Karl Ragnarsson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2019

13791390 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/791,390 03/08/2013 Karl Ragnarsson 1410-130597-US 8378
48940 7590 12/16/2019
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 2100
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
DICUS, TAMRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1791
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KARL RAGNARSSON, DANIEL T. PIORKOWSKI, and
KATHERINE JOSEPHINE MEYERS1
____________

Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 12–31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to liquid beverage concentrates.
E.g., Spec. ¶ 2; Claim 12. Claim 12 is reproduced below from page 18
(Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kraft
Foods Group Brands LLC. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

2
12. A flavored liquid beverage concentrate having a pH of about
1.8 to about 3.1, the concentrate comprising:
at least about 40 percent water;
about 8 to about 60 percent acidulant;
about 0.5 to about 40 percent flavoring; and
a viscosity increasing agent in an amount effective to provide a
Newtonian liquid viscosity of about 7.5 to about 100 cP as
measured using Spindle S00 at 10 rpm at 20°C or a non-
Newtonian liquid viscosity of about 7.5 to about 10,000 cP as
measured using Spindle S00 at 10 rpm at 20°C,
wherein the concentrate has a concentration such that when
diluted with a potable liquid at a ratio of about 1:50 to about
1:160 to provide a beverage, the concentrate delivers about 0.01
to 0.8 percent acid by weight of the beverage.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 12–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 as indefinite;
2. Claims 12–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Ragnarsson (US 8,293,299 B2, issued Oct. 23, 2012);
3. Claims 12–17, 20–28, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nakel (US 4,737,375, issued Apr. 12, 1988);
4. Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakel and
Braun (US 4,830,862, issued May 16, 1989);
5. Claims 25–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakel
and Zablocki (US 6,139,895, issued Oct. 31, 2000);
6. Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakel and
Lee (US 7,572,471 B2, issued Aug. 11, 2009);
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

3
7. Claims 18 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nakel and Given (US 8,431,178 B2, issued Apr. 30, 2013 from an
application published March 15, 2012);
8. Claims 12–17, 19–28, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nakel and Skaggs (US 2007/0264312 A1, published
Nov. 15, 2007);
9. Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakel,
Skaggs, and Braun;
10. Claims 12–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Burkes (US 5,422,128, issued June 6, 1995).
ANALYSIS
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in Rejections 3–10.
Accordingly, we affirm those rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Non-Final Action dated June 1, 2017 (“Office Act.”), and in the Examiner’s
Answer. See generally Office Act.; Ans. However, for reasons set forth
below, we reverse as to Rejections 1 and 2.
Rejection 1
The legal standard for definiteness in prosecution is whether a claim
reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. In re Warmerdam,
33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The Examiner concludes that the term “at least about 40 percent
water” in claim 12 is indefinite. Ans. 4. The Examiner states that the terms
“at least” and “about” “are deemed to be appropriate claim language,” but
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

4
that the combination of those terms to form “at least about” “does not clearly
recite a range.” Id. In the Response to Argument section of the Answer, the
Examiner states that “it is well established the phrase is ambiguous.” Id. at
23.
We discern no basis in the record to conclude that it is “well
established the phrase is ambiguous.” See id. The Examiner appears to be
relying on a per se rule, rather than meaningfully explaining how or why the
term is unclear. See id. at 4, 23. We are not aware of a per se rule that
supports the rejection. The section of the MPEP cited by the Examiner, see
id. at 23, cites a case in which the term “at least about” was held indefinite.
See MPEP § 2173.05(b) (citing Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d
1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Neither the MPEP nor the cited case, however,
indicates that the term “at least about” is always or frequently indefinite.
See id. On the contrary, the MPEP states that the term was held indefinite in
Amgen because “there was close prior art and there was nothing in the
specification, prosecution history, or the prior art to provide any indication
as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term ‘about.’” Id.
(emphasis added).
In this case, the Examiner expressly finds that the terms “at least” and
“about” are independently “appropriate,” but provides insufficient reasoning
to conclude that the term “at least about” is unclear.
The Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill would understand
the term to mean that “the minimum of the claimed range of water is ‘about
40 percent,’” and that “there is no difference between the rejected phrase and
the phrase ‘about 40 percent to 100 percent water.” App. Br. 11. On this
record, we discern no reason to reject the Appellant’s position.
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

5
Because the Examiner has not adequately established that the term “at
least about 40 percent water” is unclear, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 12. Because the remaining claims subject to Rejection 1 depend
from claim 12, and the Examiner identifies no other indefinite term in those
claims, we likewise reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–23.
Rejection 2
In rejecting claim 12 as anticipated by Ragnarsson, the Examiner fails
to identify an ingredient of Ragnarsson’s composition that corresponds to
the claimed “viscosity increasing agent.” See Office Act. 6–7 (failing to
identify a “viscosity increasing agent”). In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant
identifies that apparent deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection. See App.
Br. 16 (“the Examiner does not address the fact that each of independent
claims 12, 24, and 31 requires ‘a viscosity increasing agent . . . .’”). In the
Answer, the Examiner fails to address that deficiency and instead asserts that
the claimed viscosity itself (as opposed to a viscosity increasing agent)
would have been inherent in Ragnarsson’s composition. See Ans. 5–6, 30–
31.
A “viscosity increasing agent” is an affirmatively recited ingredient of
the composition of claim 12. Because the Examiner has failed to identify an
ingredient in Ragnarsson’s composition that meets that requirement of
claim 12, the Examiner fails to establish anticipation by Ragnarsson. See In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the
initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). We therefore reverse the
rejection.
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

6
Because all remaining claims subject to Rejection 2 likewise require a
“viscosity increasing agent,” either directly or through claim dependency,
we likewise reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–31.
Rejections 3–9
The Appellant argues Rejections 3–9, all of which involve Nakel as
the primary reference, as a group. See App. Br. 11–13. We select claim 12
as representative, and the remaining claims subject to Rejections 3–9 will
stand or fall with claim 12.
The Examiner finds that Nakel teaches a beverage concentrate that
includes the ingredients required by claim 12 in amounts that overlap those
recited by claim 12, except that Nakel teaches an acidulant concentration “of
0.24 to 5.25%” rather than the claimed “about 8 to about 60 percent.”
Ans. 7. However, the Examiner finds that “‘about’ 8% is embraced as
5.25% is about 8%.” Id. In the Response to Argument section of the
Answer, the Examiner also indicates that acidulant concentration is a result-
effective variable; that the “claimed range is wide (i.e. about 8%–60%),
adjustable and optimizable”; and that “Appellants haven’t shown there is
criticality or unexpected results from adjusting the amount of acid known to
affect pH.” Id. at 23–24. The Examiner also finds that “the ingredients are
all a function of taste/acidity,” and that “it would still be obvious to one
skilled in the art to add more acid as it affects the taste (i.e the more acid, the
lower the pH such as Coca-Cola® (more acidic) vs. water (less acidic)) to
change the taste profile.” Id. at 24; see Office Act. 8 (finding that “[t]he
amount of acid effects the pH” and that “increasing the amount of acid
lowers the pH and effects [sic] the taste.”).
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

7
As to the claimed viscosity, the Examiner finds that Nakel discloses
the use of some of the same ingredients identified as viscosity increasing
agents by the Appellant’s Specification, and that a person of ordinary skill in
the art “would have been able to adjust the viscosity to any suitable level by
carrying out routine experimentation depending upon the desired use and
consistency.” Id. at 9. The Examiner also finds that “mak[ing] a beverage
concentrate viscous with a higher dilution factor at destination” would
“reduce transportation and shipping costs.” Id.
As to the “wherein” clause of claim 12, the Examiner finds that
“[w]hat happens when diluted is expected to happen because the same
claimed ingredients are taught in similar proportions,” and indicates that the
recited diluted concentrations would flow naturally from the composition.
Id. at 11.
In view of those and other findings less material to the issues raised
by the Appellant in this appeal, the Examiner concludes that the subject
matter of claim 12 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art.
The Appellant argues that Nakel’s acidulant range of 0.24–5.25%
does not fall within the scope of the claimed range of “about 8 to about 60
percent.” App. Br. 11–12. Relevant to the Examiner’s optimization
analysis, the Appellant also argues that “the Examiner offers no evidence
that increasing acid from the maximum disclosed in Nakel would have been
viewed as in any way desirable,” and that, by “set[ting] a maximum acid
content of 5.25% by weight for beverage concentrates,” Nakel “teach[es]
away from the significantly higher claimed range.” Reply Br. 2–3.
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

8
Even assuming that the Appellant is correct that Nakel’s upper limit
of 5.25% does not fall within the scope of “about 8,” we are not persuaded
of reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that routine optimization
would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed acidulant
concentration. Although the Appellant argues that Nakel teaches away from
acidulant concentrations as high as 8%, the Appellant does not persuasively
identify a disclosure in Nakel that criticizes, disparages, or otherwise teaches
away from acidulant concentrations somewhat higher than the disclosed
5.25%. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nakel’s
disclosure of a range that is different than the range recited by claim 12, of
itself, does not constitute teaching away. Cf. id. (“The prior art’s mere
disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away
from any of the[] [disclosed] alternatives . . . .”).
Consistent with the Examiner’s analysis, Nakel discloses that the
concentration of acidulant “depends on the beverage composition involved,
the level of calcium included, as well as the mouthfeel and stability
properties desired.” Nakel at 5:5:10. The Appellant does not dispute the
Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would also have
known that acidulant concentration affects taste. Thus, acidulant
concentration was a known result-effective variable. See In re Applied
Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A recognition in the
prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the
variable result-effective.”).
“Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable . . . is
ordinarily within the skill of the art.” Id. at 1295. “Normally, it is to be
expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

9
be an unpatentable modification.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA
1955). Although a result-effective-variable rationale may be rebutted by
evidence showing that the claimed range is critical and produces unexpected
results, see Applied Materials, 692 F.3d at 1297, the Appellant in this case
does not refute the Examiner’s findings of lack of criticality and unexpected
results attributable to acidulant concentration. Cf. In re Huang, 100 F.3d
135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (burden of showing that unexpected results
support conclusion of nonobviousness rests with the Appellant).
Moreover, although we recognize that, in some cases, a prior art’s
disclosure of a specific range may indicate that the “determination of
optimum values outside that range may not [have been] obvious,” see In re
Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907 (CCPA 1972), the record in this case indicates that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have felt strictly confined to
the range disclosed by Nakel. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have known that acid concentration affects properties of the
composition including taste, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that somewhat higher acidulant concentrations than Nakel’s
5.25% could be used to achieve, e.g., a more sour composition.
Additionally, we observe that the Burkes patent, which lists the same
assignee as Nakel, discloses a very similar calcium-supplemented beverage
concentrate composition that includes up to 8.25% by weight acid. See
Burkes at Abstract. Thus, the record as a whole supports the Examiner’s
determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized
the acid concentration of the composition to achieve desired characteristics,
and that such optimization reasonably would have led to compositions that
have acidulant concentrations that fall within the scope of claim 12.
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

10
Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error
in the Examiner’s determination that the claimed acidulant concentration
would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
The Appellant also argues that Nakel does not teach or suggest the
claimed viscosity. App. Br. 12–13. In particular, the Appellant argues that
the claimed viscosity is not inherent in Nakel’s compositions, that Nakel
addresses a problem that is different from the problem with which the
Appellant was concerned, and that Nakel does not disclose acidulant
concentration that overlaps the claimed range. Id. at 13. As to the
Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to increase viscosity to reduce transportation costs, the Appellant
asserts that “add[ing] a viscosity modifying agent . . . does nothing to reduce
the mass of the composition.” Id.
Those arguments are not persuasive. Like the Appellant’s disclosure,
Nakel discloses beverage concentrates. As described above, Nakel discloses
ingredients and concentrations of those ingredients that overlap those of
claim 12, with the exception that Nakel discloses a somewhat lower range
(up to 5.25%) of acidulant concentration. Nakel also discloses the use of
some of the same ingredients that are disclosed by the Appellant’s
Specification as suitable viscosity increasing agents. Compare Nakel at
9:28–31 (disclosing sucrose and fructose), 9:2–3 (disclosing, e.g., “gums”
and “celluloses”) with Spec. ¶ 25 (disclosing “gum” and “cellulose
derivative” as viscosity increasing agents) ¶ 27 (“Viscosity can also be
increased by adding . . . sucrose, fructose . . . .”).
As set forth above, we agree with the Examiner that, in view of the
prior art, beverage concentrates having ingredients and concentrations that
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

11
fall within the scope of claim 12 would have been obvious. The Appellant
provides no persuasive reason to believe that the viscosity of the
composition does not flow naturally from the ingredients and ingredient
concentrations of the composition.2 The Appellant’s argument that
Example 1 of the Specification shows that “two compositions can have very
similar formulations but different viscosities,” App. Br. 12–13, fails to show
or even suggest that compositions rendered obvious by Nakel would not
have possessed viscosities falling within the claimed range, particularly in
view of the fact that Nakel discloses the use of “gums,” see Nakel at 9:2–3,
and Example 1 specifically uses a gum as a viscosity increasing agent, while
the control sample does not, see Spec. ¶ 58 Table 3.
Additionally, the Appellant does not persuasively dispute that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the ingredients and
ingredient concentrations to achieve desired concentrate viscosities,
including viscosities that fall within the scope of claim 12. As noted above,

2 See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255–56 (CCPA 1977) (“Where, as here,
the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or
are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can
require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or
inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.”); Ex parte
Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) (“The fact that appellant has
recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following
the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the
differences would otherwise be obvious.”); see also In re Kubin, 561 F.3d
1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Even if no prior art of record explicitly
discusses the [limitation], [applicants’] application itself instructs that [the
limitation] is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims on the
[claimed invention], but rather a property necessarily present in [the claimed
invention].”).
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

12
both Nakel’s disclosure and the Appellant’s claimed subject matter are
directed to beverage concentrates, and the Appellant does not persuasively
identify any difference between the purposes of the concentrates that would
have led to differences in desired viscosities. Although the Appellant
observes that “Nakel is concerned with delivery of calcium in a beverage
syrup or concentrate,” while the Appellant’s Specification is not concerned
with calcium, the Appellant does not explain why that would cause a person
of ordinary skill following the disclosure of Nakel to produce compositions
with viscosities different from those of claim 12. See App. Br. 13. Indeed,
similar to the Appellant, see Spec. ¶ 2, a significant concern of Nakel is
composition stability, see Nakel at Abstract, 2:5–6 (observing that
“[s]tability against precipitation is a very significant problem for beverage
concentrates . . . .”).
In that regard, we observe that the Appellant does not persuasively
dispute the Examiner’s findings of lack of criticality and unexpected results
attributable to the claimed viscosity range. E.g., Ans. 10. Although both the
Appeal Brief and the Specification use the word “surprising” to describe an
alleged stability improvement when a xanthan gum viscosity increasing
agent is used, e.g., App. Br. 13; Spec. ¶ 67, the Appellant fails to show—or
even allege—that the relevant comparative example represents the closest
prior art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness,
the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior
art.”). The comparative example does not include a gum; the Appellant does
not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Nakel discloses the use of a gum and
other viscosity increasing agents that are also disclosed by the Appellant’s
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

13
Specification. Moreover, Nakel specifically describes “gums” and
“celluloses” as “emulsion stabilizers” relevant to the “flavor component” of
Nakel’s composition. See Nakel at 9:3.
Additionally, the relied upon example includes 1.28 wt% xanthan
gum, but claim 12 is not limited to 1.28 wt% viscosity increasing agent (nor
is it limited to the use of xanthan gum as the viscosity increasing agent), and
the Appellant does not argue or provide evidence that a single example is
representative of the full scope of claim 12. See In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d
1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (“Establishing that one (or a small number of)
species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of
[the CCPA] that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be
commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to
support.’” (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971)). On this
record, the Appellant has not shown that criticality or unexpected results
support a conclusion of nonobviousness in this case.
Considering the record as a whole, we are not persuaded that the
recited viscosity range renders the claimed subject matter nonobvious. Cf.
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The law is replete
with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the
prior art is some range or other variable within the claims . . . . [and] in such
a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical,
generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results
relative to the prior art range.” (citations omitted)).
The Appellant raises no other arguments concerning claim 12. We
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

14
Rejection 10
The Appellant argues the claims subject to Rejection 10 as a group.
We select claim 12 as representative, and the remaining claims will stand or
fall with claim 12.
The Examiner finds that Burkes teaches or suggests beverage
concentrates comprising the ingredients recited by claim 12 in
concentrations that overlap the concentrations recited by claim 12, except
that Burkes does not specify the amount of viscosity increasing agent. See
Ans. 19–20. However, the Examiner finds that Burkes teaches some of the
same viscosity increasing agents (sweeteners and gums) that are disclosed
by the Appellant’s Specification, and that it would have been obvious “to
adjust the viscosity to any suitable level by carrying out routine
experimentation depending upon the desired use and consistency.” Id. at 21.
The Examiner finds that “[t]here does not appear to be anything critical with
respect to the properties claimed.” Id. at 22.
As to the “wherein” clause of claim 12, the Examiner finds that
“[w]hat happens when diluted is expected to happen because the same
claimed ingredients are taught in similar proportions,” and indicates that the
recited diluted concentrations would flow naturally from the composition.
Id.
In view of those and other findings less material to the issues raised
by the Appellant, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claim 12
would have been obvious in view of Burkes.
The Appellant argues that “Burkes does not appear to discuss
viscosity at all.” App. Br. 14. We disagree. Although Burkes does not
numerically specify the viscosity of its compositions, Burkes does state, for
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

15
example, that at a certain stage of Burkes’ mixing process, “the composition
is very viscous.” Burkes at 17:24. Burkes also expressly discloses that
“gums/thickeners” may be added to its composition, id. at 18:36 and it
discloses, e.g., xanthan, id. at 10:34. Thus, Burkes attributes some
significance to the viscosity of a beverage concentrate composition, and it
expressly identifies ingredients—some of which are the same as those
disclosed by the Appellant’s Specification—for modifying viscosity.
Burkes does not state the viscosity of its compositions, but, as above
with respect to Rejections 3–9, the Appellant does not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s determination that routine optimization of the components and
concentrations of Burkes’ composition would reasonably have led to a wide
range of suitable viscosities, depending on desired concentrate
characteristics, including viscosities that fall within the scope of claim 12.
The fact that Burkes does not expressly disclose desired viscosities indicates
that it would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select
ingredients and concentrations to achieve desired viscosity, including
viscosities that fall within the scope of claim 12. As discussed above, the
Appellant does not persuasively establish that criticality or unexpected
results support a conclusion of nonobviousness in this case. Cf. Woodruff,
919 F.2d at 1578 (“The law is replete with cases in which the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other
variable within the claims . . . . [and] in such a situation, the applicant must
show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the
claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.”
(citations omitted)).
Appeal 2018-008560
Application 13/791,390

16
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 12 would have been
obvious in view of Burkes.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–23 112 Indefiniteness 12–23
12–31 102(e) Ragnarsson 12–31
12–17, 20–
28, 31 103(a) Nakel
12–17, 20–28,
31
23 103(a) Nakel, Braun 23
25–28 103(a) Nakel, Zablocki 25–28
23 103(a) Nakel, Lee 23
18, 29 103(a) Nakel, Given 18, 29
12–17, 19–
28, 30, 31 103(a) Nakel, Skaggs
12–17, 19–28,
30, 31
23 103(a) Nakel, Skaggs, Braun 23
12–31 103(a) Burkes 12–31
Overall
Outcome 12–31
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