnesium silicate; and
d) at least one dispersant selected from the group consisting of a
sucrose ester, a lignosulfonate, an alkylpolyglycoside, a
naphthalenesulfonic acid formaldehyde condensate and a
phosphate ester;
wherein the composition is produced by a process comprising
the step of mixing components (a), (b ), ( c) and ( d) under high
shear mixing conditions and wherein, after mixing with a liquid
2
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
fertilizer solution to form a homogeneous composition,
reduction of bifenthrin concentration of the homogeneous
composition over the course of 20 minutes is not more than 5%.
10. A method of improving the growth of a plant, comprising
the steps of:
1) forming a suspension concentrate composition comprising:
a) a bifenthrin;
b) at least one plant growth promoter selected from the
group consisting of lipochitooligosaccharides, brassinolides and
isoflavones;
c) a hydrated aluminum-magnesium silicate; and
d) at least one dispersant selected from the group
consisting of a sucrose ester, a lignosulfonate, an
alkylpolyglycoside, a napthalenesulfonic [sic] acid
formaldehyde condensate and a phosphate ester;
by a process comprising the step of mixing components (a), (b ),
( c) and ( d) under high shear mixing conditions; and
2) combining the composition obtained in step (1) with liquid
fertilizer to form a homogeneous composition comprising
bifenthrin, the plant growth promoter of ( 1 )(b ), the hydrated
aluminum magnesium silicate of ( 1 )( c ), the dispersant of ( 1 )( d)
and liquid fertilizer; wherein reduction of bifenthrin
concentration of the homogeneous composition over the course
of 20 minutes is not more than 5%;
and
3) applying to plant propagation material a plant growth
effective amount of said homogeneous composition.
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of
adequate written description (Final Action2 4);
2 Office Action mailed Sept. 27, 2016.
3
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
Claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on
Martin '36I3 and Smith4 (Final Action 7);
Claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based
on Martin '361, Smith, Zeun, 5 andLittler6 (Final Action 11);
Claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-21 for obviousness-type double patenting
based on the claims of Martin '527 7 in view of Smith and Littler (Final
Action 16);
Claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-21 for obviousness-type double patenting
based on the claims of Martin '827 8 in view of Smith and Littler (Final
Action 18);
Claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-21, provisionally, for obviousness-type
double patenting based on the claims of application 14/217 ,549 in view of
Smith and Littler (Final Action 20); and
Claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-21, provisionally, for obviousness-type
double patenting based on the claims of application 14/217 ,5 34 in view of
Smith and Littler (Final Action 23).
I
The Examiner has rejected all of the claims on appeal for
obviousness-type double patenting based on the claims of either Smith '527
or Smith '827, taken in view of Smith and Littler. The Examiner has
3 Martin, US 2008/0206361 Al, published Aug. 28, 2008.
4 Smith et al., WO 2009/049747 A2, published Apr. 23, 2009.
5 Zeun et al., US 2007/0135506 Al, published June 14, 2007.
6 Littler, US 3,060,084, issued Oct. 23, 1962.
7 Martin, US 8,263,527 B2, issued Sept. 11, 2012.
8 Martin, US 8,029,827 B2, issued Oct. 4, 2011.
4
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
provisionally rejected all of the claims on appeal for obviousness-type
double patenting based on the claims of either application 14/21 7,549 or
application 14/217 ,534, taken in view of Smith and Littler.
Appellant does not present arguments directed to the obviousness-type
double patenting or provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections
in the Appeal Brief. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues only that "[t]he
obviousness double-patenting rejections are provisional in nature. There is
no need to argue the provisional obviousness double patenting rejections
since no claims are considered to be patentable." Reply Br. 4.
This argument is inaccurate, in that two of the double patenting
rejections are based on issued patents, and in any event does not show any
error in the Examiner's conclusion that the pending claims are not patentably
distinct from the cited patents and applications. We therefore affirm the
rejections and provisional rejections for obviousness-type double patenting.
II
The Examiner has rejected all of claims on appeal for lack of adequate
written description. The Examiner finds that the recitation in claim 1 that the
"reduction of bifenthrin concentration of the homogeneous composition over
the course of 20 minutes is not more than 5%" ( claim 1) is not adequately
described because "there is no support that such reduction would be
supported over the full scope of the claim which includes any concentration
of bifenthrin, plant growth promoter, silicate and dispersant as well as any
concentration of the composition when mixed with a liquid fertilizer." Final
Action 4--5.
We agree that the Specification does not adequately describe
compositions comprising the components recited in claim 1 and having the
5
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
recited property. Claim 1 is directed to a genus of compositions. The
composition must comprise bifenthrin, but includes any of a vast number of
combinations of other components: a) a plant growth promoter that can be
any lipochitooligosaccharide, any brassinolide, or any isoflavone; b) any
hydrated aluminum-magnesium silicate; and c) a dispersant that can be any
sucrose ester, any lignosulfonate, any alkylpolyglycoside, any
naphthalenesulfonic acid formaldehyde condensate, or any phosphate ester.
The Specification describes two compositions encompassed by claim
1 that have the recited property of a 5% or less reduction of bifenthrin
concentration over the course of 20 minutes after mixing with a liquid
fertilizer: Composition A and Composition B of Examples 1 and 2,
respectively. Spec. ,r,r 61-67. Composition A comprises bifenthrin and
formononetin ( an isoflavone) and composition B comprises bifenthrin and
"RatchetTM Liquid LCO Promoter Technology® ACTIVE" (a
lipochitooligosaccharide ). Id. ,r,r 62, 64. Both compositions also contain
tridecyl alcohol ethoxylated phosphate potassium salt (a phosphate ester
dispersant), lignosulfonate (a dispersant), and attapulgite clay (a hydrated
aluminum-magnesium silicate). Id.
The Specification does not describe what structural feature(s) of
compositions comprising the components recited in claim 1 result in the
property of a 5% or less reduction of bifenthrin concentration over the
course of 20 minutes after mixing with a liquid fertilizer. The Specification
does not, in fact, describe this property as being a particular advantage of the
disclosed compositions. See Spec. ,r,r 4--11 (the Summary of the Invention,
which does not mention bifenthrin stability).
6
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
A description adequate to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
"must 'clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the
inventor] invented what is claimed.'" Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (alteration in original). A "sufficient
description of a genus ... requires the disclosure of either a representative
number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features
common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can
'visualize or recognize' the members of the genus." Id. at 1350.
"One needs to show that one has truly invented the genus, i.e., that
one has conceived and described sufficient representative species
encompassing the breadth of the genus. Otherwise, one has only a research
plan, leaving it to others to explore the unknown contours of the claimed
genus." AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759
F.3d 1285, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Here, as discussed above, the Specification describes two
compositions comprising the components recited in claim 1 and having the
recited property. The Specification provides no basis for concluding that the
other compositions encompassed by claim 1 would also have the recited
property, and therefore that these two species are representative of the
claimed genus. The Specification also does not describe what structural
properties of the two compositions that are described resulted in the recited
property. Thus, the Specification does not disclose "either a representative
number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features
common to the members of the genus," Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350, and does
not adequately describe the claimed genus.
7
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
Appellant argues that "[t]he examiner is committing clear error by
seeming to require absolute, literal support for the limitation of 'not more
than 5%' loss of bifenthrin." Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner did state that
"[t]here is no support in the specification for this limitation." Final Action 4.
The Examiner went on, however, to explain that the rejection is based on the
lack of support in the Specification for the full scope of the claim. See id. at
5: "[T]he specification would need to support this limitation over the full
scope of the claim." The Examiner thus made clear that the rejection was
based on a lack of description sufficient to support the breadth of the
claimed genus.
