Vertommen, Jan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2019

14655049 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/655,049 06/23/2015 Jan Vertommen 9156-92603-04 7470
120501 7590 09/17/2019
Klarquist Sparkman, LLP (Capsugel)
121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
KASSA, TIGABU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@klarquist.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAN VERTOMMEN and MARIE SOPHIE MARTINA
____________

Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal1,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to an
enteric coating for a soft capsule shell. The Examiner rejected the claims as
lacking written description and obvious. 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 the Real Party in Interest as Capsugel
Belgium NV (see Br. 4).
2 We have considered and herein refer to the Specification of June 23, 2015
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action of Jan. 4, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief
of Aug. 21, 2018 (“Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer of Jan. 28, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“Different techniques have been used to impart enteric release
properties to [] hard or softgel capsule shells” (Spec. ¶ 6). “For soft
capsules, [] post-treatment spraying or film coating may result in shells that
are brittle and hard to handle, or that agglomerate into a non-functional
mass” (id.). “[E]nteric coatings for softgel capsules . . . must be stable, must
not impart undesirable stickiness, and must not adversely affect
characteristics of dissolution and/or brittleness in the finished softgel dosage
form” (id. at ¶ 10).
“The instant disclosure relates to an innovative enteric coating
formulation for softgel capsules having selective concentrations of glidant,
emulsifier, and plasticizer” (Spec. ¶ 11). “A lower percentage of glidant in
the coating composition . . . failed to prevent severe stickinesses of the
coated capsules during storage” (id. at ¶ 12). “Reduction of the emulsifier as
typically reported [in] literature concentrations . . . resulted in cracking of
the coating (id.). “Surprisingly, it was found that polysorbate 80 . . . of a
15% dry copolymer content composition . . . resulted in favorable adhesion
and flexibility of the coating on . . . softgel capsules (id. at ¶ 47). “This
content was found to prevent the coating from cracking . . . The minimum
content, which can also be defined to be above about 5% calculated by
weight of dry copolymer, is higher than the maximum amounts of
polysorbate 80 reported in the literature” (id.). “Moreover, [glycerol
monostearate (“GMS”)], acting as an anti-tacking agent, only proved its
efficiency on enteric coated . . . softgel capsules when a percentage above
about 5% by weight of dry polymer was added” (id.).
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

3
The Claims
Claims 1–5 and 15–18 are on appeal. Claims 6–14 and 19 are
withdrawn. Independent claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A softgel dosage form enteric coating composition
comprising:

an aqueous coating composition including

at least one methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymer, in an
amount ranging from about 10% to about 30% by weight of the
aqueous coating composition;

at least one glidant, in an amount ranging from greater
than 5% to about 15% by weight of the dry copolymer;

at least one emulsifier, in an amount ranging from greater
than about 10% to about 30% by weight of the dry copolymer;
and

at least one plasticizer, selected from the group consisting
of polyethylene glycol, glycerol, sorbitol, dicotyl-sodium
sulfosuccinate, triethyl citrate (TEC), tributyl citrate, mono-, di,
or tri-acetates of glycerol, dibutyl sebecate, di- and triethyl
phthalate, polyethylene glycol 6000, and mixtures thereof, in an
amount ranging from about 10% to about 25% by weight of the
dry copolymer.

(Br. 17).

The Rejections
Claims
Rejected
Basis References Final Act.
Citation
1–5, 15–18 § 112 (pre-AIA)
first paragraph,
written description
2–4
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

4
1–5, 15–18 § 103(a) EP’830,3 Rao,4
Durig5
4–13

A. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description
The Examiner finds the amendment of claim 1 to recite “‘at least one
methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymer, in an amount ranging from about 10%
to about 30% by weight of the aqueous coating composition’ . . . does not
have any support in the original specification” (Final Act. 3). The Examiner
finds “[a]ll the amounts of the copolymer are described in the form of a dry
copolymer not with respect to the aqueous coating composition” (id. at 4).
Appellant contends “the application itself is based on the percentage
of enteric polymer relative to the aqueous coating composition, and such is
explicitly stated in the application” (Br. 5). Appellant contends:
[First] that in the application, the coating composition (or enteric
coating composition as it is at times called) disclosed is an
aqueous coating composition. Second, in the application the
enteric polymer (e.g., the “at least one methacrylic acid/acrylate
copolymer” in the current claims) is disclosed as being from
about 10% to about 30% by weight of the coating composition

