SYNGENTA PARTICIPATIONS AG et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2020

14775829 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2020)

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.
14/775,829 09/14/2015 Catherine SAVINELLI SYG-0140PA(115479.000048) 1003
153842 7590 06/01/2020
BakerHostetler
Washington Square, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036-5304
EXAMINER
PALLAY, MICHAEL B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2020 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte CATHERINE SAVINELLI and ERIN LEANN RICHMOND
__________

Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829
Technology Center 1600
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
ELIZABETH A. LAVIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 7–13, and 16–20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states that the real party in interest is Syngenta
Participations AG, of Basel, Switzerland. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The following rejections are before us for review:
(1) Claims 1, 4, 7, 10–13, 16, and 18–20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fish2 and Mallarino3 (Final Act. 3–5 (entered July
13, 2018));
(2) Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10–13, and 16–20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fish, Mallarino, and Thompson4 (Final Act. 5–6);
and
(3) Claims 1, 4, 7–13, and 16–20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fish, Mallarino, Thompson, and Cush5 (Final Act. 6–7).
Appellant’s claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
l. A method of controlling insect damage in a corn plant, the
method comprising:
applying, at planting ± 5 days, a
a tefluthrin insecticide and
a pop-up fertilizer,
wherein the pop-up fertilizer is an N:P:K
ratio fertilizer, wherein N is in the ratio range of 4
to 12, P is in the range of 12-40, and K is in the
ratio range of 1-10, and
wherein the insect damage is damage from a
cutworm or a rootworm.
Appeal Br. 22.

2 US 6,289,829 B1 (issued Sept.18, 2001).
3 Antonia P. Mallarino, Phosphorus and Potassium Placement Methods For
Corn And Soybean: An Iowa Perspective, 48 PROC. OF THE 2009
WISCONSIN CROP MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 109–115 (2009).
4 US 5,407,134 (issued Apr. 18, 1995).
5 US 2011/0105332 A1 (published May 5, 2011).
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As stated in In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability. . . .
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in
response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.
OBVIOUSNESS—FISH AND MALLARINO
The Examiner’s Prima Facie Case
In rejecting claims 1, 4, 7, 10–13, 16, and 18–20 over Fish and
Mallarino, the Examiner cited Fish as disclosing a process having nearly all
of the steps and features recited in the rejected claims, but conceded that
Fish differs from the rejected claims in that, “[a]though Fish et al. discloses
fertilizer, Fish et al. does not disclose N:P:K fertilizer as claimed.” Final
Act. 4.
The Examiner cited Mallarino as disclosing a “commercial liquid
starter fertilizer for application to corn seed furrow at planting (i.e., pop-up
fertilizer) as N:P:K 9-18-9 (page 112 first full paragraph). 5-10 lb/acre N,
15-25 lb/acre P, and 0-7 lb/acre K are applied (i.e., a total of 20-42 lb
nutrients/acre) (Figure 4).” Final Act. 4.
Based on the references’ combined teachings, the Examiner reasoned
that a skilled artisan would have considered it obvious “to use the 9-18-9
fertilizer of Mallarino, applied in an amount of 20-42 lb nutrients/acre, as the
fertilizer in the method of Fish . . . with a reasonable expectation of
success.” Final Act. 4.
The Examiner further reasoned that the skilled artisan would have
been motivated to combine Fish and Mallarino in the posited manner
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

4
“because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its
intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP
2144.07, and the 9-18-9 fertilizer of Mallarino was known for application to
corn seed furrow at planting (i.e., pop-up fertilizer).” Final Act. 4.
Analysis
Appellant does not persuade us that a preponderance of the evidence
does not support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to claim 1 in
view of Fish and Mallarino.
Fish discloses a machine for planting corn that applies an insecticide
to a furrow at the time of planting. See Fish, abstract; see also id. at 2:48–57
(objectives of Fish’s invention include “applying pesticidal compositions in
a furrow,” “applying liquid pesticidal compositions in a furrow,” and
“provid[ing] an improved method of controlling soil-borne pests in corn”).
Fish discloses using its corn planting machine to apply a tefluthrin
insecticide and a pop-up fertilizer,6 the two active agents recited in
Appellant’s claim 1:
In a highly preferred embodiment, the liquid composition
may be applied as a mixture with a fertilizer, more preferably a
pop-up fertilizer.
When the pesticide is an insecticide, the pesticide may
be:
(a) an organophosphate insecticide, for example,
chlorpyrifos, chlorethoxyfos, terbufos or
terbupirimfos;
(b) an N-methylcarbamate insecticide, for example,
carbofuran;
(c) a pyrethroid insecticide, for example, tefluthrin,