Appellant also argues that "the key question is whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the invention
claimed was in the possession of the applicant at the time the application
was filed. The clear answer to the key question is 'yes."' Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant points to the two compositions described in the Specification's
examples. Id.
We agree with Appellant's framing of the key question with respect to
this rejection but, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the
Specification does not provide a description adequate to show possession of
the full scope of the claimed genus.
Appellant also argues that "[t]he examiner has offered nothing to
support or explain why the limitation to 'not more than 5%' bifenthrin loss
after 20 minutes cannot be understood or, alternatively, would be considered
repugnant and unacceptable by one of ordinary skill." Appeal Br. 6. This
argument, while perhaps relevant to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ), is
not germane to the present rejection for lack of adequate written description.
8
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
Finally, Appellant presents arguments regarding whether "one of
ordinary skill in the art would [] understand how to make or use the
invention claimed" or "how to practice the invention." Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant cites case law discussing the enablement requirement. Id. at 8.
Written description, however, is a requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
that is separate from enablement. See Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367,
13 77 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The "en bane decision in Ari ad ... made clear that,
to satisfy the statutory requirement of a description of the invention, it is not
enough for the specification to show how to make and use the invention, i.e.,
to enable it."). Appellant's argument is therefore unpersuasive.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Claims
2, 4--15, and 17-21 have not been argued separately and therefore fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
III
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 15 as obvious based
on Martin '3 61 and Smith. The Examiner finds that Martin '3 61 discloses
"insecticidal compositions suitable for use in preparation of insecticidal
liquid fertilizers." Final Action 8. The compositions "comprise a pyrethroid,
a hydrated aluminum-magnesium silicate and at least one dispersant selected
from the group consisting of a sucrose ester, a lignosulfonate, an
alkylpolyglycoside, a naphthalene-sulfonic acid formaldehyde condensate
and a phosphate ester." Id.
The Examiner finds that Martin '361 does not teach the addition of a
plant growth promoter to its composition, but Smith discloses a "lipo-
chitooligosaccharide (LCO) and flavonoid combination for enhanced plant
growth and yield. The flavonoids claimed include formononetin." Id. at 9.
9
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to combine the
teachings of Martin ['361] and Smith et al. and add a plant growth promoter
comprising a lipo-chitooligosaccharide and a flavonoid to the composition of
Martin ['361] ... in order to provide nutrients to the plant in order to
promote the growth of plants." Id. at 10.
The Examiner concludes that the product-by-process language of
claim 1 is limiting only if it changes the structure (i.e., properties) of the
claimed composition and, because the composition of Martin '361 has a
stability very close to that recited in claim 1, the requirement that the
"reduction of bifenthrin concentration ... over the course of 20 minutes is
not more than 5%" in claim 1 does not distinguish the claimed composition
from the composition made obvious by the prior art. Id. at 11.
We agree with the Examiner that the cited references support a prima
facie case of obviousness. Martin '361 discloses "an insecticidal
composition suitable for use in preparation of insecticidal liquid fertilizers."
Martin '361 ,r 2. The insecticidal composition comprises components a), c),
and d) of claim 1. Id. ,r 5. See also id. ,r 7 ("more particularly, the pyrethroid
is bifenthrin").
Smith discloses "compositions and methods for enhancing plant
growth and crop yield. The compositions include lipo-chitooligosaccharides
in combination with flavonoid compounds." Smith 1: 5-7. "Classes of
flavonoids include ... isoflavones." Id. at 2:27-28. "Preferably the
flavonoid compound is selected from the group consisting of genistein,
daidzein,formononetin, naringenin, hesperetin, luteolin, and apigenin." Id. at
3: 19-21 ( emphasis added). Cf Spec. ,r 14 ("Preferred plant growth
promoters include ... isoflavones ( e.g. formononetin).").