(id. at 6). Appellant cites to several portions of the Specification for support,
including exemplary ranges of preferred components (see id. at 6–7). For
example, the Specification discloses:
Enteric Polymer in amounts ranging from about 10% to about
30% (w/w of the final composition); Triethyl citrate (TEC) in
amounts ranging from about 10% to about 25% (w/w, based on
dry polymer content); Glyceryl monostearate (GMS) ranging
from greater than about 5% to about 15%, or about 6% to about

3 EP 2283830 A1, published Feb. 16, 2011.
4 Rao et al., US 2005/0095285 A1, published May 5, 2005.
5 Durig et al., US 2011/0002986 A1, published Jan. 6, 2011.
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

5
12%, or about 6% to about 10% (w/w, based on dry polymer
content); polysorbate 80 ranging from greater than about 5% to
about 30%, or from about 6% to about 20%, or from about 6%
to about 10% (w/w, based on dry polymer content)

(id. at 7, citing Spec. ¶ 48). This paragraph distinguishes between the
amount of enteric polymer based on the final composition, and the amount
of additives based on dry polymer content, e.g., plasticizer, i.e., TEC;
glidant, i.e., GMS; and emulsifier, i.e., polysorbate 80. The Specification
provides a similar contrast when comparing Table 1 of the Specification,
which describes additives in terms of w/w as % of dry copolymer and Table
2 of the Specification, which describes all of the components in terms of
weight in an aqueous composition (see Spec. ¶¶ 38, 43).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification
demonstrates possession of the amendment to claim 1 by disclosing an
amount of enteric polymer by weight of the aqueous coating composition.
Although we do not find the Examiner’s position unreasonable, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection for lack of written description because the
evidence better supports a finding that the amounts claimed were disclosed
in the Specification. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he description requirement does not
demand any particular form of disclosure, or that the specification recite the
claimed invention in haec verba”).

B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds EP’830 teaches “an enteric capsule coating . . .
comprising a mixture at a ratio of between and about 50/50–45/55 of a first
copolymer [m[e]thacrylic acid-ethyl acrylate]; and a second copolymer
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

6
[methacrylic acid-methyl acrylate-methyl methacrylate]” (Final Act. 5). The
Examiner finds EP’830 teaches that each of the copolymers represents about
30 and 50% wt. of the composition (id., emphasis omitted). The Examiner
determines that methacrylic acid-ethyl acrylate “reads on appellant’s claim
of at least one methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymer” (Ans. 5, emphasis
omitted). The Examiner determines further that the transitional phrase “an
aqueous coating composition including” means a “second copolymer can be
added in the composition” (see Ans. 7).
The Examiner finds EP’830 teaches the coating further includes a
plasticizer, a lubricant, and an emulsifier (Final Act. at 5–6). The Examiner
finds EP’830 teaches “when the plasticizer is triethyl citrate, its content will
generally not exceed about 20% wt. of the formulation” (id. at 6, emphasis
omitted). The Examiner finds EP’830 teaches “when the lubricant is
glycerol monostearate, its content will generally not exceed about 10% wt.
of the formulation” (id., emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds EP’830
teaches “when the emulsifier is polysorbate 80, its content will generally not
exceed about 5% wt. of the formulation” (id. at 7, emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds EP’830 does “not specifically teach in claim 2
that the at least one methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymer is present in an
amount of about 15% by weight of the composition”6 (Final Act. 7). The
Examiner finds EP’830 does not specifically teach “the emulsifier[s] such as
polysorbate 80 are incorporated in an amount ranging from greater than

6 The Examiner mistakenly refers to claim 2 as reciting the limitation “of
about 15% by weight of the composition” (Final Act. 7). Claim 18 recites
“wherein the at least one methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymer is present in
an amount of about 15% by weight of the composition” (Br. 19). We deem
this harmless error.
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