6 Appellant states that a pop-up fertilizer is a fertilizer “placed in direct
contact with the seed.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

5
permethrin, fenvalerate, esfenvalerate,
cypermethrin, cyhalothrin, lambda-cyhalothrin,
bifenthrin or deltamethrin; or
(d) an insecticidal 1-aryl pyrazole.
Fish 3:45–59 (emphases added).
As required by Appellant’s claim 1, Fish discloses that its methods are
useful for controlling corn rootworm. See Fish 2:39–45 (disclosing that
Fish’s inventive planting machine overcomes prior art methods of in-furrow
methods of controlling corn rootworms); id. at 7:18–23 (disclosing that
configuration of Fish’s inventive planting machine applies pesticide in a
manner that better protects from corn rootworm and the like).
Although Fish does not specify its pop-up fertilizer as having the
N:P:K ratio recited in Appellant’s claim 1, Mallarino discloses that, when
planting corn, it is useful to apply a fertilizer undisputedly having the N:P:K
ratio recited in claim 1 into the furrow. See Mallarino 112 (disclosing
application of various liquid starter fertilizers to seed furrow including one
with a 9-18-9 N:P:K ratio); see also id. at 114 (Fig. 4 showing greater early
plant growth in NPK-treated corn as compared to plants treated with “check”
formulation).
Thus, to summarize, Fish describes a method of controlling corn
rootworm by applying an insecticide at the time of planting, and discloses a
highly preferred embodiment in which the insecticide may be tefluthrin, and
in which the insecticide is applied in combination with a pop-up fertilizer.
And, Mallarino discloses that at the time of planting corn it is useful to apply
a fertilizer having a 9-18-9 N:P:K ratio to the seed furrow. Given these
teachings, we agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan had a good
reason for, and a reasonable expectation of success in, applying a tefluthrin
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

6
insecticide in combination with a pop-up fertilizer, the pop-up fertilizer
having a 9-18-9 N:P:K ratio. We therefore also agree with the Examiner
that the process recited in Appellant’s claim 1 would have been prima facie
obvious to a skilled artisan.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us to the contrary. In
particular, Appellant does not persuade us that a skilled artisan lacked a
reasonable expectation of success in combining a tefluthrin insecticide and a
pop-up fertilizer as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10–11.
In support of this argument Appellant cites an article by James F.
Wilkinson (Appeal Br., App’x A (“Wilkinson”7)), which Appellant asserts
was submitted during prosecution along with the response filed March 28,
2018. Appeal Br. 10. In response, the Examiner asserts as follows:
[A]ppellant has provided no indication of where, when,
or even if, the Wilkinson document was published, nor does the
Wilkinson document contain such information on its face, and
neither was the Wilkinson document provided in declaration or
affidavit form. Since evidence must be provided in declaration
or affidavit form, or be a publication (i.e., be published), per 35
U.S.C. 25, 18 U.S.C. 1001, and MPEP 716.02(g), the
Wilkinson document is inadequate to establish a lack of
reasonable expectation of success in combining tefluthrin and a
pop-up fertilizer.
Ans. 4.

7 Appellant provides the following citation for Wilkinson: 47th Annual
Michigan Turfgrass Conference Proceedings, Volume 6, January 18–19,
pages 58–61, 1997.
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

7
Appellant replies as follows:
Wilkinson is a published article. Wilkinson was
published in the “47th Annual Michigan Turfgrass Conference
Proceedings” Volume 6, January 18-19, pages 58-61, 1997.
Access to the article may be reached through the Michigan
State University library archive:
http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/mitgc/browse.html, and more
specifically at http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/mitgc/article/
197759.pdf. This information may be ascertained by a brief
search on the article title and author. As the Wilkinson
document is a proper publication, the Examiner’s assertion that
the document is inadequate is incorrect.
Reply Br. 2.
Notwithstanding the fact that Appellant did not clearly establish
Wilkinson’s status as a prior art publication until filing its Reply Brief,
Appellant does not persuade us that Wilkinson shows that a skilled artisan
lacked a reasonable expectation of success in combining a tefluthrin
insecticide and a pop-up fertilizer as recited in claim 1.
It is well settled that “[o]bviousness does not require absolute
predictability of success. . . . For obviousness under § 103, all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d
1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (emphasis removed).
In the present case, the evidence supporting a reasonable expectation
of success is Fish’s express disclosure, in a “highly preferred embodiment,”
specifically stating that a tefluthrin insecticide and a pop-up fertilizer may be
applied together when planting corn. See Fish 3:45–59.
In contrast, Appellant identifies no teaching in Wilkinson suggesting
that tefluthrin insecticides, specifically, were known to be incompatible with
any particular type of fertilizer. Nor does Appellant identify any teaching in
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

8
Wilkinson stating that incompatibility between pesticides and fertilizers is
even likely. Thus, at best, Wilkinson shows that some pesticides, not
specifically tefluthrin, might be incompatible with some fertilizers. And
ultimately, Wilkinson provides a simple solution—testing the potential
combination. See Wilkinson 61 (“The ultimate test, of course, is to mix up
your various combinations and actually try it on a piece of turf.).
Appellant does not persuade us that Wilkinson’s non-specific
disclosure of potential incompatibility is sufficient to show that a skilled
lacked a reasonable expectation of success in following Fish’s express
disclosure of combining a tefluthrin insecticide and a pop-up fertilizer. The
fact that a skilled artisan might have tested the combination to ensure
compatibility does not persuade us that there was no reasonable expectation
of success. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (upholding conclusion of obviousness of prior art-suggested drug/salt
combination despite the fact that testing would have been required to verify
viability of combination).
Appellant also does not persuade us that Fish is non-analogous art.
See Appeal Br. 11–13. Specifically, because Fish, like the process of
Appellant’s claim 1, involves methods of controlling corn rootworm (see
Fish 2:39–45), we find that Fish is not only in the same field of endeavor as
the claimed invention, but also would have been pertinent to the problem
faced by the inventors.
Moreover, because the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based
on the teachings discussed above in the prior art references, Appellant does
not persuade us that the Examiner used improper hindsight in evaluating the
obviousness of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

9
Appellant also does not persuade us that Mallarino fails to suggest
using a fertilizer having a 9-18-9 N:P:K ratio. See Appeal Br. 14–15.
Appellant states that a pop-up fertilizer is a fertilizer “placed in direct
contact with the seed.” Id. at 15. As noted above, Mallarino discloses that it
is useful to put a liquid fertilizer having a 9-18-9 N:P:K ratio into the furrow
when planting corn. See Mallarino 112. Because Mallarino discloses
applying its liquid fertilizer to the furrow at the time of planting, and
because Mallarino gives no indication that the fertilizer should not contact
the seed despite being applied to the furrow, Appellant does not persuade us
that the Examiner erred in finding that Mallarino would have suggested
using its fertilizer as the pop-up fertilizer in Fish’s highly preferred
embodiment of controlling rootworm.
Lastly, Appellant does not persuade us that it has advanced evidence
of unexpected results sufficient to outweigh the prior art evidence of prima
facie obviousness advanced by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 15 (citing
Spec. ¶ 29 (Table 1)). In particular, Appellant does not persuade us that
claim 1 is commensurate in scope with the data it presented.
Appellant’s Table 1 shows results for tefluthrin combined with either
15% or 30% by weight Nachurs 6-24-6 fertilizer. See Spec. ¶ 29 (Table 1).
Appellant’s claim 1, in contrast, recites no specific percentage of the pop-up
fertilizer, and therefore encompasses applications of very small amounts of
fertilizer, for which Appellant provides no data. Appellant does not point to
any evidence suggesting that the small amounts of fertilizer encompassed by
Appellant’s claim 1 would produce results similar to those seen in Table 1.
We are not persuaded, therefore, that claim 1 is commensurate in scope with
the asserted showing of unexpectedness.
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

10
We note, moreover, that when combined with 400 ppm AI (active
ingredient (tefluthrin)), 15% Nachurs 6-24-6 has a 96% mortality effect,
whereas 400 ppm AI by itself has a 100% mortality effect. See Spec. ¶ 29
(Table 1). Thus, Appellant’s Table 1 shows that, rather than potentiating the
effect of the tefluthrin, the fertilizer has an inhibitory effect at certain
concentrations. This supports the Examiner’s finding that the asserted
unexpected results would not be consistently present throughout the full
range of active agent concentrations and N:P:K ratios encompassed by claim
1.
In sum, for the reasons discussed, Appellant does not persuade us that
a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness as to claim 1 in view of Fish and Mallarino. Because they
were not argued separately, claims 4, 7, and 10–13 fall with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues that claim 16 is patentable over Fish and Mallarino
“for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.” Appeal Br.
19. As discussed above, we do not find those arguments persuasive.
Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 over Fish
and Mallarino.
Appellant also does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the process recited in Appellant’s claim 18 would have been
obvious over Fish and Mallarino. Claim 18 recites “[t]he method of claim 1,
wherein the tefluthrin insecticide (AI) is applied in the range of about
0.1 lb AI/acre to about 0.3 lb AI/acre.” Appeal Br. 24.
As evidence that claim 18’s process would have been obvious, the
Examiner cited Examples 1 and 2 of Fish as disclosing an insecticide
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

11
(fipronil) application rate encompassed by claim 18. See Final Act. 3
(“Application of insecticide may be at about 0.13 lb/acre (Examples 1, 2).”);
see also Fish 8:3–4 (Example 1 disclosing fipronil application of 0.13
lb/acre); Fish 8:37–39 (Example 2 repeating application of Example 1).
Based on the disclosure in Fish’s examples that 0.13 lb/acre was a suitable
application rate for one insecticide, the Examiner found that a skilled artisan
would have considered 0.13 lb/acre also to be a suitable application rate for
another insecticide—the tefluthrin insecticide recited in Appellant’s claim
18. See Final Act. 4–5.
Thus, the Examiner’s basis for determining that claim 18’s tefluthrin
application rate was obvious was Fish’s disclosure in its examples that
another compound (fipronil) having properties in common with tefluthrin
(insecticidal activity) was applied at a rate encompassed by claim 18.
Because the Examiner’s reasoning was based on the common insecticidal
properties of fipronil and tefluthrin disclosed in Fish, Appellant does not
persuade us that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness lacks support in
the art.
We acknowledge Appellant’s contention that fipronil and tefluthrin
are different classes of insecticide. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant, however,
points to no evidence suggesting that the Examiner was unreasonable in
finding that skilled artisans would have considered Fish’s exemplified
fipronil application rate to be a suitable application rate for tefluthrin, based
on Fish’s disclosure that both compounds were useful insecticides in its
highly preferred embodiment. Nor does Appellant identify any evidence
suggesting that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, fipronil and tefluthrin
were known to have a potency differential on the order of what might be
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

12
found between aspirin and fentanyl. See Reply Br. 2. We note, moreover,
that Appellant identifies nothing unexpected coming from its selection of the
application rate recited in claim 18. See Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA
Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Where ‘the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other
variable within the claims . . ., the [applicant] must show that the particular
range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves
unexpected results.’”) (quoting In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed.
Cir. 1990)).
In sum, for the reasons discussed, Appellant does not persuade us that
a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that claim 18’s process would have been obvious. We therefore affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 over Fish and Mallarino.
Appellant also does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
determining that the process recited in Appellant’s claim 19 would have
been obvious to a skilled artisan. Claim 19 recites “[t]he method of claim 1,
wherein the pop-up fertilizer is applied in the range of about 3 lb
nutrients/acre to about 50 lb nutrients/acre.” Appeal Br. 24.
As noted above, the Examiner cited Mallarino’s Figure 4 as disclosing
an application rate for its starter fertilizers of a total of about 20–42 lb
nutrients/acre, a range undisputedly overlapping the range in claim 19, and
reasoned that would be a suitable rate of application for the fertilizer in
Fish’s highly preferred embodiment using a combination of tefluthrin and a
pop-up fertilizer. See Final Act. 4.
Appellant identifies no disclosure in either Fisher or Mallarino, nor
does Appellant identify any other evidence of record, suggesting that a
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

13
skilled artisan would have considered the fertilizer application rate disclosed
in Mallarino to be unsuitable when applied in combination with tefluthrin.
See Appeal Br. 20. Appellant does not persuade us, therefore, that the
Examiner erred in concluding that a skilled artisan would have considered
claim 19’s process obvious in view of Fish and Mallarino. Accordingly, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 over Fish and Mallarino.
Appellant also does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
determining that the process recited in Appellant’s claim 20 would have
been obvious to a skilled artisan. Claim 20 recites “[t]he method of claim 1,
wherein the tefluthrin insecticide and the pop-up fertilizer are applied in a
weight ratio in the range of 1:30 to 1:500.” Appeal Br. 24.
The Examiner determined that the tefluthrin:fertilizer ratio recited in
claim 20 would have been obvious based in the tefluthrin application rate
suggested by Examples 1 and 2 of Fish, and the fertilizer application rate
disclosed in Mallarino, both of which are discussed above in relation to
claims 18 and 19, respectively. See Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is
erroneous, based on the arguments presented in traversing the rejections of
claims 18 and 19. See Appeal Br. 20–21. As discussed above, we do not
find those arguments persuasive. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 20 over Fish and Mallarino.
OBVIOUSNESS—
FISH, MALLARINO, AND THOMPSON
In rejecting claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10–13, and 16–20 over Fish, Mallarino,
and Thompson, the Examiner relied on the teachings in Fish and Mallarino
discussed above in relation to claims 1, 4, 7, 10–13, 16, and 18–20, and cited
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

14
Thompson as evidence that it would have been obvious to combine the
tefluthrin and fertilizer in Fish’s process using the mixing method recited in
claims 8 and 17. See Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding
that the process recited in claims 8 and 17 would have been obvious. See
Appeal Br. 16–17, 19. In traversing this rejection, Appellant merely
reiterates its arguments, addressed above, that the Examiner improperly
relied on hindsight in concluding that, based on the teachings in Fish and
Mallarino, it would have been obvious to combine tefluthrin and a pop-up
fertilizer. See id. at 17. As discussed above, we do not find those arguments
persuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and
17 over Fish, Mallarino, and Thompson, as well as the rejection of the
remaining claims subject to this ground of rejection.
OBVIOUSNESS—
FISH, MALLARINO, THOMPSON, AND CUSH
In rejecting claims 1, 4, 7–13, and 16–20 over Fish, Mallarino,
Thompson, and Cush, the Examiner relied on the teachings in Fish,
Mallarino, and Thompson discussed above in relation to claims 1, 4, 7, 8,
10–13, and 16–20, and cited Cush as evidence that it would have been
obvious to include a surfactant as recited in Appellant’s claim 9 when
combining tefluthrin and fertilizer as suggested by the other references. See
Final Act. 7.
Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding
that the process recited in claim 9 would have been obvious. See Appeal Br.
18. As the Examiner found, Cush discloses that it is useful to combine a
surfactant encompassed by claim 9 with pesticides, including insecticides, to
Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

15
improve the re-suspension properties of pesticide suspensions. See Cush,
abstract, ¶ 47.
Appellant points to no evidence supporting its contention that
surfactants are incompatible with fertilizers. See Appeal Br. 18.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding
that it would have been obvious to include a surfactant as recited in
Appellant’s claim 9 when combining tefluthrin and fertilizer as suggested by
the other references. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim
9 over Fish, Mallarino, Thompson, and Cush, as well as the rejection of the
remaining claims subject to this ground of rejection.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 7,
10–13,
16, 18–
20
103(a) Fish,
Mallarino
1, 4, 7, 10–
13, 16, 18–
20

1, 4, 7, 8,
10–13,
16–20
103(a) Fish,
Mallarino,
Thompson
1, 4, 7, 8,
10–13, 16–
20

1, 4, 7–
13, 16–
20
103(a) Fish,
Mallarino,
Thompson,
Cush
1, 4, 7–13,
16–20

Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 7–13,
16–20

Appeal 2019-005742
Application 14/775,829

16

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