10
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
Based on these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered it obvious to combine Smith's composition comprising a
lipo-chitooligosaccharide and a flavonoid compound ( e.g., an isoflavone)
with the insecticidal composition of Martin '3 61. The skilled artisan would
have had a reason to do so because Smith discloses that its composition
enhances plant growth and Martin '361 states that "[f]ormulations of
insecticides combined with fertilizers are desirable in agricultural and related
endeavors .... One application of such a combination or formulation
provides nutrients for the plant growth, while eliminating or controlling
unwanted insects." Martin '361 ,r 3.
Martin '361 does not disclose that its composition was made by high
shear mixing. However, we agree with the Examiner that, because the
composition made obvious by the prior art contains the same components as
claim 1, and claim 1 does not require any specific amount of any of its
components, it is reasonable to shift the burden to Appellant to show that the
composition made obvious by the prior art would not have the stability
recited in claim 1. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
("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."). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977)
("Whether the rejection is based on 'inherency' under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on
'prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the
burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO' s
11
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art
products.") (footnote omitted).
Appellant argues that "Martin ['361] makes it clear that the problem
of stability of a formulated mixture is only solved on a case-by-case basis.
The open literature supports the non-obviousness of the claimed invention,
essentially stating the same skepticism expressed in Martin ['361]. Stability
in complex formulations can be solved on a case by case basis." Appeal Br.
12.
This argument is unpersuasive, because Appellant does not identify
what evidence in either Martin '361 or the "open literature" he is relying on
to support his position. The argument in the Appeal Brief therefore is merely
unsupported attorney argument, which does not suffice to show that the
Examiner's rejection is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
("Attorneys' argument is no substitute for evidence.").
Appellant also argues that he "has provided supplementary
declaratory evidence of the differences between the currently claimed
invention and a mixture prepared according to the prior art." Appeal Br. 12.
Again, however, the Appellant does not identify what declaratory evidence
he is relying on, or explain how such evidence supports his position. The
unsupported attorney argument in the brief is therefore unpersuasive.
Finally, Appellant argues that "the examiner is clearly committing
error by using the applicants' [sic] specification as a basis for supplementing
the prior art where the prior art is deficient. ... The examiner has developed
a hypothetical construct from the combination of the cited art, but no
hypothetical construct can provide actual data." Id. at 13.
12
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
This argument is also unpersuasive because, as discussed above, the
disclosures of Martin '361 and Smith provide a reason to combine their
teachings, and provide a reasonable basis for concluding that the resulting
composition would have the bifenthrin stability recited in claim 1. Thus, it is
reasonable to shift the burden to Appellant to show that the composition
made obvious by Martin '361 and Smith would not meet the limitations of
the claimed composition.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Martin '361 and Smith. Claims 2, 4--9, and 1 have not been argued
separately and therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
IV
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Martin '361, Smith, Zeun, 9 and Littler.
The Examiner relies on Martin '361 and Smith for the disclosures discussed
above, and finds that Littler discloses a "homogeneous readily dispersed
pesticidal concentrate." Final Action 13. The Examiner finds that Littler
discloses that "the components can be prepared by subjecting to high shear.
The shear reduced the viscosity of the preparation and makes it more
pourable and more easily diluted." Id. The Examiner also finds that Littler
states that "[s]evere and extended milling [is] essential to obtain a
composition with the desired physical properties. Preferred compositions are
9 The Examiner relies on Zeun only for application rates, as recited in certain
dependent claims. Final Action 12-13. Appellant does not argue any of the
dependent claims separately (see Appeal Br. 13-14), and therefore we will
not further discuss Zeun.
13
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
those in which the particle size of the pesticide has been reduced to below 5
microns by milling." Id. at 13-14.
The Examiner concludes that, based on the cited references, it would
have been obvious to" mix the components under high shear ... in order to
reduce the viscosity of the preparation and make it more pourable and more
easily diluted as well as minimize flocculation on dilution as taught by
Littler." Id. at 15.
