null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 18, 2019

15819736 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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.
15/819,736 11/21/2017 Paul Jeran 84845314 2004
22879 7590 10/18/2019
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
THIES, BRADLEY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
barbl@hp.com
ipa.mail@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL JERAN

Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MARK NAGUMO, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 13–15. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Nov. 21, 2017
(“Spec.”), the Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 3, 2018 (“Non-Final
Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Sept. 14, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s
Answer dated Dec. 12, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 16,
2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP is the
applicant and also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE3
The invention relates to a printer cartridge for toner, ink, and other
materials that also includes a memory enabling an information exchange
between the cartridge and the printer controller. Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification
describes using the memory on a printing material cartridge to ensure that a
printer or group of printers will not print with an unauthorized cartridge. Id.
¶ 13.
Claims 1, 8, and 13, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphasis added).
1. A printing material cartridge to be installed in a
printer having a printer controller, the cartridge comprising:
a container to contain a printing material; and
a memory to enable an exchange of information between
the cartridge and the printer controller when the cartridge is
installed in the printer, the memory including:
a first write once then read only memory with a first
memory address;
a second write once then read only memory with a
second memory address, the first memory address having
information to prompt the printer controller to write a printer
identifier to the second memory address; and
a memory controller to control data storage and retrieval
to and from the write once then read only memories and to
control the exchange of information with the printer controller.
8. A printing material cartridge, comprising:
a container containing a printing material; and

3 This appeal is related to Appeal Nos. 2018-005676, 2018-005677, and
2019-002214. See Appeal Br. 1 (identifying Appeal No. 2018-005676 and
the Notice of Appeal filed in Appeal No. 2019-002214).
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

3
a memory to enable an exchange of information between
the cartridge and a printer controller when the cartridge is
installed in a printer, the memory storing an identifier
identifying a fleet of printers authorized to use the cartridge.
13. A printing material cartridge, comprising:
a container containing a printing material; and
a write once then read only memory affixed to the
container, the memory including a single bit first address for a
printer identification prompt and a second address for a printer
identifier:
the single bit first address having:
a logic 1 state representing a prompt value to, during an
authorization process when a cartridge with the memory is
installed in a printer, prompt a printer controller to read the
second address; or
a logic 0 state representing a no prompt value to, during
an authorization process when a cartridge with the memory is
installed in a printer, end the authorization process; and
the second address having:
an identification value with a printer identifier; or
a no identification value to, during the authorization
process, prompt a printer controller reading the second memory
address to write a printer identifier to the second memory
address.
Appeal Br. 11, 12 (Claims Appendix).
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

4
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims in light of the evidentiary record and the case law presented in
this Appeal, and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Kondo4 in view of Johnson5 for the reasons provided on pages 3–12 of
the Non-Final Action. The Examiner also rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over the combination of Kondo and Johnson in further view of
Asauchi6 for the reasons provided on pages 12–14 of the Non-Final Action.
Appellant separately argues independent claims 1, 8, 13, and
dependent claim 10, and groups together dependent claims 2 and 157 with
claim 8. Appeal Br. 3–10. Therefore, in view of the lack of arguments
directed to the remaining dependent claims, claims 3–7 stand or fall with
claim 1, claims 2, 9, and 15 stand or fall with claim 8. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We consider the arguments advanced by Appellant in
support of patentability of claim 13 to the extent applicable to the separate
rejection of claim 14. We separately address claims 1, 8, 10, and 13 below.

4 US 2008/0219692 A1, published Sept. 11, 2008.
5 US 2004/0212651 A1, published Oct. 28, 2004.
6 US 2010/0253718 A1, published Oct. 7, 2010.
7 In the heading on page 4 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant groups together
independent claim 8 and dependent claims 2 and 15. We understand
Appellant’s references to claim 13 in the argument that follows the heading
to be a typographical error for claim 15, because the argument is based on a
claim limitation that appears in claim 15 but not in claim 13.
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

5
Claim 1
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Kondo and Johnson discloses a cartridge memory with a
prompt at one memory address for a printer to write a printer identifier to a
second, different memory address when the cartridge is installed in the
printer as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellant, Kondo
does not disclose a printer prompt because Kondo’s process for writing
cartridge identification information to ROM region 322 in cartridge memory
32 is from an “external apparatus” rather than from Kondo’s printer. Id. at
5–7 (citing Kondo ¶¶ 33, 34, 38–41, Figs. 1, 4).
Appellant concurs that Johnson’s memory 21 includes a memory
address at which printer identifier 14 is stored. Id. at 7. Appellant argues,
however, that “there is no other address in Johnson’s memory 21 with a
prompt to prompt the printer controller to write an identifier 14 to memory
21.” Id. Appellant notes that Johnson discloses that printer 12 queries the
component to determine whether printer identifier 14 stored in component
memory 21 matches the ID for printer 12. If the answer is no, the printer
queries the component a second time to determine whether the component is
new. If the answer to the second query is yes, then the printer writes its own
ID to memory 21. Id. at 7–8 (citing Johnson ¶¶ 48–50, Fig. 6, steps 304, 306,
308, 310). Appellant contends “it seems likely the printer writes this ID to
the same address queried in step 304 –– the address of printer identifier 14 in
memory 21” — rather than another different memory address. Id. at 8.
The Examiner responds that both Kondo and Johnson disclose a
cartridge memory with a prompt at one memory address for a printer to write
a printer identifier to a second different memory address when the cartridge
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

6
is installed in the printer. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that Kondo discloses
cartridge memory 32 with multiple memory addresses in Figure 3 and a
prompt in S1 of Figure 4 to prompt the controller to write identification
information to a second memory address in S2. Id. (citing Kondo Figs. 3, 4).
The Examiner finds that Kondo’s “external apparatus” is external to the
cartridge and, thus, includes the printer, and that the main CPU of the
printer, which is the only other CPU disclosed in Kondo, communicates with
the cartridge. Id. (citing Kondo ¶¶ 33, 42, Fig. 2). Kondo’s Figures 3(A) and
4 are shown below:

Figure 3(A) shows cartridge chip 30 with flash memory 32 having multiple
regions including read only memory (ROM) region 322, and Figure 4 is a
flow chart showing the steps of writing cartridge identification information
to a ROM region of a flash memory. Kondo ¶¶ 16, 17.
The Examiner finds that Johnson discloses a memory with multiple
memory addresses. Id. at 6 (citing Johnson ¶ 27, Fig. 2, memory 21).
Johnson’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

7

Figure 2 is a block diagram of replaceable printer component system 10.
Johnson ¶ 7. As shown in Figure 2, printer component 20 comprises memory
21 which includes at least one printer unique identifier (PUI) 14 and
component unique identifier 22. Id. ¶ 27. According to Johnson, PUI index
84 stores a list of printers for which use with printer component 20 is
authorized. Id.
The Examiner finds that Johnson queries (step 304 prompt) whether
the printer has a unique identifier and discloses a further query in step 308 at
a second memory address. Ans. 6 (citing Johnson ¶ 48, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, steps
304, 308). Johnson’s Figure 6 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

8

Figure 6 is a flow diagram of a method of managing a replaceable printer
component tool. Johnson ¶ 11. According to Johnson, step 304 queries
whether a printer unique identifier 14 stored in memory 21 matches the
printer unique identifier of the printer into which printer component 20 is
installed. Id. ¶ 48. Johnson discloses that an affirmative response results in
permitting print jobs and other functions (step 306). Id. ¶ 49. Johnson
describes a negative response resulting in a further query (step 308) as to
whether printer component 20 is a new component that has not been
installed previously on any printer. Id. As shown in Figure 6, regardless of
whether the response to the query of step 308 is affirmative or negative, the
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

9
controller is prompted to write to memory (shown as separate boxes 310 or
322).
The Examiner further finds that Johnson discloses writing a serial
number (S/N) onto the memory of the cartridge in step 322 of Figure 6 if the
step 304 and step 308 queries are negative. Thus, the Examiner finds
Johnson discloses an address for a printer identification “prompt” and a
separate address for a printer “identifier” as required by claim 1. Ans. 6.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that Kondo’s “external
apparatus” writes the cartridge identification information to the cartridge
memory chip before the cartridge is installed in an “image forming
“apparatus,” therefore, “[i]t makes no sense” for the printer and the “external
apparatus” to be one and the same because if the printer already knows what
it will write and what it will read, it already knows whether or not the
cartridge is suitable for use without writing to or reading from the cartridge.
Reply Br. 1–2. According to Appellant, what makes sense is that the external
apparatus writes the information and the printer reads the information. Id. at
2 (citing Kondo ¶¶ 33, 42, Figs. 1, 4). Appellant maintains that Johnson’s
printer identifier 14 exists at a single memory address and, therefore, cannot
be both a prompt or a no prompt value at one address and an identification
value at another address. Id. at 3.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting the claims as obvious over the teachings of
Kondo and Johnson. Specifically, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that Kondo discloses a cartridge memory with a prompt at
one memory address for a printer to write identification information to a
second memory address and that Johnson’s replaceable printer component
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

10
comprises a memory address that prompts a printer controller to write a fleet
identifier to a memory address separate from the memory address storing a
prompt, as claim 1 requires. The preponderance of the evidence in this
appeal record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious in view of Johnson. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in
the Answer, including the Response to Argument section, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (noting that 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the
prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art). If the Examiner’s burden is met,
the burden then shifts to the Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with
argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 5–6) that
both Kondo and Johnson disclose a printer cartridge comprising memory
with multiple memory addresses. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
findings (id. at 5) that Kondo discloses the main CPU of the printer
communicates with Kondo’s printer cartridge and that S1 in Kondo’s Figure
4 is a prompt to the controller. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

11
finding (id. at 6) that Johnson’s printer controller queries the memory of the
cartridge and is prompted to write a printer identifier to the memory when a
cartridge with the memory is installed in a printer. Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner’s finding (id.) that Johnson discloses multiple queries
are made by Johnson’s controller.
The record supports the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5) that Kondo
discloses a prompt to write identification information to a second memory
address when the printer cartridge is installed. Kondo ¶ 39, Fig. 4, S1, S2.
Appellant acknowledges that Kondo discloses a process for writing cartridge
identification information to ROM region 322 in cartridge memory 32 at
paragraphs 33 and 34 and again at paragraphs 38–41. Appeal Br. 5–6.
Kondo further discloses that this command is through disclosed “serial
communications.” Kondo ¶ 33. The record supports the Examiner’s finding
(Non-Final Act. 4) that Kondo’s cartridge and printer controller exchange
information “via three signal lines 5A to 5C so that serial communications
may be carried out therebetween.” Kondo ¶ 26. Appellant’s assertion
(Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2) that the write to ROM prompt to write the
identification information to the cartridge’s ROM region 322 comes from an
“external apparatus” that is not only external to the cartridge, but excludes
the printer specifically, is not supported by the preponderance of the
evidence in this appeal record. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive
because Kondo uses the term “external apparatus” in one instance as an
example for the function, and therefore this term is not limiting as to the
apparatus itself. Kondo ¶ 33 (“An external apparatus, for example, may send
a write-to-ROM command to the CPU 31 by way of the serial
communications.”).
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

12
Appellant’s argument is also not persuasive of error because the
rejection is over the combination of Kondo and Johnson and the Examiner
relies on Johnson for disclosing writing a printer identifier to the memory of
the cartridge. Non-Final Act. 4–5 (citing Johnson ¶¶ 48–53, Fig. 6). The
record supports the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 6) that Johnson discloses a
query (prompt) for whether the printer has a unique identifier. Johnson ¶ 48,
Fig. 6, 304. The record also supports the Examiner’s finding that a further
query in step 308 (Johnson Fig. 6, 308) indicates the query is subsequent to
the query in step 304 and, therefore, has its own memory location.
Appellant’s position (Reply Br. 3) that the Examiner’s finding is insufficient
to establish obviousness by the combination of Kondo and Johnson is not
persuasive of error, because it does not adequately show that Johnson’s
printer controller is not set up to write a printer ID to another memory
address or that it would not have been obvious to do so, particularly in view
of Johnson’s memory having multiple memory addresses.
The record also supports the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 6) that Johnson
discloses writing a serial number into the memory of the cartridge in
response to a negative prompt that is separate from the identifier located at a
unique address in the memory. Johnson ¶ 51. Appellant asserts that, because
Johnson does not say where in memory 21 the printer writes its own ID at
step 310 shown in Figure 6, the printer “likely” writes this ID to the same
address queried in step 304. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant’s position that the
memory address to which Johnson writes this ID is “likely” to be one of
Johnson’s multiple memory addresses indicates the obviousness of
Johnson’s printer writing to an alternative memory address instead.
Appellant’s argument, therefore, is not persuasive of Examiner error in
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

13
concluding that it would have been obvious from Johnson’s disclosure for
the printer to write to a different memory address.
Moreover, Johnson’s paragraph 51 discloses that printer 12 writes a
serial number into the memory of the printer component at a negative
response prompt (because the printer component had been previously
installed elsewhere) in order to save the information in printer 12 for
tracking the presence of printer component 20 (shown in box 324 of Fig. 6)
and a travel/use history of printer component 20 can be obtained from the
memory of printer component 20 as well (box 322 of Fig. 6). Appellant does
not adequately explain why the same memory location for printer identifier
14 necessarily would have been used for tracking the travel/use history of
printer component 20. Nor does Appellant adequately explain why a skilled
artisan would have understood the separate boxes in the Figure 6 flow
diagram for writing printer unique identifiers to be the same memory
location rather than separate memory locations, particularly in view of
Johnson’s memory 21 having multiple addresses.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as well as
claims 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kondo and Johnson.
Claim 8
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 because
Johnson’s disclosure that printer identifier 14 may identify multiple printers
does not disclose that printer identifier 14 is used to identify “a group of
printers owned or operated by a single entity or identified as being subject to
an obligation to limit printing to the group.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing Johnson
¶ 20). According to Appellant, “fleet” is “specially defined to cover the
commercial situation in which ‘the parties to a print services contract may
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

14
wish to limit printing to specific cartridges supplied under the contract.’” Id.
(quoting Spec. ¶ 13).
The Examiner responds that Johnson’s disclosure that a printer unique
identifier uniquely identifies one or more printers for association with the
printer component renders this claim limitation obvious. Ans. 4 (citing
Johnson ¶ 20). The Examiner determines that a “fleet” is “a group operated
under unified command.” Id. The Examiner finds that Johnson’s disclosure
that its identifier “represents one or more printers for which use of the
printer component is exclusively authorized” and that “[t]he same single
printer unique identifier 14 or plurality of different printer unique identifiers
14 can be written into every printer component array 254” teaches “a single
identifier identifying a group of printers owned by a single entity” and “a
single identifier identifying a group of printers identified as being subject to
an obligation to limit printing to the group.” Id. (citing Johnson Abstract,
¶¶ 5, 39, 42, Figs. 4, 5).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 8. Appellant does not dispute the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 4) that Johnson discloses a unique identifier that
represents one or more printers for which use of the printer component is
exclusively authorized. Appellant’s assertion that “[t]he distinction between
multiple printers in general and the specific group of printers in a fleet is
significant” is based on a “commercial situation” or purpose. Reply Br. 1.
The Examiner’s determination (Non-Final Act. 8; Ans. 4) that it would have
been obvious from Johnson’s disclosure that the identified printers are a
“fleet” of printers in order for the cartridge to work properly with multiple
printers is supported by the record. Johnson discloses an association of
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

15
multiple printers with its printer components and that the purpose of the
printer component comprising a memory that stores an identifier for one or
more printers is to ensure the “authorized” use of the printer component.
Johnson Abstract, ¶ 20. Similarly, Appellant’s printing material cartridge
memory “ensure[s] that a printer will not print with an unauthorized
cartridge.” Spec. ¶ 13. Therefore, Johnson’s use of an identifier to associate
multiple printers for the purpose of ensuring “authorized” use with a printing
material cartridge serves the same commercial function as Appellant’s fleet
identifier that “limit[s] printing to the group.” Compare Spec. ¶ 15, with
Johnson Abstract.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as well as
claims 2, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kondo and Johnson.

Claim 10
Appellant contends that the combination of Kondo and Johnson does
not disclose a cartridge memory with a prompt at one memory address for a
printer to write a printer identifier to a second, different memory address as
argued with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10. Because we are not
persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments challenging the rejection of
claim 1, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Kondo and Johnson for the same reasons discussed above in
connection with claim 1.

Claim 13
In addition to the arguments presented with respect to claim 1
distinguishing the disclosures of Johnson (Appeal Br. 5–7), which we do not
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

16
find persuasive of error as discussed above, Appellant contends that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 because Kondo does not disclose a
single bit one-time programmable region 323 in the cartridge memory that
meets the prompt/no prompt value limitation on the first memory address.
Id. at 8–9. According to Appellant, Kondo’s OTP region 323 is not involved
in writing or reading cartridge identification. Id. at 9. Appellant contends
that Kondo’s cartridge identification information is written to ROM region
322 and the control program used to write the cartridge information resides
in EEPROM region 324. Id. (citing Kondo ¶ 33). Appellant asserts that
Johnson also does not disclose this limitation because Johnson discloses
only one memory address related to the printer ID. Id.
The Examiner responds that Kondo discloses writing data to other
regions and specifically states that the OTP region 323 may be used to store
an information piece indicating an event occurring only once such as using
bitwise data to set up a flag. Ans. 7 (citing Kondo ¶¶ 30, 31). The Examiner
responds that Johnson also discloses the value limitations of claim 13
because Johnson teaches that “memory 21 optionally comprises a one-time
writable memory so that only one printer unique identifier 14 can be written
to printer component 20 only a single time.” Id. (quoting Johnson ¶ 28). The
Examiner explains that Johnson’s printer controller queries the cartridge
memory and is prompted to write a printer identifier to the memory when a
cartridge with memory is installed in a printer. Id. (citing Johnson ¶¶ 48–53,
Fig. 6).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates that Kondo does not describe a
printer prompt as recited in claim 1, that the same analysis applies to claim
13 which requires a single bit first memory address for a printer
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

17
identification prompt with a second address for a printer identifier, that
Johnson does not disclose the elements missing from Kondo, and that
Johnson’s controller does not prompt a memory address different from the
address of the printer identifier. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting the claims over the cited prior art references. As
discussed above in connection with claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s finding that Kondo and Johnson both disclose memory
information being used as a prompt and that Johnson discloses writing
identifier information in response to a prompt that is separate from the
identifier located at a unique address in the cartridge memory. The record
also supports the Examiner’s finding that Kondo discloses that OTP region
323 may be used to store information for a single event with bitwise data
and that writing data can be to regions other than to ROM region 322.
Kondo ¶¶ 30, 31. Therefore, Kondo’s disclosure is not limited to ROM
region 322 for writing Kondo’s cartridge identification information as
Appellant contends (Appeal Br. 9). In a determination of obviousness, a
reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested
to one having ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874
F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the [prior art] patent discloses a
multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular
formulation less obvious.”). Moreover, “a reference is not limited to the
disclosure of specific working examples.” In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651
(CCPA 1972) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2019-002174
Application 15/819,736

18
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Kondo and Johnson, as well as the rejection of claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kondo, Johnson, and Asauchi.
For these reasons and those the Examiner provides, we uphold the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–10 and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the cited prior art references.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 13, 15 103 Kondo, Johnson 1–10, 13, 15
14 103 Kondo, Johnson, Asauchi
14
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 13–15

AFFIRMED