United State Gypsum CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 2, 20212020003141 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/095,499 12/03/2013 Evan Vincent Rohlf 4480A US/2033.115026 6481 45455 7590 06/02/2021 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. 300 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE SUITE 2500 CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER NELSON, MICHAEL B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1787 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2021 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): docket@gbclaw.net ptomail@gbclaw.net verify@gbclaw.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EVAN VINCENT ROHLF Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 Technology Center 1700 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, 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 17, 23, and 25–27. 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 identifies United States Gypsum Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed October 30, 2019, 4. Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention relates to gypsum panels including mold-resistant paper having an antimicrobial coating. Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 3, 2013, 1:5–9.2 Claim 17, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 17. A gypsum panel comprising a gypsum core sandwiched between two paper sheets, a front paper sheet and a back paper sheet, at least one or both paper sheets having an anti-microbial coating comprising polymerized siloxane, a binder and fungicide particles of 1 micron to 30 microns, wherein the fungicide particles are a combination of zinc pyrithione, thiabendazol and azoxystrobin. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Beerse et al. (“Beerse”) US 6,294,186 B1 Sept. 25, 2001 Swofford et al. (“Swofford”) US 2003/0234068 A1 Dec. 25, 2003 Uhr et al. (“Uhr”) US 2012/0071324 A1 Mar. 22, 2012 Dutton et al. (“Dutton”) WO 2011/154494 A2 Dec. 15, 2011 http://www.chemicalbook.com/ProductChemicalPropertiesCB645607 0 EN.htm, Zinc pyrithione CAS#: 13463-41-7, accessed November 11, 2015 (“Zinc Pyrithione NPL”). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/silicone, Silicone, accessed December 31, 2018 (“Silicone NPL”). 2 This Decision also cites to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated May 30, 2019, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated February 5, 2020, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed March 23, 2020. Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the following rejections: 1. Claims 17 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uhr in view of Swofford and Dutton, as evidenced by Zinc Pyrithione NPL and Silicone NPL; and 2. Claims 25–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uhr in view of Swofford and Dutton, as evidenced by Zinc Pyrithione NPL and Silicone NPL, and further in view of Beerse. 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 Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the stated rejections. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections based substantially on the fact findings, reasoning, and conclusions set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, which we adopt as our own. We offer the following for emphasis only. Rejection 1: Obviousness of claims 17 and 23 The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uhr in view of Swofford and Dutton, as evidenced by Zinc Pyrithione NPL and Silicone NPL. Ans. 4. Appellant argues the rejected claims together, focusing on the limitations of claim 17 only. Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 4 Appeal Br. 7–19. We likewise focus on the limitations of claim 17 to address Appellant’s arguments in our discussion below, which applies equally to dependent claim 23. The Examiner finds that Uhr teaches a mold-resistant fungicidal coating for building materials, including a fungicide and an aqueous carrier with silicone oil and emulsifiers. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Uhr teaches that the fungicide may include thiabendazole and zinc pyrithione.3 Id. In addition, the Examiner finds that Uhr teaches that the fungicide mixture may be formed into particles of a biocidal substance having a size of 1–150 µm, which overlaps the particle size range recited in claim 17. Id. However, the Examiner acknowledges that Uhr fails to teach that the coating is applied to the paper of a gypsum panel. Id. at 5. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Swofford teaches a gypsum wall board with paper layers on opposite sides of the gypsum core, wherein an antimicrobial emulsion including pyrithione and thiabendazole with binder is applied to the paper to provide antimicrobial properties. Ans. 5. The Examiner also finds that Dutton teaches a fungicidal composition for industrial products, including paper products, wherein the composition may have improved/synergistic properties by including a mixture of ingredients including thiabendazole and azoxystrobin to provide a broader spectrum of anti-fungal activity. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have applied Uhr’s coating to the paper of a gypsum panel, in light of Swofford’s teaching, and to include azoxystrobin in this coating 3 The Examiner finds that Uhr teaches a zinc salt of 1-hydroxy-2- pyridinethione, which corresponds to zinc pyrithione, as evidenced by Zinc Pyrithione NPL. Ans. 4. Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 5 since gypsum panels were known commercially-available building materials and providing an additional fungicide would broaden the coating’s spectrum of anti-fungal activity, as Dutton teaches. Id. Appellant argues that Uhr is not directed to gypsum panels and Uhr’s coating includes biocidal substances comprising one or more polymers, at least one of which has structural elements derived from acrylonitrile. Appeal Br. 8–9. In particular, Appellant contends that Uhr’s biocidal substance comprises at least 98 wt.% of these polymers and are solidified melts or polymeric matrices. Id. at 9. Appellant notes that claim 17 does not recite an acrylonitrile-derived solidified melt or polymeric matrix. Id. Also, Appellant notes that Uhr fails to disclose that the fungicide particles are a combination of zinc pyrithione, thiabendazole, and azoxystrobin. Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Initially, we note that the rejection does not rely on Uhr alone for a teaching of a combination of zinc pyrithione, thiabendazole, and azoxystrobin. Appellant’s focus solely on Uhr for this point is, therefore, without merit. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. . . . [The reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.”). We further note that claim 17, though not reciting or requiring an acrylonitrile-based polymer, not only fails to exclude such a polymer, but actually requires a binder. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting appellants’ nonobviousness argument as based on limitation not recited in claim); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s arguments Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 6 fail from the outset because, as the solicitor has pointed out, they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Moreover, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 9–10), Uhr’s biocidal substance stands apart from the polymer. Uhr’s biocidal compositions include at least one biocidal substance, wherein the biocidal substance comprises one or more biocides preferably present in particulate form. Id. at 10; Uhr ¶¶ 55, 56. As to Appellant’s contention that Uhr’s biocidal substance comprises at least 98 wt.% of these polymers and are solidified melts or polymeric matrices, this appears to be incorrect. Uhr teaches that at least 98 wt.% of the polymers that are included in the biocidal substance are preferably the acrylonitrile-derived polymer. Ans. 10; Uhr ¶ 30. Appellant fails to direct our attention to any disclosure in Uhr requiring that the biocidal substance itself include at least 98 wt.% polymer, nor do we find any. To the contrary, Uhr teaches that the biocidal substance preferably includes 2–80 wt.% biocides. Ans. 10; Uhr ¶¶ 33–35. Appellant next argues that there is no motivation to modify Uhr’s coating formulation and apply this modified formulation to a gypsum wall panel. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends that Dutton fails to suggest that a combination including compound A can be used in manufacturing gypsum panels. Id. at 11. Appellant also contends that combining Uhr’s composition with Dutton’s “does not reveal ‘fungicide particles of 1 micron to 30 microns, wherein the fungicide particles are a combination of zinc pyrithione, thiabendazol and azoxystrobin.’” Id. Appellant asserts that the Specification, including Figure 2, shows that the biocidal effect in gypsum panels with paper covering depends on the size of the fungicide particles, Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 7 such that sizes larger than 30 µm are not effective in inhibiting mold growth. Id. at 12; see also Reply Br. 12–13. Although it appears that Appellant is asserting that the fungicide particle size range recited in claim 17 provides unexpected mold growth inhibition results, Appellant fails to provide and explain evidence of record sufficient to establish unexpected results. The burden of establishing that unexpected results support a conclusion of nonobviousness rests with Appellant. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[I]t is not enough to show that results are obtained which differ from those obtained in the prior art: that difference must be shown to be an unexpected difference.” See In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972). Additionally, the relied-upon results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329–31 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of [the CCPA] that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” See In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971)). Finally, “it is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. ‘Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.’” See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1994)); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 8 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Here, Appellant merely directs attention to the Specification generally, and to Figure 2 specifically, without any discussion of the evidence presented. We note Figure 2 only presents evidence of particles sizes, D(95% < 1 µm), D(95% < 5 µm), D(95% < 13 µm), and soluble fungicide. These examples do not extend beyond 13 µm, and Appellant fails to explain how such results would be commensurate for the entire range of 1–30 µm, much less what results would be expected for sizes greater than 30 µm. We further note that the Specification fails to identify the composition of the water-insoluble fungicide, as well as the amounts of the respective ingredients used in the coating composition. Therefore, Appellant’s results are not persuasive of unexpected results as to particle size. As to Appellant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine Uhr with Swofford and Dutton to coat a gypsum wall panel with a fungicidal composition including zinc pyrithione, thiabendazole, and