We agree with the Examiner that the cited references support a prima
facie case of obviousness. The teachings of Martin '361 and Smith are
discussed above. Littler discloses "aqueous fluid pesticidal concentrates."
Littler 1: 10-11. Little discloses that "a concentrate of a water-insoluble
pesticide ... can be prepared by combining the water-insoluble pesticide
with a polycarboxylated hydrocarbon polymer suspending agent, a carefully
selected dispersing agent, and then subjecting this combination to high
shear." Id. at 1 :56-62. Littler states that "[t]he shear reduces the viscosity of
the preparation and makes it more pourable and more easily diluted." Id. at
1:63---65. Littler also states that "[t ]he resulting product is a stable
concentrate which resists settling, even on dilution, but which is still liquid
enough to be easily poured and diluted." Id. at 1 :68-70.
Littler discloses that "[ s ]evere and extended milling is essential to
obtain a composition with the desired physical properties." Id. at 4:25-27.
"Generally, the length of time the milling or shearing is continued can be
determined best by inspection or measurement in a viscosimeter and by a
determination of the particle size of the pesticide." Id. at 4:43--46.
Based on these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered it obvious to mix the components disclosed by Martin '361
14
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
and Smith using the high shear mixing disclosed by Littler, in order to obtain
a composition that "resists settling, even on dilution, but which is still liquid
enough to be easily poured and diluted." Littler 1 :68-70. In addition, both
Martin '361 and Littler describe preparing their compositions by milling. See
Martin '361 ,r 15; Littler 4:25-27. And both Martin '361 and Littler describe
milling their compositions until a desired particle size is achieved. See
Martin '361 ,r 20 ("The resultant mixture was milled to less than 9 microns";
Littler 4:47--49 ("Preferred compositions are those in which the particle size
of the pesticide has been reduced to below 5 microns by milling.")). Thus, it
would have been obvious to adjust the milling conditions of Martin '361 to
achieve high shear mixing, as disclosed by Littler.
Appellant argues that "[t]he references that actually address the issue
of stability (Martin and Littler) both speak to the difficulty of providing
textbook solutions to the problem of producing stable solutions of pesticide
mixtures." Appeal Br. 13. We disagree with this reading of the references,
because Littler expressly states that its composition - mixed under high
shear conditions - "is a stable concentrate which resists settling, even on
dilution, but which is still liquid enough to be easily poured and diluted."
Littler 1 :68-70.
Appellant also argues that he has "provided scholarly articles that
teach the difficulty of maintaining stability in complex mixtures." Appeal
Br. 14. However, Appellant does not identify what scholarly articles were
provided, or explain how they support his position. The unsupported
attorney argument in the brief is therefore unpersuasive. Johnston, 885 F .2d
at 1581.
15
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
Finally, Appellant argues that he has "previously provided an article
('Physical Stability of Disperse Systems') that points out that formulation of
stable suspensions requires creative solutions combined with basic scientific
principles." Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues that this article states that
"physical stability can refer to a number of attributes. Obtaining stability in
one area can create instability in another, and the net result may be
undesirable." Id.
This argument is also unpersuasive. Again, Appellant does not
provide a complete citation for the reference, only its title, and does not
identify when it was admitted into the record. Therefore, it is unclear what
evidence Appellant is relying on. In any event, the passage quoted in the
Appeal Brief simply states that achieving stability of a suspension, in a
pharmaceutical formulation, can require some experimentation because of
"various physical and electrochemical forces." Appeal Br. 14 ( emphasis
omitted). This general description, even if supported by the evidence, is an
inadequate basis for concluding that Littler' s high shear mixing would not
provide the beneficial results disclosed by Littler if applied to the
composition made obvious by the combination of Martin '361 and Smith.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Martin '361, Smith, Zeun, and Littler. Claims 2, 4--15, and 17-21 have not
been argued separately and therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
SUMMARY
We affirm all of the rejections on appeal.
16
Appeal2017-010707
Application 14/217 ,520
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
17