7
about 10% to about 30%” (Final Act. 8). The Examiner finds Rao teaches a
soft gel capsule including an enteric polymer ranging from 5 to 40% by
weight of the dry shell (id. at 8, emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds
Durig teaches enteric coatings for soft gel capsules that may include the
combination of polysorbate 80 and glyceryl monostearate (id. at 10,
emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds Durig teaches the amount of
glyceryl monostearate may range from about 3% to about 25% and the
amount of polysorbate 80 may range from about 0.5% to about 12% by
weight of a water dispersible powder blend (id. at 9, emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds an ordinary skilled artisan would have had a
reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as all of the
references teach enteric compositions for soft gel capsules (see Final Act.
11–12). The Examiner finds that the claimed ranges of amounts of
ingredients overlaps with those of the prior art; therefore “a prima facie case
of obviousness exists” (id.).
The issues with respect to these rejections are:
(i) Does a preponderance of evidence of record support the
Examiner’s conclusion that the prior art renders the claims obvious?
(ii) If so, has Appellant presented evidence of secondary
considerations, that when weighed with the evidence of obviousness, is
sufficient to support a conclusion of non-obviousness?
Findings of Fact (“FF”)
1. EP’830 teaches “[a]n enteric capsule coating . . . comprising a mixture
. . . of a first copolymer [methacrylic acid-ethyl acrylate]; and a second
copolymer [methacrylic acid, methyl acrylate-methyl methacrylate]”
(EP’830 6:11–13).
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

8
2. EP’830 teaches:
Aqueous enteric capsule coatings are know from the art. For
example, US7094425 provides enteric capsule coatings
comprising the water-soluble copolymer [methacrylic acid-ethyl
acrylate] or [methacrylic acid-methyl acrylate-methyl meth-
acrylate]. The copolymer [methacrylic acid-ethyl acrylate],
however, is designed to only dissolve from pH 7.0, whereas the
copolymer [methacrylic acid-methyl acrylate-methyl meth-
acrylate] is designed to dissolve from pH 5.5. Therefore, coating
with either one of these copolymers alone, does not result in the
desired disintegration profile for the coatings of the present
invention (resistance at pH values of about 5.5 and rapid
disintegration at pH values of about 6.8).

(EP’830 ¶ 5).

3. EP’830 teaches “[f]or the intestinal delivery of active ingredients, the
enteric coated capsules . . . should be stable at low pH (up to pH 5.5) and in
having an accelerated dissolution profile at higher pH (above pH 5.5). The
optimal release is realized when the capsules disintegrate at a pH of about
6.8” (EP’830 ¶ 26).
4. EP’830 teaches “the enteric capsule coating further comprises a
plasticizer, and optionally a lubricant, an emulsifier, or both” (EP’830 ¶ 10).
5. EP’830 teaches “[t]he amount of plasticizer used in the formulation
will depend upon its composition, physical properties, [and] effect upon the
copolymer . . . By way of example, when the plasticizer is triethyl citrate, its
content will generally not exceed about 20% wt. of the formulation”
(EP’830 ¶ 13).
6. EP’830 teaches “[t]he amount of lubricant used in the formulation will
depend upon its composition, physical properties, [and] effect upon the
copolymer . . . By way of example, when the lubricant is glycerol
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

9
monostearate, its content will generally not exceed about 10% wt. of the
formulation” (EP’830 ¶ 17).
7. EP’830 teaches “[t]he amount of emulsifier used in the formulation
will depend upon its composition, physical properties, [and] effect upon the
copolymer. . . By way of example, when the emulsifier is polysorbate 80, its
content will generally not exceed about 5% wt. of the formulation” (EP’830
¶ 21).
8. EP’830 teaches the concentrations of components “are based on dry
polymer substance” (EP’830 ¶ 24).
9. EP’830 teaches the following compositions of enteric coatings:

(EP’830 ¶ 38).
10. Rao teaches an “enteric polymer used in [a] soft gel capsule
composition . . . selected from . . . methacrylic acid ester copolymers . . . The
amount of such enteric polymer may range from 5.0–40.0 percent,
preferably 5.0–25.0 percent by weight with reference to the dried shell” (Rao
¶ 30).
11. Rao teaches an example of a soft gelatin shell formulation in the form
of an aqueous composition containing 7.5 percent by weight methacrylic
acid co-polymer Type C (Rao ¶ 85).
12. Durig teaches “[a] formulation for a blend of food grade ingredients
that can be readily dispersed in water and the dispersion coated onto solid
dosage forms to provide an enteric coating” (Durig ¶ 20).
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

10
13. Durig teaches “the water dispersible powder blend also optionally
comprises a plasticizer” (Durig ¶ 29).
14. Durig teaches “[i]f glyceryl monostearate is the plasticizer, then it
may be used in an amount in the range of from about 3% to about 25% . . . If
polysorbate 80 is the plasticizer, then it may be used in an amount in the
range of from about 0.5% to about 12%” (Durig ¶ 30).
15. Durig teaches “[f]or coatings that are to be applied to soft gel
capsules, combinations of plasticizers are most preferred, for instance . . . the
combination of polysorbate 80 with glyceryl monostearate” (Durig ¶ 34).