azoxystrobin, we disagree. An ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to apply Uhr’s coating composition to a gypsum wall panel because Uhr teaches that the composition is for coating building materials to provide mold resistance and Swofford teaches a gypsum wall panels with paper covering treated with an antimicrobial composition including the same fungicides as Uhr. Ans. 4–5. As the Examiner explains, without dispute, gypsum wall panels are a known commercially-available building material, and Swofford suggests that such panels would benefit from fungicidal coating compositions. Moreover, an ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to include azoxystrobin in Uhr’s coating composition because doing so would broaden the spectrum of Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 9 fungicidal activity as Dutton teaches. Id. at 5–7, 12, citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980), In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274 (CCPA 1960), and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (BPAI 1992). In addition, Appellant’s contention that Dutton fails to suggest that a combination including component A can be used in manufacturing gypsum panels mischaracterizes the Examiner’s proposed combination. The rejection relies on Dutton’s teaching that azoxystrobin is another known fungicide, along with thiabendazole taught by both Uhr and Swofford. The rejection does not rely on Dutton’s teaching of component A and is not based upon a bodily incorporation of Dutton’s ABC composition into Uhr’s composition. See In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (The obviousness inquiry does not ask “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). Also, as noted above, claim 17 does not exclude the presence of additional components such as Dutton’s component A. Appellant next argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination requires the use of impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 10 Br. 4–9.4 Appellant suggests that choosing pesticidal mixtures from Dutton, choosing Dutton’s component A, and choosing specifically thiabendazole and azoxystrobin from Dutton’s lists for components B and C entails impermissible hindsight because there is no suggestion to selectively choose only thiabendazole and azoxystrobin and disregard the remainder of Dutton’s disclosure. Appeal Br. 13–15. Likewise, Appellant urges that it is impossible to selectively choose only zinc pyrithione from Uhr’s list of biocides, and then further combine it with Dutton. Id. at 15–19, relying on In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We do not find Appellant’s hindsight argument persuasive because the Examiner’s reasons for combining the teachings of Uhr, Swofford, and Dutton are supported by the prior art disclosures themselves. See, e.g., Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The invention must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.” (citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Here, as the Examiner 4 Appellant presents argument (Reply Br. 5–6, 8) for the first time in the Reply Brief related to three Board decisions, Ex parte Lajoie, Appeal No. 96-2311, (BPAI Nov. 27, 1998), Ex parte Chopra, Appeal 2014-007825, (PTAB July 1, 2016), and Ex parte Cummins, Appeal 2016-003800, (PTAB June 16, 2017). In addition, Appellant argues for the first time the problem addressed by the present invention is the need for hydrophobic anti- microbial combinations in gypsum panels. Reply Br. 8–9. Because Appellant does not provide good reason why such arguments could not have been filed in the principal brief, we will not consider these arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2019). Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 11 explains, the skilled artisan would have understood from the teachings of Uhr and Swofford that applying a biocidal composition to a gypsum wall panel would have provided the panel with mold resistance with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Uhr and Swofford teach zinc pyrithione and thiabendazole as known biocides/fungicides, thereby suggesting their combination. Similarly, Dutton teaches a biocidal composition including known fungicides such as thiabendazole and azoxystrobin, and even provides an example of these two fungicides used together. Dutton 8, Table. We are also unpersuaded that the purpose of the fungicides as used in Uhr or Swofford is different from the purpose of fungicides in Dutton—in each case, the fungicide is used for its fungicidal activity. That the prior art teaches these compounds within lists of known fungicides does not render their selection any less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the ʼ813 patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. This is especially true because the claimed composition is used for the identical purpose.”); see also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives”); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]here a skilled artisan merely pursues ‘known options’ from a ‘finite number of identified, predictable solutions,’ obviousness under § 103 arises.” (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)). Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 12 We are also not persuaded that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 is somehow in conflict with either the Stepan or Polaris decisions. See Appeal Br. 9, 18. In Stepan, the court determined that the Board failed to explain why it would have been routine optimization to select and adjust the claimed surfactants and achieve a cloud point above at least 70°C from the teachings of the prior art with a reasonable expectation of success. Stepan, 868 F.3d at 1346. However, unlike Stepan, claim 17 does not recite any property that requires optimization of the selection and adjustment of the components of the claimed composition. In Polaris, the court stated that the Board improperly characterized Polaris’ teaching away argument as a conflation of known modifications having known benefits with subjective preferences. Polaris, 882 F.3d at 1068. In addition, the court stated that the Board improperly determined that the ordinary artisan has the ability to weigh the various benefits and disadvantages based on subjective preferences in an analysis largely unrelated to obviousness. Id. Unlike Polaris, Appellant has not raised any teaching away argument, nor has the Examiner made any findings involving subjective preferences. Appellant further argues that Uhr’s biocidal substance is chemically different from claim 17’s recited fungicidal particles which are a combination of three fungicides because Uhr’s substance are chemical compounds with structural elements derived from acrylonitrile. Reply Br. 10–11. This argument is not persuasive because claim 17 does not exclude polymers with structural elements derived from acrylonitrile and Uhr’s substance includes one or more fungicides including zinc pyrithione and thiabendazole. Appellant fails to direct our attention to any evidentiary Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 13 support showing, or otherwise persuasively explain, how Uhr’s substance is chemically different from the claimed particles. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 17 and 23 over the combination of Uhr, Swofford, and Dutton.5 Rejection 2: Obviousness of claims 25–27 The Examiner rejects claims 25–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uhr in view of Swofford and Dutton, as evidenced by Zinc Pyrithione NPL and Silicone NPL, and further in view of Beerse. Ans. 7–9. Specifically, the Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Uhr, Swofford, and Dutton fails to teach the particular type or amount of silicone oil as recited in claims 25–27. Id. at 7–8. The Examiner finds that Beerse teaches anti-fungal coatings for industrial substrates using water and polymerized siloxane carriers with emulsifiers. Id. at 8. The Examiner further finds that Beerse’s siloxanes include linear chains of dimethylsiloxane (R2SiO) units. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have used Beerse’s polymerized siloxanes in amounts taught therein for the silicone oil carrier of Uhr because Beerse teaches this type and amount of silicone oil is effective for forming water/silicone emulsion coating compositions for anti-fungal coatings. Id. Appellant argues that Beerse fails to remedy the deficiencies of the Uhr, Swofford, and Dutton combination as applied to claim 17. Appeal Br. 20. However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded of any 5 Appellant does not dispute or otherwise challenge the Examiner’s reliance on either Zinc Pyrithione NPL or Silicone NPL. Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 14 deficiency in the Uhr, Swofford, and Dutton combination applied to claim 17 requiring remedy by Beerse. Appellant further argues that Beerse’s compositions are used for cleaning, rather than coating surfaces. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant contends that Beerse fails to teach use of the compositions on gypsum products and there is no reason to believe that Beerse’s compositions can be used preventatively to prevent a surface from microbial infection. Id. at 21–22. Appellant also contends that a combination of Uhr and Beerse would produce a cleaning emulsion rather than a gypsum panel. Id. at 22. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the rejection does not rely on Beerse for teaching an anti-fungal composition for coating gypsum products, but for its teaching of the use of a polymerized siloxane including linear chains of dimethylsiloxane units for forming effective emulsions including anti-microbial agents. To the extent that Appellant is arguing that Beerse is non-analogous to the coating compositions of Uhr, Swofford, and Dutton, the Examiner finds that Beerse is applicable to industrial and paper substrates. Ans. 16. In other words, the Examiner finds that Beerse is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant and the remaining applied prior art. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.”) (citations omitted). Further, even if Beerse were not from Appellant’s field of endeavor, its teaching is nonetheless reasonably pertinent to one or more particular problems to which the invention relates. Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 15 Beerse teaches a similar emulsion as Uhr’s based on water and silicone oil, and teaches that the particular siloxane selected is effective to provide a suitable emulsion for an anti-microbial composition. As such, an ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to have used Beerse’s particular siloxane in Uhr’s anti-fungal coating emulsion with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 25–27 as unpatentable over the combination of Uhr, Swofford, Dutton, and Beerse. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above and in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17, 23, and 25–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 17, 23 103 Uhr, Swofford, Dutton, Zinc Pyrithione NPL, Silicone NPL 17, 23 25–27 103 Uhr, Swofford, Dutton, Zinc Pyrithione NPL, Silicone NPL, Beerse 25–27 Overall Outcome 17, 23, 25–27 Appeal 2020-003141 Application 14/095,499 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation