TRINSEO EUROPE GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 12, 2021

2021002721 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2021)

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. 16/078,271 08/21/2018 Kai-Leung Larry Cheng TRIN-105-A 6430 48980 7590 04/12/2021 YOUNG BASILE 3001 WEST BIG BEAVER ROAD SUITE 624 TROY, MI 48084 EXAMINER SHUKLA, KRUPA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1787 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/12/2021 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): audit@youngbasile.com docketing@youngbasile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAI-LEUNG LARRY CHENG, CHANG WU HUNG, CLAUDE T. VAN NUFFEL, and CHIA-WEI WADE CHANG Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JULIA HEANEY, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, 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 11, 13, 14, and 16–21. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2 We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Trinseo Europe GMBH. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Per the grant of the request to participate in the Patent Prosecution Highway program and petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(a) to make special (Pet. Decision of Oct. 25, 2018), we review Appellant’s appeal out of turn. Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a polymer composition containing polycarbonate or a blend of polycarbonate and polyester. The composition further contains the following additives: (a) about 0.1 to less than 1.0 wt% of polydimethyl siloxanes modified with one or more of acrylate or hydroxyl groups, (b) about 0.5 to about 60 wt% one or more reinforcing fibers, and (c) about 0.5 to about 25 wt% one or more core shell rubbers. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 11. A composition comprising one or more polycarbonate resins or blends of polycarbonate and polyester resins containing polydimethyl siloxanes modified with one or more of acrylate or hydroxyl groups in an amount of about 0.1 to less than 1.0 percent by weight; one or more reinforcing fibers present in an amount of about 0.5 to about 60 percent by weight; and one or more core shell rubbers present in an amount of about 0.5 to about 25 percent by weight; wherein the amounts are based on the weight of the composition. Appeal Br. 40 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Mason US 5,508,344 Apr. 16, 1996 Murray US 2007/0049703 A1 Mar. 1, 2007 Norimatsu US 2011/0147992 A1 June 23, 2011 Malinoski US 2013/0196131 A1 Aug. 1, 2013 van der Mee US 2013/0224462 A1 Aug. 29, 2013 Swinnen US 2014/0155549 A1 June 5, 2014 Ueki WO 03/018692 A1 Mar. 6, 2003 Kumru3 WO 2014/154675 A1 Oct. 2, 2014 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections. 1. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2. 2. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki in view of Malinoski and Murray. Final Act. 4. 3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki, Malinoski, and Murray, and further in view of Norimatsu. Final Act. 5. 4. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki, Malinoski, and Murray, and further in view of Kumru. Final Act. 6. 3 The Examiner cites to US 2016/0075861 A1 as the English language equivalent without objection by Appellant. Final Act. 6. Thus, we also cite to this document. Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 4 5. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki, Malinoski, and Murray, and further in view of Swinnen. Final Act. 7. 6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki, Malinoski, and Murray and further in view of van der Mee. Final Act. 8. 7. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki, Malinoski, and Murray, and further in view of Mason. Final Act. 8. OPINION Rejection 1: Written Descriptive Support for Claim 20 The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2–3. Claim 20 depends from claim 13. Claim 13 requires the composition of claim 11 further include one or more pigments. Claim 20 requires the one or more pigments be zinc sulfide or titanium dioxide. Claim 20 does not limit the amount of zinc sulfide and, according to the Examiner, only the specific amount, 0.4 wt%, disclosed in the examples is supported by the original written description. Id. Thus, according to the Examiner, because claim 20 does not limit the amount of zinc sulfide, this claim lacks written descriptive support. Appellant contends the Specification provides support. Appeal Br. 37. We agree. The Specification describes example compositions that include 0.4 wt% ZnS as a white pigment. Spec. ¶ 63 and Table 1. The Specification describes the composition more generally as including “one or more pigments.” Spec. ¶ 12. Pigment is also recited within a list of additives Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 5 commonly used in polycarbonate-based compositions. Spec. ¶ 40. Thus, the Specification provides evidence that, at the time of the invention, zinc sulfide was commonly added to polycarbonate-based compositions as a pigment. This is enough to provide support. “The ‘written description’ requirement must be applied in the context of the particular invention and the state of the knowledge.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005). When one considers the skill of the ordinary artisan, it follows that the Specification reasonably conveys to the ordinary artisan that Appellant had possession of polycarbonate-based compositions containing zinc sulfide as a pigment. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”). We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written descriptive support. Rejection 2: Obviousness of Claims 11 and 13 over Ueki, Malinoski, and Murray The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 13 as obvious over Ueki in view of Malinoski and Murray. Final Act. 4. Appellant does not argue claim 13 separately. Appeal Br. 5–32. Thus, we select claim 11 as representative for resolving the issues on appeal. First, we consider Appellant’s argument that the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 15–21. In making this argument, Appellant does not dispute that Ueki teaches or suggests forming Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 6 a composition including polycarbonate or its alloy (Ueki ¶¶ 7) to which a hydroxyl group modified dimethylpolysiloxane is added (Ueki ¶ 16). Compare Final Act. 4–5, with Appeal Br. 15–21. Nor is there any dispute that Ueki also discloses adding glass fibers and elastomers. Appeal Br. 15– 21. Appellant’s argument is that the Examiner has not properly shown why an ordinary artisan would have added the amounts of glass fibers and core shell rubbers required by Appellant’s claims. Id. Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion within the prior art to use concentrations of glass fibers and core shell rubbers meeting the requirements of claim 11, i.e., in amounts of about 0.5 to about 60 wt% and about 0.5 to about 25 wt%, respectively. The Examiner’s finding of a reason to use amounts within the ranges of claim 11 is grounded in the teachings of the prior art. As found by the Examiner, Ueki lists both glass fibers and elastomers as conventional additives for use in Ueki’s polycarbonate-based composition. Ueki ¶ 24. Because Ueki suggests using those conventional additives, the selection of the specific species of glass fibers and elastomers and their amounts for use would have been routine and based on the properties the additives were known to provide. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Examiner has provided evidence regarding the predictable properties to be expected from glass fiber and elastomer additives. Malinoski discloses in the Background of Invention, that “[f]iber glass is commonly used as filler, or a reinforcing agent, in polycarbonates to improve stiffness Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 7 (modulus) and dimensional stability (coefficient of thermal expansion).” Malinoski ¶ 2. Including glass fiber allows for “thinner wall housings and frames requiring higher stiffness materials.” Malinoski ¶ 3. Murray provides evidence that elastomers such as core shell rubbers were well-known for use as impact modifiers in polycarbonate-based compositions. Murray ¶¶ 6, 59, 62. Mason, which the Examiner applies to reject claim 21, also supports the finding. See Mason col. 4, ll. 49–60 (teaching the use of an impact modifier that is well- recognized in the thermoplastic art and listing core shell graft copolymers). Appellant contends the Examiner provides conflicting reasoning for making the combination. Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, elasticity and stiffening are opposing properties. Id. The evidence, however, does not support this argument. Malinoski suggests including both glass fibers and impact modifiers in a polycarbonate composition. Malinoski ¶ 5. Appellant contends that “the Examiner fails to consider how adding high percentages of impact modifiers and fibers from Murray and Malinsoki would affect the range provided in Ueki and, thus, the combination of ranges.” Appeal Br. 16. But this argument ignores the ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (holding that an improvement in the art is obvious if “it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”). Nor does Appellant provide evidence that the concentration ranges a person of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at through routine experimentation would be outside of the ranges of claim 11. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”). Running through Appellant’s arguments is a misunderstanding of the law of obviousness. Appellant seems to require that the Examiner “provide a reason why a skilled artisan would combine the secondary references with the primary reference in the same way as the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 8 added); see also Appeal Br. 17 (“If a skilled artisan desires to solve the problem addressed by claim 11, the Examiner must start with a reference that is at least tangentially related to a problem addressed by the patent.”); Appeal Br. 18 (“The Examiner does not use improved adhesion between silicone over molds and polycarbonates as the starting position for the combination.”). But obviousness is not predicated on a finding that the teachings of the prior art solve Appellant’s problem. As pointed out by Appellant, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Appeal Br. 17, quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. “As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Granted, Ueki uses hydroxyl modified dimethylsiloxanes for a different reason than Appellant, i.e. to improve flame retardancy rather than peel strength, but, as found by the Examiner, Ueki discloses a concentration range (0.01 to 3.8 wt%) that largely overlaps the range of claim 11 (about 0.5 to about 25 wt%). Final Act. 4. “A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Such overlap itself provides sufficient motivation to optimize the ranges. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Nor does Appellant provide persuasive evidence that adding glass fiber or core shell rubber would shift any of the concentration ranges such that they would be outside the ranges of the claim. In responding to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner refers to improved bond strength as being an inherent property of the composition. See, e.g., Final Act. 13; Ans. 14. Appellant contends that the Examiner misapplied the law of inherency, arguing that inherency does not apply to a Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 9 multiple reference obviousness rejection. Appeal Br. 24–32. Appellant is incorrect. “It is long settled that in the context of obviousness, the ‘mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not distinguish a claim drawn to those things from the prior art.’” Persion Pharm. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., 945 F.3d 1184, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)). According to Appellant’s Specification, it is the chemical components of the composition that provide improved bonding (peel) strength. Spec. ¶ 4. Appellant claims the composition. A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that compositions within the scope of Appellant’s claim would have been obvious. This does not mean that the peel strength property is of no significance in the obvious analysis, only that the burden has shifted to Appellant to show that the property they uncovered would have been unexpected to the ordinary artisan in the art. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3dat 1330(“In general, an applicant may overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by establishing that the claimed range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.”) (cleaned up). Appellant proffers evidence of unexpected results. Specifically, Appellant contends that the compositions of Examples 8–11 have increased peel strength as compared to Examples 1–5, which do not contain glass fiber or impact modifier. Appeal Br. 10, 24. The Examiner determines that the data of Tables 1 and 2, which report the results relied on, is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Ans. 12. Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 10 Once a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden of coming forward with evidence and argument in rebuttal shifts to Appellant. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Rebuttal may take the form of “a comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties . . . that the prior art does not have, that the prior art is so deficient that there is no motivation to make what might otherwise appear to be obvious changes, or any other argument . . . that is pertinent.” In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692–93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed.Cir.1990) (en banc) (citations omitted). The question here, we emphasize, is a question of evidence and the burden is on the Appellant to show unexpected results. To meet its burden, Appellant must show results commensurate in scope with claim 11. “[O]bjective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978); see also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Even assuming that the results were unexpected, Harris needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range. Alternatively Harris needed to narrow the claims.”). We agree with the Examiner that Appellant has failed to meet its burden. Ans. 12–13. For instance, Appellant seeks to show that core shell impact modifiers and glass fibers provide improved peel strength, but Examples 8–11 only include two impact modifiers, one containing a butadiene core and a shell of styrene and methylmethacrylate (impact modifier 1) and one with a siloxane (PDMS) core and methylacrylate shell (impact modifier 2). Appellant provides no persuasive objective evidence or technical basis indicating that these two species are representative of the full Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 11 genus of core shell polymers encompassed by claim 11. Further, claim 11 encompasses impact modifiers in amounts of about 0.5 to about 25 wt%, but Appellant only tests compositions with 2 wt%. As to the glass fibers, claim 11 encompasses amounts of about 0.5 to about 60 wt%, but Appellant only tests compositions with 20 wt%. Appellant has not provided results covering the scope of the claims nor objective evidence or a technical basis, such as a correlation or trend, to conclude that the reported results would extend to other compositions included within the scope of the claims. Appellant’s attempts to shift the burden to the Examiner (Appeal Br. 11) are unavailing. The burden is on Appellant to show unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claim. Likewise, Appellant’s arguments against the Examiner’s review of Rios, a reference Appellant cites to show the knowledge in the art with regard to poor adhesion between polycarbonates and silicone over molds (Appeal Br. 8), are unavailing. There is no dispute that such an adhesion problem existed in the prior art. The problem here is a lack of evidence supporting a determination that the unexpected result extends throughout the scope of the claimed compositions. We also note that a proper comparison cannot be made between examples 1–5, which Appellant relies on as comparative examples, and examples 8–11, which Appellant relies on as the inventive examples. Too many variables are unfixed. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439 (CCPA 1965) (holding Dunn’s comparison inadequate because the cause and effect sought to be proven was lost in a welter of unfixed variables.). For instance, Examples 8–11 contain different amounts of titanium dioxide and zinc sulfide than Examples 1–5 and titanium dioxide and zinc sulfide are reported as affecting peel strength. Spec. ¶ 63. What’s more, Examples 1–5 contain Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 12 benztriazole UV absorber, thermal stabilizer, and octyldodecyl stearate, whereas Examples 8–11 do not. Nor does the Specification indicate that the fluctuations in peel strength due to glass fiber or impact modifier are unexpected. Instead, the Specification concentrates on the effect of the modified polydimethyl siloxanes. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 63. An appellant must establish that the property would have been viewed as unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness,” and a proper evaluation considers what properties were expected). After reviewing the totality of the evidence, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to claim 11. As Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 13, we sustain it. Rejection 3: Obviousness of Claim 14 The Examiner rejects claim 14 as obvious over Ueki, Malinoski, and Murray as applied to claim 11, and further adds Norimatsu. Final Act. 5. Claim 14 depends from claim 11 and further requires “one or more internal mold release compounds in an amount of about 0.0001 to about 2 percent by weight.” As found by the Examiner, Ueki suggests adding mold release agents to the composition. Final Act. 5. As further found by the Examiner, Norimatsu discloses adding an internal mold release agent to a polycarbonate resin to improve the releasability of the resin from a metal Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 13 mold at the time of melt molding. Id., citing Norimatsu ¶ 80. From these teachings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an internal mold release agent in the composition of Ueki to improve mold releasability as suggested by Norimatsu. Id. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion to modify Ueki is not supported by a reasoned explanation and “the Examiner makes no attempt to tie improved release-ability for a metal mold back to Ueki, Murray, or Malinoski.” Appeal Br. 33. We disagree because the tie is the disclosure in Ueki of using a mold release agent and in the need to release the molded article from a mold. The finding follows from the teachings of the prior art. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. Rejection 4: Obviousness of Claims 16 and 17 The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 17 as obvious over Ueki, Malinoski, and Murray, and adds Kumru. Final Act. 6. Claims 16 and 17 each depend from claim 11 and each further requires the modified dimethyl siloxane be “disposed on a carrier.” We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion within Kumru to dispose Ueki’s modified dimethyl siloxane on a carrier is unsupported by the record. Kumru discloses a fumed silica post-treated with polydimethyl siloxane, but it is used as a thickener and thixotropic agent in an amine-hardenable compound, i.e., in a mortar and plugging compound used in the building industry. Kumru ¶¶ 1, 2, 6. The Examiner finds that Kumru provides a reason to use Kumru’s siloxane treated carrier to adjust Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 14 viscosity and flow properties, but Ueki uses the siloxane as a flame retardant. The Examiner’s finding of a suggestion does not flow from the teachings of the references. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17. Rejections 5 and 7: Obviousness of Claims 18, 19, and 21 Claims 18, 19, and 21 further limit the chemistry of the core shell rubber of claim 11. Claim 18 requires the core comprise polysiloxane chains. Claim 19 requires the shell comprise a polymer with reactive groups including glycidyl or maleic anhydride. Claim 21 requires the core comprise polydimethyl siloxane and acrylate and the shell comprise methylmethacrylate. To reject claims 18 and 19, the Examiner adds Swinnen. Final Act. 7. To reject claim 21, the Examiner adds Mason. Final Act. 8. Both rejections rely on the fact that Ueki teaches adding conventional additives including elastomers, and Swinnen and Mason disclose core shell rubbers for use in polycarbonate-based compositions for improving impact and environmental stress crack resistance. Final Act. 7, 8. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion to combine is conclusory and unsupported (Appeal Br. 35, 36–37). We disagree. The suggestion arises from the teaching in Ueki of using elastomers in polycarbonate-based compositions and the teachings in Swinnen and Mason indicating that their core shell rubbers were known to provide impact and stress cracking resistance in polycarbonate-based compositions. “When a claim is to a combination that ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 15 perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 19, and 21. Rejection 6: Obviousness of Claim 20 Claim 20 requires the addition of zinc sulfide or titanium dioxide. To reject claim 20 as obvious, the Examiner adds van der Mee as evidence that titanium dioxide was a known white pigment and, based on this evidence, concludes that it would have been obvious to add titanium dioxide to produce a white composition. Final Act. 8. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s statement is conclusory, that the reasoning is contrary to KSR’s holding that “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art,” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, and the Examiner identified no problem that adding titanium dioxide would solve. Appeal Br. 36. The problem being solved here is simply the need to obtain a white product. Ueki contemplates the addition of conventional pigments to its polycarbonate-based composition. Van der Mee discloses that titanium dioxide was a known pigment for producing white thermoplastic products. Van der Mee ¶ 83. The suggestion to add titanium dioxide to Ueki’s thermoplastic composition flows from the teachings of the prior art. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 as obvious. Appeal 2021-002721 Application 16/078,271 16 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11, 13, 14, and 16–21 is AFFIRMED IN PART. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 20 112(a) Written Description 20 11, 13 103 Ueki, Malinoski, Murray 11, 13 14 103 Ueki, Malinoski, Murray, Norimatsu 14 16, 17 103 Ueki, Malinoski, Murray, Kumru 16, 17 18, 19 103 Ueki, Malinoski, Murray, Swinnen 18, 19 20 103 Ueki, Malinoski, Murray, van der Mee 20 21 103 Ueki, Malinoski, Murray, Mason 21 Overall Outcome 11, 13, 14, 18–21 16, 17 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 IN PART