Ex Parte Schuch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 2018

14706351 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 141706,351 05/07/2015 20572 7590 05/02/2018 GODFREY & KAHN S.C. 833 East Michigan Street, Suite 1800 Milwaukee, WI 53202-5615 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Cathy Schuch 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. 001432-0280 4718 EXAMINER STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3776 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2018 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): docketing@gklaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CATHY SCHUCH and DAVID M. LEDVINA Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 Technology Center 3700 Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, RYAN H. FLAX, and DAVID COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the Examiner's final decision to reject the claims as anticipated and obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1: Appellant is the Applicant, Little Rapids Corporation, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 5. Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-20 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A nail coating removal wrap and retainer for assisting with removal of a nail coating from a nail plate of a user, the wrap compnsmg: a stretchable wrap strip formed from a material having cohesive properties; and a solvent pad bonded to the wrap strip, the bonding being non-soluble; the solvent pad sized to correspond to the nail plate having the nail coating desired to be removed, the solvent pad made of a material that absorbs and retains a solvent to facilitate the removal of the nail coating; the wrap strip configured to position the solvent pad in contact with the nail coating and extend around an appendage of the user to which the nail plate is attached and extend back and overlap on itself, the wrap strip further being cohesive with itself at least in an area of the overlap; and wherein the cohesion of the wrap strip with itself comes from cohesive properties of the material of the wrap strip. Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection made by the Examiner: I. Claims 1-3, 62-8, and 10-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Murphy. 3 Appeal Br. 14--20; Reply Br. 1-2. II. Claim 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Murphy. Appeal Br. 14--20. III. Claims 1, 2, and 6-10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Thoma4 in view of Murphy. Appeal Br. 20-26. IV. Claims 3-5 and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Murphy in view of Ashton. 5 Appeal Br. 26-30. 2 In the Answer, the Examiner included claim 6 in the anticipation rejection, but did not designate this rejection as a new ground of rejection. See Ans. 2. Appellant contends that the inclusion of claim 6 in the rejection is a new ground and should be disregarded. See Reply Br. 1. Any request to seek review of the primary Examiner's failure to designate a rejection as a new ground of rejection is by petition to the Director. See MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) Â§ 1207.03(b) (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017 (Jan. 2018)); see 37 C.F.R. Â§Â§ 1.181, 41.40. We find no evidence that such a petition was filed. However, a petition would not be necessary if Appellant wishes to submit only argument because Appellant may submit arguments in a Reply Brief. See MPEP Â§ 1207.03(b). As Appellant did not petition to reopen prosecution, the Examiner's rejection, including the determinations and analysis as set out in the Answer, are before us for review. 3 Murphy et al., US 2008/0014387 Al, published Jan. 17, 2008 ("Murphy"). 4 Thoma, US 6,305,383 Bl, issued Oct. 23, 2001 ("Thoma"). 5 Ashton et al., US 200710112322 Al, published May 17, 2007 ("Ashton"). 3 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 I. Anticipation by Murphy The issue is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner's finding that the structure of the claimed wrap is taught in Murphy? Findings of Fact FF 1. Murphy teaches a wound care pad that contains a foam pad attached via web adhesive to a bandage, as shown in Figure 5 below: Figure 5, reproduced above, shows "the foam wound care pad 20 attached to the foam layer 24 of the foam layer cohesive bandage 30 with a standard web adhesive 25. The cohesive agent 28 permeates the 18x18 warp knit backing 22, the elastic yam layer 26 (spandex yams extending longitudinally), and the thin foam layer 24 of the foam layer cohesive bandage structure 30." Murphy i-f 34. FF2. Murphy teaches an absorbent foam pad attached to a surface material and "an adhesive, a cohesive, and a web adhesive can be used to secure the pad to the surface." Murphy i-f 13. "The absorbent pad may include hydrophilic foam, which may include a plurality of open cells and may include ... gauze." Murphy i-f 13, see id. i-f 24. Murphy teaches that "the foam pad is preferably hydrophilic, and provides 'wicking' of fluids." Murphy i-f 113, see id. i-f 120. FF3. Murphy teaches that the "web adhesive used to attach the hydrophilic foam pad to the foam layer [of the] cohesive bandage is a 4 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 commercially-available urethane adhesive film from Adhesive Films, Inc. (Pine brook, N.J.) UAF-425.003 .... The foam in combination with the web adhesive used provides an almost water proof barrier between the foam and the out side of the bandage." Murphy i-f 158; see Ans. 5-6 (citing White (US 5,346,566, issued Sept. 13, 1994) as evidence that urethane adhesives are water insoluble). FF4. Murphy teaches that the front and/or backing layer includes non woven materials. Murphy i-f 93. The non woven material may be melt-blown nonwoven material and "may be constructed using any suitable fiber composition, such as, for example, ... polypropylene, ... polyethylene, cotton, wool, any other suitable fiber composition, or a combination of such fiber compositions." Murphy i-f 104 (emphasis added). FF5. Murphy teaches a cohesive composition may be any suitable natural rubber or synthetic cohesive formulation. Natural rubber latex is inherently cohesive, meaning that it sticks to itself rather than to other material. ... Alternately, the cohesive composition can be latex free, which allows an article coated with the composition to be used with patients who have latex allergies. Murphy i-f 78 (emphasis added). FF6. The Examiner finds that known solvents for removing nail polish include: "soapy water, acetone, acetate, alcohol, perfume, hair-spray, hand sanitizer, [etc.]." Ans. 7. FF7. The Specification provides that bonding encompasses "non-soluble attachment between the pad and the base wrap," as well as using ultrasonic welds or bonds. Spec. i-f 24, see id. i-f 25 ("other non-glue or 5 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 bonding agent types" may be used). It is understood that "many current or known glues or other bonding agents may not be desirable for use in attaching the pad to the wrap strip as the solvents used to attack the nail coating may also attack the glue." Id. i-f 24. However, "a glue or bonding agent that is resistant to the types of solvents used for nail covering removal may also be used to attach the pad to the base." Id. ,-r 25. Principle of Law "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Analysis The Examiner finds that Murphy anticipates the claims because the reference discloses a product having the recited structure. See Final Act. 2-3; see Ans. 2-3, 6; see FF1-FF5. The Examiner finds that the bonded limitation of claim 1, specifically "the bonding being non-soluble" is met by Murphy's disclosure of using web adhesives that include urethane adhesive films for attaching the foam to the underlying bandage pad. See Ans. 6; see FF 1 and FF3. With respect to the bonding limitation of claim 11, the Examiner finds that the recitation of "ultrasonically bonded" is a process limitation and is met by Murphy's structure using a urethane adhesive. See Ans. 6. The same argument is similarly applicable to claims 2, 3, and 17, which are also directed to ultrasonic bonding. Appellant contends that claims 1 and 11 recite "structures, namely a solvent pad and a wrap strip, and an element that holds the structures together, namely a non-soluble or ultrasonic bond." Appeal Br. 16. 6 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 "Murphy does not have an 'ultrasonic' or 'non-soluble' bond." Id. at 18. Appellant contends that Murphy's structure "would not work in a nail coating/covering removal wrap because the solvents used to attack the nail coating/covering would also attack the glue, causing the product to fall apart." Id. at 19; see Reply Br. 8. We are not persuaded by Appellant's contention that Murphy's web adhesive would not work as a non-solvable bond between the foam structure and the cohesive composition. First, glues are not excluded from the claims as a means of forming a non-soluble bond between the wrap and the solvent pad. FF7. Second, not all solvents dissolve glues because some glues can be resistant to solvents. Id. Finally, neither the claims nor the Specification limit the particular solvent used for the purpose of nail coating removal. The Examiner finds that there are many solvents that are known to be useful in removing nail coverings such as "soapy water, acetone, acetate, alcohol, perfume, hair-spray, [and] hand sanitizer." FF6. Appellant contends that the Examiner provides no support that soapy water can function to remove nail polish and that acetone is the solvent to remove a gel polish. Reply Br. 9. We are not persuaded. Neither the claims nor the Specification limit "nail coating" to a particular type of product nor do the claims specify the solvent used for the removal of the nail coating. As stated by our reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), "the name of the game is the claim." It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant's contention that the web 7 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 adhesive used in Murphy would dissolve if it comes in contact with a nail covering removal solvent, such as soapy water. We agree with the Examiner that saturating the foam pad disclosed in Murphy with, for example, soapy water would provide a structure that functions as a solvent holding material. Moreover, as noted by the Examiner, the claims do not require that solvent pad contains solvent, rather the claims require only that the solvent pad is made of material that can absorb a solvent. See Ans. 7 ("the claims do not positively recite the 'solvent' the claims merely recite the solvent pad is made from a material that can absorb a solvent"). We are not persuaded by Appellant's contention that the recitations in claims 2 and 11 directed to ultrasonically bonding materials are not process limitations and therefore the claims are not "product-by-process" claims." See Appeal Br. 17-18. We find Appellant has not presented evidence on this Appeal record that describing something as ultrasonically bonded connotes a structure and the Specification does not support such an understanding. Cf In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, 881F.3d1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding claim language "injection molded" was not a process limitation, but connoted an integral structure, which was not in dispute by the examiner or Board). We find that the Examiner has reasonably interpreted the claim limitation of "ultrasonically bonded" as being a process limitation that describes the way the bond is formed rather than the structure of the bond itself. See Ans. 6-7. Murphy discloses creating a bond between the pad and the surface of the bandage by use of web-adhesive. FF2. We agree with the Examiner that the glued structure disclosed in Murphy appears to be 8 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 identical to the structural limitation of the claims. Having established a prima facie case in view of Murphy, the burden thus shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983). With respect to claim 11, Appellant contends that Murphy's structure does not meet the limitation "absorbs and retains a solvent." Appeal Br. 19. Even if Murphy's foam absorbs the liquid, Appellant contends that the liquid is not available to supply the liquid to the nail. See Appeal Br. 19-20 (the foam provides wicking action "so that the exudate is not in contact with the skin under the pad"). We are not persuaded by Appellant's contention that the wicking feature of Murphy's pad defeats the object of the invention. See Appeal Br. 20. We understand that Murphy's pad wicks moisture from a wound and prevents contact between the absorbed fluid with the wound. See FF2; see Murphy i-f 113. The wicking function of a dry pad does not mean that the structure of the pad is not capable of being fully saturated. When fully saturated the pad would no longer be able to further take up moisture, and the wicking action would naturally cease. A fully saturated pad would no longer wick fluid. Furthermore, as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner, that the claims do not require that the structure actually contains solvent, only that the structure is able to retain solvent. See Ans. 7 ("the claims do not positively recite the 'solvent' the claims merely recite the solvent pad is made from a material that can absorb a solvent"). The Examiner identifies the hydrophilic foam of Murphy as being able to absorb liquid. See Ans. 7; see FF2-FF3. The hydrophilic foam of 9 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 Murphy includes open cells. FF2. This is similar to a sponge that is able to wick moisture when dry, as well as hold moisture when saturated. See Ans. 8 (citing Murphy i-fi-f 13, 88, 113, and 130 for disclosing "a material that absorbs and retains a solvent"). We interpret Murphy's structure to operate this way and Appellant has not directed us to any structural feature that would prevent liquid flow in both directions from the foam structure disclosed in Murphy. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument based on the different use of Murphy's product because this argument does not address any structural features that would help distinguish Murphy's product from the claimed product. We are also not persuaded by Appellant's contention that the limitation "solvent pad made of a material that absorbs and retains a solvent to assist in the removal of the nail coating" as recited in claim 11 is not met by Murphy's structure. Appeal Br. 19. Although Murphy may function differently in its application, we agree with the Examiner that Murphy's disclosed structure meets all the claimed structural elements. See Hewlett-Packard, 909 F.2d at 1468; see also Catalina Mktg. Int'!, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure."). We recognize that there is nothing wrong with claiming structures based on their functions. In this regard, Appellant's arguments are directed at the different intended use of Murphy's product rather than any differences between its structure and that of the appealed claims. Appellant contends that "[b ]eing almost waterproof is not the same as being non-soluble." Reply Br. 6. We are not persuaded. 10 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 Being waterproof in the context of Murphy describes the layer between the foam pad and the backing as being impervious to water, because there is the desire to prevent wound exudate (water) from reaching the outside layer. FF3. This use of the term waterproof6, in other words impervious to water, is consistent with ordinary use of the term. Whether a glue is impervious to water or almost impervious to water does not speak to whether the glue that holds the two surfaces together actually dissolves when exposed to water. The Examiner cites White as evidence that urethanes are known to be water insoluble. FF3. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's intimation that the urethane glue of Murphy is soluble in water. In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that the glue/adhesive would dissolve if solvent other than water is absorbed in the pad. See Reply Br. 8 ("Not all urethane adhesives are non-soluble"). This argument is not persuasive because it relies on features that are not part of the claim, namely reciting the particular solvent. It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. We conclude that the preponderance of evidence of record supports the Examiner's finding that Murphy discloses a product that meets the structural limitations as claimed. We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 11 as anticipated by Murphy. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12-18 are not separately argued and fall with claims 1 and 11. 6 Definition of waterproof: "impervious to water; especially: covered or treated with a material (such as a solution of rubber) to prevent permeation by water." Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/waterproof (last visited Apr. 21, 2018). 11 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 II. Obviousness over Murphy Appellant contends that the Examiner has not articulated, what the "intended use" of a poly backed melt blown polypropylene material is and how it would be suitably selected to meet "such an 'intended use'" in the solvent pad. Appeal Br. 29. The Examiner finds that Murphy teaches melt blown material. Ans. 10. The Examiner relies on a design choice rationale to arrive at the conclusion that the claim is obvious. See Ans. 5 (citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (1960)). We do not disagree with the Examiner that Murphy teaches using melt blown polypropylene material. FF4. The issue is that the material disclosed in Murphy is in the context of a backing material. The Examiner has not articulated a reason why the person of ordinary skill would have swapped the backing material for the absorbent pad as claimed. The Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based upon the prior art. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). On this record the Examiner has not established that melt blown polypropylene material are known absorbent materials and thereby would be suitably selected for such purpose. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 19. III. Obviousness over Thoma and Murphy The issue is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Thoma and Murphy teaches the structure of the claimed wrap? 12 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 Findings of Fact FF8. Thoma teaches a method of removing acrylic nails. The method allows the user "to apply acetone to the nail without the hassle of having to sit with the fingers soaking in a vat of the liquid." Thoma 2: 14--16. The methods requires that the user simply wets a cotton ball 12 with the acetone 18 and places it onto the top of a fingernail 20 on the finger tip 22 of the persons hand 28. One of the ten finger covers 14 is then put over the finger tip 22 and the fingernail 20 covered with acetone soaked cotton ball 12. Thoma 2:3-8. Principle of Law "If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid underÂ§ 103." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Analysis Appellant contends that neither Thoma nor Murphy discloses a non- soluble bond. Appeal Br. 21. "Thoma describes no bonding and Murphy describes using an adhesive. Neither describes a non-soluble bond." Appeal Br. 24. We are not persuaded. As discussed above (see supra I.), Murphy teaches a wrap that contains a pad that can absorb liquid. FF1-FF2. Murphy teaches that the web adhesive used to attach the foam to the bandage forms a water tight seal. FF3. The Examiner finds that soapy water is suitable solvent for the purpose of removing nail coverings. FF6. The Examiner finds that Murphy's web adhesive is non-soluble because it provides a water proof barrier. Ans. 5 (citing White); see FF2. "It is well settled that 'anticipation 13 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 is the epitome of obviousness.'" In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). We recognize, but are not persuaded by, Appellant's contention that White does not support the position that all "urethane adhesives are inherently non-soluble." Reply Br. 7 (citing two web based references in support). Based on the title of these references, we recognize that adhesives may be soluble in alcohol, but alcohol is not water. Appellant does not direct us to specific pages in these references to establish that the commercially-available urethane adhesive film from Adhesive Films, Inc. (Pine brook, N.J.) UAF-425.003 disclosed in Murphy is indeed soluble in water. FF3. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's contention that urethane adhesives are soluble in soapy water, which is not excluded as a solvent for removing nail coverings. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the claims are not limited to a particular solvent. Ans. 7. Appellant contends that the Specification provides that removing gel polish requires the use of either acetone or another solvent. Reply Br. 9 (citing Spec. i-f 7). "[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification ... , it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims .... It is the claims that measure the invention." Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We agree with the Examiner that the claims are not limited to a particular solvent and further note that the claims are also not limited to a particular nail covering (i.e., gel covering). See Spec. i-f 7. Therefore, the disclosure in the Specification of the use of acetone or other solvents for removing a gel covering should not be read into the claim. In any event, Thoma discloses using acetone. FF8. 14 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 We conclude that the evidence cited by the Examiner supports a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1 and Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence to rebut the prima facie case. As Appellant does not argue the claims separately, claims 2 and 6-10 fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37 (c)(l)(iv). IV. Obviousness over Murphy and Ashton The issue is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner's conclusion that ultrasonic welds can replace the web adhesive/ glue in Murphy's structure? Findings of Fact FF9. Ashton teaches a disposable absorbent article. The chassis 12 may include a liquid pervious topsheet 40, a backsheet 42 joined with the topsheet 40, and an absorbent core 44 disposed between the topsheet 40 and the backsheet 42. The pull-on garment 10 may include at least two side panels 20, 22. Ashton i-f 63. [S]ide panels 20, 22 may be bonded directly or indirectly to each other and/ or to the other elements of the chassis (e.g., topsheet, backsheet, and the like) in a variety of configurations including but not limited to an overlapped structure or an abutting structure .... The bonding may by a predetermined pattern of heat/pressure or ultrasonic welds which withstands the forces and stresses generated on the garment during wear .... [T]he bonding may be by way of refastenable bonds such as adhesive bonds, cohesive bonds, and/or fasteners (e.g., hook and loop fastener). Ashton i-f 65 (emphasis added). 15 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 FF 10. Ashton teaches that suitable absorbent articles include meltblown polymers. Ashton i-f 75. Principle of Law It is obvious to those skilled in the art to substitute one known equivalent for another, because those equivalents are method steps or apparatus components. See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 483 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Analysis Appellant contends that Ashton is not in the same field of endeavor and, therefore, is non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 26-27. We are not persuaded. Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, Ashton is directed to producing absorbent articles and is, thereby, reasonably pertinent to addressing the question of attaching a solvent pad (absorbent material) to a backing material. See Ans. 9 ("Murphy, Ashton, ... each deal with materials used to come in contact with the skin of a user and each deal with an absorbed liquid, each would need to withstand force of a user and not breakdown from the liquid to be effective"). More importantly Ashton teaches that ultrasonic welds and adhesives are recognized as suitable equivalent means for attaching an absorbent core to the baking material. See FF9. Substituting one equivalent for another known in the art is obvious. See Omeprazole Patent Litig., 483 F.3d at 1374. 16 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Murphy also teaches using melt blown polypropylene material as backing material. FF4. With respect to claim 19, discussed above (II.), we noted that the Examiner had not established that melt blown polypropylene materials were known absorbent materials. Ashton, however, suggests that meltblown polymers are suitable for use in an absorbent layer. FFlO. In other words, Ashton provides the element that was missing in the Examiner's rejection of claim 19. Based on the teaching in Ashton (FF 10), we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been reasonable to substitute one absorbent material for another based on the materials suitability of the intended purpose. See Ans. 5. We conclude that the evidence cited by the Examiner supports a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 3, and Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence of secondary considerations that outweighs the evidence supporting the prima facie case. As Appellant does not argue the claims separately, claims 4, 5, and 20 fall with claim 3. SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) by Murphy. Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, and 12-18 were not separately argued and fall with claims 1 and 11. We reverse the rejection of claim 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Murphy. We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 6-10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Thoma and Murphy. Claims 2 and 6-10 were not separately argued and fall with claim 1. 17 Appeal2017-002784 Application 14/706,351 We affirm the rejection of claims 3-5 and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Murphy and Ashton. Claims 4, 5, and 20 were not separately argued and fall with claim 3. 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. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 18 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent Appeal No. Notice of References Cited 14/706,351 2017-002784 Examiner Art Unit 3776 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name A US- B US- c US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name N 0 p Q R s T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) u Waterproof, Definition of Waterproof by Merriam-Webster v w x *A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP Â§ 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. Page 1 of 1 Classification Classification 4/21/2018 Waterproof I Definition of Waterproof by Merriam-Webster ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ .. ,.~'S:::'~~~'-S:Â·-:~ :::'"1~":.~~~~":_~~ ... ~Â·';,~)! t--:::. ... -;,~)!~~':.~):-~'.:.~~:::. ... Â§"';,~~:::' ~ ~~ ~ .. ,~~""':::~_:::~~ ~~~ .. ,~ .. ~~ .. ,:;: ~%~ t_,:;: %~~ .. ~~~~...,~~::: Â§. .. ~~::: (:(}~1~tt) t:t:~~ Popularity: Bottom 40'% of words Updated on: 20 Apr 2!YJ 8 Examples: WAH:'.RPRoor: In a Sentence 0 : impervious to water; especially: covered or treated with a material (such as a solution of rubber-) to prevent perrneation by water -waterproofness noun See waterproof defined for Engllsh~language learners See tA/aterproof defined forÂ· kids ,,,~ Going Greek: 7 "Â·<=:~ ,,,,:t: \Vords from the g"'". â€¢ 1 ~ .... -.Â·e11~ 1 , â€¢ ' s. \C or PreÂ· \'entative''> Why not both?. \Vori-1._. ur , " 1 '~ ~l'e re \V' . â€¢pi . 1 d.fclnnoÂ·Â· .>.flH~sJeard ' sl . , bÂ· N . ~ ule \!er+ 0, It's . Â§ not a coiffure trend 10/13 4/21/2018 Waterproof I Definition of Waterproof by Merriam-Webster How we chose 'feminism' \Vo:rd8 of the Year: 1066 Or, Why Pig iv1eat is Called 'Pork' and Cow Meat is C '" .-.. - Literally How to use a word that (literally) drives some pe ,,. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waterproof 11/13 4/21/2018 Waterproof I Definition of Waterproof by Merriam-Webster Odd. Habits and Quirks Quiz Test your knowledge of strange human behaviors, TAKE THE QU!Z :More Conf'trning \Vord8- {}uiz How many of these commonly confused vvords do you know? TAKE THE QUIZ How Strong ] s Your Vncabu]ary'? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waterproof 12/13 4/21/2018 Waterproof I Definition of Waterproof by Merriam-Webster Browse the Dictionary: A 8 C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P Q R S T U V W x y z 0-9 Home I Help I Apps ! About Us ! Shop I Advertising Info I Dictionary AP! I About Our Ads l Contact Us I The Open Dictionary ! \Nord of the Year I We're Hiring Lavv Dictionary I Medical Dictionary I P1-ivacy Policy I Terms of Use Browse the Thesaurus Browse the Medical Dictionary ! Browse the Legal Dictionary I Browse the Spanish-English Dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waterproof 13/13