Principles of Law
“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).

Analysis
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusion of law (Final
Act. 4–13; FFs 1–15) and agree that EP’830, Rao, and Durig render the
claims obvious. We address Appellant’s argument below.
Appellant contends “[t]he ’830 Reference, alone or in combination
with Rao, fails to teach or suggest from about 10% to about 30% copolymer
in an aqueous coating composition as recited in claim 1” (Br. 8, emphasis
omitted). Appellant contends, “[a]s stated in the ’830 Reference . . . both of
the disclosed methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymers are present, each in an
amount between about 30% and 50% wt.” (id. at 9). Appellant contends
“[t]o the extent that the Examiner indicates a skilled artisan may choose just
one of the two methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymers taught by the ’830
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

11
Reference, the ’830 Reference explicitly teaches away from such a
conclusion” (id.). Appellant appears to distinguish EP’830 on the basis that
the reference requires a composition with two copolymers, as opposed to the
claimed composition, which is allegedly limited to one copolymer.
We do not find this argument persuasive. Appellant’s claim 1 recites
“an aqueous coating composition including at least one methacrylic
acid/acrylate copolymer, in an amount ranging from about 10% to about
30% by weight of the aqueous coating composition” (Br. 17). The
transitional phrase for the aqueous coating composition is “including,”
which means the same thing as “comprising” and allows for additional
elements in the composition. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
314 F.3d 1313, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, the plain meaning of “at
least one” indicates that more than one copolymer may be present in the
coating composition. Giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation,
we interpret claim 1 to allow for additional copolymers, in addition to the at
least one required methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymer in an amount ranging
from about 10% to about 30% by weight. “[D]uring examination
proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). EP’830 teaches an enteric coating composition comprising an
aqueous coating composition including at least one methacrylic acid/acrylate
copolymer, and therefore teaches the claimed element. We address the
amounts of the copolymer below.
Appellant contends “[l]ike the ’830 Reference, Rao neither teaches
nor suggests a softgel dosage form coating composition having, inter alia,
methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymer in an amount ranging from about 10%
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

12
to about 30% by weight of an aqueous coating composition” (Br. 11).
Appellant argues “the Examiner is not comparing ‘apples-to-apples’ and
never addressed the fact that it is comparing Rao’s dried shell composition
to Appellant’s aqueous coating composition (a solution)” (id.). Appellant
contends “[a]s can be seen by review of Appellant’s examples, a copolymer
amount of 15% in the aqueous coating composition would be equal to about
70% once the coating composition is dried (id., citing Spec. Table 2).
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive. We begin with an
“apples-to-apples” comparison of Appellant’s claim 1 to EP’830. Appellant
argues “a total of 60% to 100% methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymer
material is present the ’830 composition” (Br. 9). However, EP’830 teaches
an amount of methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymers on a basis of the dry
mixture, not an aqueous composition (FFs 8, 9). According to Appellant’s
statement in the Brief, the amount of copolymer in the dried coating of the
claimed composition is 70%, which falls squarely within the range of 60 to
100% copolymers in the dry mixture taught by EP’830.
We agree with Appellant that Rao teaches an amount of enteric
polymer ranging from 5 to 40% by weight with reference to the dried shell.
As noted by Appellant, Rao further teaches that the “capsule shell
composition appears to be an aqueous solution at some point” (Br. 8).
Addressing Appellant’s “apples-to-apples” comparison, Rao teaches an
aqueous composition including methacrylic acid co-polymer Type C in an
amount of 7.5% by weight (FF 11). Accordingly, Rao sets a lower boundary
of the range in combination with EP’830 that is close enough to the claimed
range “such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the
same properties.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

13
Because the prior art teaches at least one methacrylic acid/acrylate
copolymer in a range that overlaps the claimed range by weight of an
aqueous coating composition, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Appellant argues “even if the Rao reference did disclose the
copolymer amounts in Appellant’s current claim 1, which it does not, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not modify the ’830 Reference composition in
that manner” (Br. 12). Appellant contends “both methacrylic acid/acrylate
copolymers must be present and the ratios of the methacrylic acid/acrylate
copolymers present is vital to the success of the delayed dosage form enteric
coating” (id.) (citing EP’830 ¶¶ 5, 6, 7). Appellant contends “the copolymer
amounts in ’830 are chosen because they are best for its delayed release
objective” (id., citing EP’830 ¶¶ 1, 4).
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. “Under the proper
legal standard, a reference will teach away when it suggests that the
developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the
objective of the applicant’s invention.” Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc.,
407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). EP’830 teaches
that a combination of copolymers provides the desired disintegration at pH
6.8, rather than 5.5 or 7.0, i.e., the dissolution pH of the individual polymers
(FFs 2, 3). However, claim 1 recites any enteric coating, not one limited to a
specific pH release profile (see Br. 17). EP’830 does not suggest that using
at least one methacrylic acid/acrylate copolymer is unlikely to produce an
enteric coating as claimed. Therefore, we are not persuaded that EP’830
teaches away from the combination with Rao.
Appellant contends “one skilled in the art reads the ’830 Reference as
generally teaching a maximum of about 5% wt. of an emulsifier is
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

14
acceptable” (Br. 13). Appellant contends “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art
would not be motivated to more than double the generally maximum amount
of emulsifier, particularly since . . . the amount of emulsifier affects the
composition characteristics. Furthermore, doubling or more the maximum
stated amount of emulsifier would yield unpredictable results” (id., citing
EP’830 ¶ 21). Appellant contends emulsifiers are not required in the EP’830
composition (id. at 14). “Appellant’s invention, on the other hand, requires
a relatively large amount of emulsifier as Appellant’s composition is
directed to coatings to address different problems” (id., emphasis omitted).
Appellant contends “Durig faces different problems — it needs ready
dispersion into solution for spraying of the coating and has a different
purpose — it is directed to obtaining high concentration dispersions for
spray coatings onto solid dosage forms” (id., citing Durig ¶ 18).
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive. “In determining whether
the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular
motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is
the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007). The combination of EP’830 and Durig teach an amount of
emulsifier that overlaps the claimed range. The statement in EP’830 that the
content of polysorbate 80 will generally not exceed about 5% wt. of the
formulation does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
solution claimed” and thus does not teach away. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, Durig expressly teaches that the
most preferred combinations of additives for enteric coatings applied to soft
gel capsules include polysorbate 80, i.e., emulsifier, ranging from about
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

15
0.5% to about 12%, and glycerol monostearate, i.e., glidant, ranging from
about 3% to about 25% (FFs 14, 15). Accordingly, the objective reach of
the claim encompasses the prior art, and we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred. Because Appellant does not argue the dependent claim
separately, we agree with the Examiner that claims 1–5 and 15–18 are prima
facie obvious over the prior art.
Appellant contends “[s]urprisingly, the inventors found that with []
high amounts of emulsifier the coating compositions not only were found to
be flexible (able to withstand deformation), the coating compositions could
adhere to the exteriors of the softgel capsules without removing the lubricant
(on the capsules) or providing a subcoating” (Br. 14). Appellant contends
“Figures 1A–1D of the present application illustrate the relative importance
of having at least 10% by weight of emulsifier in the claimed softgel dosage
form coating composition and the higher weight percentage range of
glidant” (id. at 15). Particularly, Figure 1D containing 10% polysorbate 80
and 10% GMS shows no cracks or stickiness of capsules (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s evidence. Appellant presents
only one particular mixture of ingredients; however, the claims are much
broader in scope and encompass a variety of different mixtures. See In re
Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
Accordingly, the results are not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Unexpected results must be “commensurate in scope with the degree of
protection sought by the claimed subject matter.” In re Harris, 409 F.3d
1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Appeal 2019-003534
Application 14/655,049

16
Conclusion of Law
A preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that the prior art renders the claims obvious. Appellant has not
presented evidence of secondary considerations, that when weighed with the
evidence of obviousness, is sufficient to support a conclusion of non-
obviousness.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 15–18 § 112(a), written
description
1–5, 15–18
1–5, 15–18 § 103 EP’830, Rao,
Durig
1–5, 15–18
Overall Outcome 1–5, 15–18

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED