SMITHS MEDICAL ASD, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 7, 2022

2021001028 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2022)

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. 15/297,731 10/19/2016 Andrew Crisman 0109/0053 1081 135866 7590 01/07/2022 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO 717 NORTH FAYETTE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER FANG, VICTORIA ZHANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/07/2022 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 ANDREW CRISMAN and ALYSA LAUREN GRANATA Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 Technology Center 3700 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6-13 and 15-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Smiths Medical ASD, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 1-5 and 14 have been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Specification describes that the “invention relates to echogenic medical devices, and more particularly a needle that may be used for peripheral nerve block (PNB) procedures having echogenic features at its patient end.” Spec.3 ¶ 1. The Abstract describes: An echogenic needle may have at least one V-shaped spiral groove formed at its distal portion adjacent to its patient end. The walls of the groove are orthogonal to each other. The groove is titled at a given angle from a neutral position toward the proximal end of the needle so that when the needle is inserted into the patient at an insertion angle under ultrasound imaging, the ultrasound wave emitted from the ultrasound transducer is reflected in a substantially reverse direction back to the transducer by at least one wall of the spiral groove. A pair of crisscrossing grooves may be spirally wound about the distal portion of the needle with each groove being tilted to the given angle to enhance echogeneity. The echogeneity of the needle may also be enhanced by increasing the pitch density of each groove while maintaining the crisscrossing groves at their neutral position. Spec. Abstract. 3 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed October 19, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated June 22, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed September 10, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated October 9, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Appellant’s Reply Brief filed November 26, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 3 Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 6. A needle for viewing under ultrasound imaging, comprising: a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis having an outer circumferential wall, a proximal end and a distal end including a sharp tip, one groove having walls formed spirally from adjacent the sharp tip a predetermined distance along the shaft away from the sharp tip, the one groove tilted from a neutral position defined to be were the walls of the groove formed orthogonal to each other relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft to a tilt angle position whereby the walls are shifted together relative to the outer circumferential wall of the shaft toward the proximal end of the shaft so that an ultrasound wave from an ultrasound transducer directed to the shaft is reflected in a substantially reverse direction back to the transducer by at least one of the walls of the one groove when the shaft is positioned at an insertion angle for insertion into a subject. Appeal Br. 15-16. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Mitchell US 8,617,079 B2 Dec. 31, 2013 Matsuzawa US 2012/0253297 A1 Oct. 4, 2012 Iwase et al. US 2014/0336687 A1 Nov. 13, 2014 Syed et al. (“Syed”) US 2016/0120509 A1 May 5, 2016 Sato JP 2010-194013 A Sept. 9, 2010 REJECTIONS I. Claims 6-13 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Syed in view of Sato, as evidenced by Iwase and Mitchell. Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 4 II. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Syed in view of Sato, as evidenced by Iwase and Mitchell, and further in view of Matsuzawa. OPINION 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 the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the argued claims in light of each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejections. Obviousness in view of Syed in view of Sato, as evidenced by Iwase and Mitchell Independent Claims 6 and 18; Dependent Claim 10 With respect to independent claim 6, the Examiner finds that Syed teaches needle 110 for viewing under ultrasound imaging. Final Act. 3; Syed ¶¶ 30, 31. The Examiner further finds that Syed’s needle includes the claimed “shaft extending along a longitudinal axis having an outer circumferential wall, a proximal end and a distal end including a sharp tip.” Final Act. 4; Syed ¶¶ 9, 16, 29, 30, Fig. 1. The Examiner finds that Syed teaches groove 130, having walls, and “formed spirally from adjacent the sharp tip a predetermined distance along the shaft away from the sharp tip.” Final Act. 4; Syed ¶¶ 29-31, 33. In this Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 5 regard, Syed teaches that needle 110 has “two grooves . . . beginning 180 degrees from each other and spiraling backwards from the tip 120 of the needle in a helical fashion.” Syed ¶ 30. The Examiner further finds that Syed teaches “that an ultrasound wave from an ultrasound transducer directed to the shaft is reflected in a substantially reverse direction back to the transducer by at least one of the walls of the one groove when the shaft is positioned at an insertion angle for insertion into a subject,” as claimed. Final Act. 4; Syed ¶¶ 31, 36. In this regard, Syed discloses [w]hen an ultrasound wave hits the needle area where the grooves 130 and 140 exist, there will be a distinct deflection of the wave to the ultrasound transducer (not shown) which can be used to provide to the practitioner, after appropriate processing, an image of the needle 110 as it is inserted into the artery. Syed ¶ 31. The Examiner admits that Syed does not explicitly teach the one groove tilted from a neutral position defined to be were the walls of the groove formed orthogonal to each other relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft to a tilt angle position whereby the walls are shifted together relative to the outer circumferential wall of the shaft toward the proximal end of the shaft. Final Act. 5. The Examiner turns to Sato for this feature. The Examiner finds that Sato teaches needle tube 12 for viewing under ultrasound imaging. Final Act. 5; Sato ¶¶ 2, 31, Fig. 4. The Examiner further finds that Sato’s needle tube includes the claimed “shaft extending along a longitudinal axis having Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 6 an outer circumferential wall, a proximal end and a distal end including a sharp tip.” Final Act. 5; Sato ¶¶ 24, 30, Fig. 4. The Examiner finds that Sato teaches recess 15, having walls 15A, 15B, and being “formed . . . from adjacent the sharp tip a predetermined distance along the shaft away from the sharp tip.” Final Act. 5; Sato ¶ 31, Fig. 4. Sato teaches that “recess 15 is formed in a circumferential groove shape.” Sato ¶ 31. The Examiner finds that Sato teaches that ultrasonic reflecting surface 15A and wall surface 15B (i.e., the claimed “walls of the groove”) are “formed orthogonal to each other” as claimed. Final Act. 6; Sato ¶ 31 (“The cross-sectional shape of the circumferential groove is, for example, a V shape with an apex angle of about 90°”). The Examiner further finds that Sato teaches that the groove is “tilted . . . relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft to a tilt angle position whereby the walls are shifted together relative to the outer circumferential wall of the shaft toward the proximal end of the shaft.” Final Act. 5-7. As the Examiner explains (id. at 6), Sato teaches that “ultrasonic reflection surface 15A [is] formed obliquely rearward from the surface of the needle tube 12.” Sato ¶ 24, Fig. 5; see also id. ¶ 24 (“the angle ϴ formed by each ultrasonic reflection surface 15A with respect to the axis of the needle tube 12 is set in a range of approximately 30° to 60°”); id. ¶ 31 (“The direction of the ultrasonic reflecting surface 15A is the same as that in the first embodiment, and the same effects as those in the first embodiment can be obtained.”). The Examiner also finds that Sato teaches “that an ultrasound wave from an ultrasound transducer directed to the shaft is reflected in a substantially reverse direction back to the transducer by at least one of the Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 7 walls of the one groove when the shaft is positioned at an insertion angle for insertion into a subject,” as claimed. Final Act. 7-8; Sato ¶¶ 2, 4, 9-11, 30. In this regard, Sato teaches that the “tip of the needle tube . . . protrudes into the sound scanning wave region [of an ultrasound endoscope] and is observed as a reflected echo image of an ultrasonic wave.” Sato ¶ 2. Sato further teaches that “depressions [formed] on the outer peripheral surface of the needle tube[ increase] the reflected echo intensity of the ultrasonic wave . . . and a clear ultrasonic echo image of the needle tube can be obtained.” Id. ¶ 4. Sato describes advantages over the prior art of having “the ultrasonic reflection surface formed obliquely rearward” and of ensuring “the space perpendicular to the ultrasonic reflection surface is not obstructed by the needle tube wall.” See id. ¶¶ 9-11, Fig. 6. Sato describes selecting a needle tube with an optimum angle of the ultrasonic reflecting surface “according to the situation.” Id. ¶ 30. As noted by the Examiner, this is because “the relative positional relationship among the ultrasonic probe 23, the needle tube 12, and the living tissue 100 is not necessarily constant due to differences in cases and doctor’s procedures.” Id. (quoted at Final Act. 8). Finally, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify the groove of the needle as taught by Syed to include the tilted orthogonal walled groove as taught by Sato. See Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner explains the elements/features could have been combined by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, and yielding nothing more than predictable results (“e.g., increasing reflected echo intensity of ultrasonic waves”). Id. at 9; Ans. 11; see also Sato ¶ 30 (considering the relative angle of ultrasound probe and needle); Iwase, Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 8 Figs. 1-3 (evidencing the tilting of a spiral V-shaped groove); Mitchell, Figs. 4-6 (evidencing the tilting of an orthogonal V-shaped groove). The Examiner finds that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, for example, in order to “optimize [the] shape and orientation of the groove on the needle according to the situation, . . . [or] in order to effectively increase reflected echo intensity of ultrasonic waves and to obtain a clear ultrasonic echo image of the needle.” Final Act. 9. Appellant contends that the “invention . . . requires that the groove that is formed spirally on the outer circumferential surface of the shaft of the needle” meets four requirements: (a) to have walls that are orthogonal to each other relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft in a neutral position, (b) to be tilted to a tilt angle position where the walls are shifted together relative to the outer circumferential wall of the shaft toward the proximal end of the shaft, (c) so that an ultrasound wave from an ultrasound transducer directed to the shaft is reflected in a substantially reverse direction back to the transducer by at least one of the walls of the one groove, (d) when the shaft is positioned at an insertion angle for insertion into a subject. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that, in Syed, “the focus on the echogenic reflectiveness in Syed is the pitch of the grooves,” and, therefore according to Appellant, “it is apparent that the walls, if any, of the grooves are not the echogenic means that reflects the sound waves.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends that “[i]nstead, it is the pitch of each groove that acts to reflect the ultrasound waves.” Id. We disagree. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that “a groove by definition has walls.” Final Act. 4; Ans. 6; see also Syed Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 9 ¶ 31 (“depth of a helix groove”), ¶ 33 (“depth of the grooves”). Regardless, as discussed above Syed teaches helix grooves 130, 140 formed on the needle, and further teaches that “[w]hen an ultrasound wave hits the needle area where the grooves 130 and 140 exist, there will be a distinct deflection of the wave to the ultrasound transducer.” Syed ¶¶ 30, 31; see Ans. 7 (“The grooves themselves, including their walls which act as surfaces to reflect ultrasound waves, are where the grooves exist.”).4 Appellant argues that “[s]ince Syed is silent on the shape of his groove, the conventional definition of a groove that has one continuous semi-circular cross section that extends along the length of the groove should be considered to be the groove disclosed by Syed” (Reply 3), but the Examiner’s rejection relies on Sato as “teach[ing] the orientation of the walls of each groove of the double helix.” See Ans. 6; Final Act. 8-9. And Sato, like Syed, uses the term “groove” to describe its recess 15. Sato ¶ 31. Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on the combined teachings of those references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Appellant next argues that “[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion in Sato of groove(s) that is/are spirally formed from adjacent the sharp tip of a needle to a predetermined distance, or groove(s) having walls orthogonal to 4 We recognize that Syed teaches that “[e]ach section 210, 220, 230 has [a] unique pattern on its surface of the needle 110,” resulting in “distinct reflection pattern[s]” of the ultrasound wave. Syed ¶ 32. And, that these unique patterns may be formed by helixes that spiral at differing pitches. Id. ¶ 30. However, this does not negate the fact that Syed teaches a groove that reflects the ultrasound waves. Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 10 each other at a tilted angle position formed at the outer circumferential surface of a shaft.” Appeal Br. 8-9. As to the former, the Examiner’s rejection relies on Syed as teaching a spirally formed groove. See Ans. 7. See also Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. As to the latter, we disagree. As discussed above, Sato teaches that “[t]he cross-sectional shape of the circumferential groove is, for example, a V shape with an apex angle of about 90°.” Sato ¶ 31; Ans. 7-8. Sato, thus, teaches a groove with walls orthogonal to each other. Regarding the claimed tilted angle position, we reproduce Sato’s Figure 5 and Appellant’s Figures 6b, 6c below as illustration: Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 11 Sato’s Figure 5 and Appellant’s Figures 6b, 6c are reproduced above. Both figures show a cross-sectional view of a portion of a needle having grooves formed therein. In Sato’s Figure 5, the right side of the page is the proximal direction and left right side of the page is the patient/distal direction. In Appellant’s Figures 6b, 6c, the left side of the page is the proximal direction and the right side of the page is the patient/distal direction. As can be seen in these figures, Sato’s ultrasonic reflection surface 15A (off of which ultrasonic signal U reflects, see Sato ¶¶ 28, 34, Fig. 6) corresponds to Appellant’s tilted wall 16w2’ (off of which ultrasound wave 28 reflects, see Spec. ¶ 27, Fig. 7). Similarly, Sato’s angle ϴ corresponds to Appellant’s angle α + 45° (under a construction that the neutral position requires a 45° angle on both sides of the groove5). Or, in other words, as the Examiner explains, Sato’s angle ϴ minus 45° is equal to Appellant’s angle α. See Final Act. 6 (“position of recess #15 defined by an angle ϴ_TiltAnglePosition formed by ultrasonic reflection surface #15A with respect to the axis of the needle tube #12, wherein tilt angle toward the 5 Appellant argues that the Examiner has interpreted this term incorrectly, pointing to the Examiner’s discussion at page 4 of the Examiner’s answer. See Reply Br. 2. In the Answer, however, the Examiner confirms that “the examiner has interpreted the ‘neutral position’ in light of the specification to refer to the walls of the one groove being orthogonal to each other AND the walls of the one groove each being 45° to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (see instant Fig. 4).” Ans. 4 (emphasis Examiner’s). The Examiner simply “notes that the claim does not preclude broadest reasonable interpretation of a neutral position being at e.g. ϴ_NeutralPosition = 25°.” Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 4-5. Because we affirm the Examiner’s rejections even when applying the narrower construction, we do not address this claim construction issue herein. Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 12 [proximal] end of needle tube . . . is ϴ_TiltAnglePosition minus ϴ_NeutralPosition,” where ϴ_NeutralPosition is 45°); Ans. 13-14. Sato discloses that angle ϴ may be “set in a range of approximately 30° to 60°.” Sato ¶ 24. Where ϴ_NeutralPosition is 45° and ϴ_TiltAnglePosition is 60°, the resulting tilt angle is 15° (i.e., 60° minus 45°). See Final Act. 6. Dependent claim 8 recites that the tilt angle (or α) is “between approximately 5° to 25°.” Appeal Br. 16. Claim 1, therefore, must be at least as broad as to include a tilt angle of 15°, which is within the range recited in claim 8. See AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine, 344 F.3d 1234, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“If the dependent claims expressly recite ‘up to about 10%’ silicon, then the independent claims, which must be at least as broad as the claims that depend from them, must include aluminum coatings with ‘up to about 10%’ silicon.”). Sato, thus, discloses the claimed tilt angle. See Application of Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of the claimed range”); see also Ans. 13-14 (discussing claim 8). Appellant also takes issue with the Examiner’s citations to paragraph 11 of Sato, arguing that this paragraph is not describing an embodiment with a grooved needle, but instead an embodiment where the needle has multiple recesses. See Reply 4-5 (citing Sato, Fig. 1). Sato, however, expressly states that “[t]he direction of ultrasonic reflecting surface 15A [of the second embodiment (Fig. 4)] is the same as that in the first embodiment [(Fig. 1)], and the same effects as those in the first embodiment can be obtained.” Sato ¶ 31 (emphases added). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 13 Appellant also argues that Iwase has “no disclosure or suggestion in Iwase that the walls of the groove are orthogonal to each other in a neutral position and that the orthogonal walls are shifted together to a tilt angle position.” Appeal Br. 9. And, that “[t]here is no ‘groove’ disclosed in Mitchell.” Id. at 9-10. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner does not rely on Iwase or Mitchell for these features. Rather, the Examiner cites to Iwase as “evidence of tilting a spiral V-shaped groove” and to Mitchell as “evidence of tilting an orthogonal V-shaped groove toward the proximal end of the shaft” and of “a motivation to do so.” Ans. 8-9; Final Act. 9. Finally, Appellant indicates “[A]ppellant fails to understand the somewhat nebulous ‘motivation’ of ‘to optimize shape and orientation of the groove on the needle according to the situation’ that the [E]xaminer relies on to justify combining” the references. Appeal Br. 10-11. We agree, however, that the Examiner has “provid[ed] a reasonable explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the grooves of Syed to be tilted as claimed as taught by Sato” and has cited to prior art in support of the reasons to do so. Ans. 10-11. On reply, Appellant argues “[s]ince none of the cited prior art even suggests walls that are shifted together, there could not be any art-recognized motivation.” Reply 7. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that the claims do not require any actual shifting of the walls, but [i]nstead, the claims are each directed to a needle that has already been manufactured - a groove is not carved out of the needle shaft in a “neutral position,” and then subsequently more of the needle shaft is carved out on the proximal side of the groove and some of the needle shaft is replaced on the distal side of the groove in order to form a “tilt angle position.” The claims are Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 14 each actually focused on the “tilt angle position,” and claim language defining a “neutral position” is simply hypothetical for the purposes of defining structure of said “tilt angle position.” In particular, the Examiner has interpreted the claim language “the one groove tilted from a neutral position[,] defined to be were the walls of the grove formed orthogonal to each other relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft[,] to a tilt angle position[,] whereby the walls are shifted together relative to the outer circumferential wall of the shaft[,] toward the proximal end of the shaft” to require that (a) the walls of the groove are formed orthogonal to each other in the “tilt angle position,” and (b) the walls of the groove are tilted toward the proximal end of the shaft and hence cannot be in the most distally-oriented configuration (distal wall of the groove lining up with the longitudinal axis of the needle shaft) in the “tilt angle position.” Ans. 4. As discussed above, the Examiner has cited to art that shows these features, and provided sufficient reasons to combine them in the manner asserted. For the reasons discussed, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. We, therefore, sustain the rejection. Claim 18 recites limitations similar to claim 6, but includes two grooves-“one groove and an other groove”-each having the features recited in claim 6. See Appeal Br. 17. Claim 10 depends from claim 6, and similar to claim 18, recites that the needle “further compris[es] an other groove” described in the same manner the groove recited in claim 6. As noted above, Syed teaches two grooves 130 and 140. Syed ¶ 30. The Examiner and Appellant rely on similar determinations and arguments as discussed above with respect to claim 6. The rejection of claims 10 and 18 is likewise sustained. Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 15 Dependent Claims 7 and 11 Dependent claims 7 and 11, which depend from claims 6 and 10, respectively, further recite that the “groove is V-shaped with both walls that form the V being orthogonal to each other.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues Syed does not disclose his grooves as having V-shaped walls. Sato discloses circumferential grooves. Iwase does show a spiral groove. However, the walls of both the Sato and Iwase grooves are not orthogonal to each other as required in claims 7 and 11. Appeal Br. 11-12. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, “the Examiner relies on Sato to teach that the groove is V-shaped with both walls that form the V being orthogonal to each other”; the Examiner relies on Syed to teach the groove being spiral. Ans. 12; Final Act. 3-9. Sato expressly teaches that the “cross-sectional shape of the circumferential groove is, for example, a V shape with an apex angle of about 90°.” Sato ¶ 31. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 11. We, therefore, sustain the rejection. Dependent Claims 8, 12, and 19 Dependent claims 8 and 12, which depend from claims 6 and 10, respectively, further recite that the “tilt angle position has a tilt angle that is between approximately 5° to 25° from the neutral position.” Appeal Br. 16. Claim 19, which depends from claim 18, similarly recites “the tilt angle position of each of the one groove and the other groove has a tilt angle that Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 16 is between approximately 5° to 25° from the neutral position of each of the one groove and the other groove.” Appellant argues Sato only describes that the angle Ɵ of the reflection surface 15A, with respect to the axis of the shaft, may be selected to be at 30°, 45° and 60°. And the most suitable one of the angles is selected according to the situation. Sato therefore fails to disclose any tilt angle of a spiral groove in the manner as required in claims 8, 12 and 19. Appeal Br. 12. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, the Examiner shows in detail how Sato teaches a tilt angle of 15°, which meets the limitation of claims 8, 12, and 19. See Final Act. 5-7, 14-16; Ans. 13- 14. Appellant does not argue that the claimed angle of 5° to 25° is critical. See also Spec. ¶ 25 (“the α angle may range from approximately 5° to 25°, and preferably at 10° relative to the neutral position” (emphasis added)). We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 12, and 19. We, therefore, sustain the rejection. Dependent Claims 9 and 13 Dependent claims 9 and 13, which depend from claims 6 and 10, respectively, further recite that the “tilt angle is approximately 10° from the neutral position.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues There is no description in paragraph 0024 of Sato about any tilt angle being approximately 10° from a neutral position. Paragraph 0030 as discussed above likewise fails to describe any Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 17 tilt angle of 10° from a neutral position. Sato therefore fails to describe or suggest what the examiner alleges. Appeal Br. 13. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, Sato discloses that “the angle ϴ formed by each ultrasonic reflection surface 15A with respect to the axis of the needle tube 12 is set in a range of approximately 30° to 60°.” Sato ¶ 24. For angle ϴ values of 50°, 55°, and 60°, for example, the corresponding tilt angle in Sato would be 5°, 10°, and 15°, respectively. See Ans. 14-15; Final Act. 5-7, 16-18. Appellant does not argue that the claimed angle of 10° is critical. See also Spec. ¶ 25 (“the α angle may range from approximately 5° to 25°, and preferably at 10° relative to the neutral position” (emphasis added)). We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 13. We, therefore, sustain the rejection. Dependent Claims 17 and 20 We sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 20, which depend from claims 10 and 18, respectively, and which are not argued separately. Obviousness in view of Syed in view of Sato, as evidenced by Iwase and Mitchell, and further in view of Matsuzawa Dependent Claims 15 and 16 Claim 15 depends from claim 10, and further recites, “wherein the one groove and the other groove each have a pitch of approximately 0.010-0.050 inch (0.254-1.27 mm).” Appeal Br. 17. Claim 16 depends from claim 10, and further recites, “wherein the one groove and the other groove each have a pitch of approximately 0.020 inch (0.508 mm).” Id. Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 18 The Examiner finds that Syed teaches that the grooves 130 and 140 each have a pitch. Final Act. 19; Syed ¶ 11 (“at least a first helix groove . . . spiraling at a first pitch; and at least a second helix groove . . . spiraling at a second pitch”), ¶ 13 (“the first pitch and the second pitch may be equal”). The Examiner admits that Syed does not disclose the specific claimed pitch dimensions. See Final Act. 19-20. For this feature, the Examiner relies on Matsuzawa. Final Act. 20-21. Matsuzawa teaches an ultrasound-guided needle having grooved portion 28 formed in a helical shape that extends in the axial direction of the needle. See Matsuzawa ¶ 71; Fig. 9; see also id. ¶ 42 (teaching that the ridged and grooved portion of the needle is “for reflecting ultrasonic waves”). The Examiner finds that Matsuzawa teaches a pitch of 0.2 to 0.5 mm. Final Act. 20; Matsuzawa ¶ 43 (“interval L3 [of grooved portions #22 in the axial direction] is set, for example, from 200 to 500 µm” (alterations by Examiner at Final Act. 20)). The Examiner further finds that Matsuzawa teaches advantages of the grooves disclosed therein. Final Act. 20-21 (citing Matsuzawa ¶¶ 13-14). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to modify the one groove and the other groove as made obvious by Syed in view of Sato to each have a pitch of approximately 0.010-0.050 inch (0.254-1.27 mm) or approximately 0.020 inch (0.508 mm), since grooves each having a pitch of 0.2 to 0.5 mm was well known in the art as taught by Matsuzawa. Id. at 21. The Examiner further finds that One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. adjusting pitch) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 19 have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to optimize pitch of each of the one and other grooves to effectively reflect ultrasonic waves, irrespective of the position around the axis of the ultrasound-guided piercing needle, in order to confirm the position of the ultrasound-guided piercing needle by the ultrasonic imaging device with higher accuracy when piercing is carried out (Matsuzawa, ¶ 0013-0014), and there was reasonable expectation of success. Id. Appellant argues that, because “Matsuzawa discloses a needle that has each of its groove portions (24, 28) sandwiched by a pair of ridge portions (26, 29),” these “ridge portions are not the orthogonal walls of the groove of the instant invention,” and, therefore, “[t]he ‘pitch’ of the groove in claims 15 and 16 therefore is not the same as the interval L3 of the ridge and groove portions in Matsuzawa.” Appeal Br. 14. This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner does not rely on Matsuzawa as teaching the particular configuration of the claimed grooves, but rather only for its teaching of a specific groove pitch. See Final Act. 20- 22. Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on the combined teachings of those references. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Further, Appellant argues elsewhere in the Appeal Brief that “[a]s is well known, the pitch of a groove is the distance from a specific point on the groove to the same point on an adjacent groove.” Appeal Br. 7. Matsuzawa’s interval L3 is likewise this same distance. See Matsuzawa Fig. 3B. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 16. We, therefore, sustain the rejection. Appeal 2021-001028 Application 15/297,731 20 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 6-13 and 15-20 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 6-13, 17-20 103 Syed, Sato, Iwase, Mitchell 6-13, 17-20 15, 16 103 Syed, Sato, Iwase, Mitchell, and Matsuzawa 15, 16 Overall Outcome 6-13, 15-20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED