Ex Parte MartinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201814217520 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation