2021002262 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2021)

Eggert BOEHLAU et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 13, 2021

2021002262 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 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. 15/284,843 10/04/2016 Eggert BOEHLAU 04190002US 6593 62008 7590 09/13/2021 MAIER & MAIER, PLLC 345 SOUTH PATRICK STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER MAI, HAO D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3772 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/13/2021 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@maierandmaier.com maierandmaier_PAIR@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EGGERT BOEHLAU and DANIEL KNOCH Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The real parties of interest herein are Eggert BOEHLAU of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and Daniel KNOCH of Hixson, Tennessee.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Subject Matter on Appeal The Appellant’s invention is directed to: A multiple-stage treatment method of orthodontically correcting teeth of a patient. The patient may wear, during the night and whenever convenient, a tooth positioner shaped to fit their dentition. The patient may then wear, at other times, an arch aligner shaped to fit their dentition. The patient may progress in stages, with the patient using a different arch aligner at every stage and a different tooth positioner every several stages. The combination of the arch aligner and tooth positioner may be used to treat, among other problems, class II and class III malocclusions, or transverse or vertical malocclusions, while maximizing the potential for patient compliance and reducing the number of tooth positioners and/or arch aligners that have to be made. Spec. Abstract (emphasis added). “Tooth positioners merge/connect both dental arches, and provide good control how the teeth of the upper dental arch meet with the lower dental arch, and vice versa.” Spec. ¶ 2, Fig. 1 (showing a tooth positioner). “Arch aligners are typically thin, flat plastic aligner trays that fit over a patient’s top or bottom teeth, or some portion thereof.” Spec. ¶ 3, Fig. 2 (showing an arch aligner). Claims 1 and 6 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A multiple-stage treatment method of orthodontically correcting teeth of a patient, comprising: [a] taking an impression of the dentition of the patient; [b] creating, using the impression of the dentition of the patient, a model of the dentition of the patient, wherein the model is at least one of a digital model or a realistic model; Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 3 [c] making a plurality of adjustments to the model comprising adjusting a position of at least one tooth in the model, and after each adjustment in the plurality of adjustments, creating an arch aligner shaped to fit the adjusted dentition of the model; and [d] after making the plurality of adjustments, creating a tooth positioner shaped to fit the adjusted dentition of the model, [e] wherein each arch aligner comprises a plastic tray having depressions and raised surfaces configured to receive one or more teeth in an individual dental arch, the individual dental arch being one of an upper dental arch and a lower dental arch, [f] wherein each tooth positioner comprises an arch- shaped body of resilient material configured to receive one or more teeth in both the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch, [g] wherein an internal geometry of the arch aligner is different from an internal geometry of the tooth positioner for each adjustment in the plurality of adjustments, and [h] wherein each of the adjustments in the plurality of adjustments is a progressive correction of the model of the dentition of the patient from a current occlusion to an ideal occlusion. Appeal Br., Claims App. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Bergersen US 4,139,944 Feb. 20, 1979 Mason et al. (“Mason”) US 2010/0129762 A1 May 27, 2010 Kitching US 2013/0122448 A1 May 16, 2013 Khardekar et al. (“Khardekar”) US 2013/0231899 A1 Sept. 5, 2013 German US 2015/0044627 A1 Feb. 12, 2015 Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 4 Rejections Claims 1–8 and 11–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kitching or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kitching and Bergersen. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kitching, Bergersen, and Mason. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kitching, Bergersen, and Khardekar. Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by German. ANALYSIS Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2–5 Anticipation by Kitching The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding that Kitching discloses a “tooth positioner,” as required by independent claim 1, is not adequately supported. See Appeal Br. 6, 8–9. The Appellant supports this argument by contending that Kitching discloses a connection between upper and lower arch aligners, by use of auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts, for the purpose of arch alignment. See Appeal Br. 8–9. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. The Appellant fails to persuasively explain on the record how the structure and function of Kitching’s connected upper and lower arch aligners, by use of auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts, fail to correspond to the claimed “tooth positioner.” In this regard, we find that Kitching’s connected upper and lower arch aligners, by use of auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts, Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 5 “comprise[] an arch-shaped body of resilient material configured to receive one or more teeth in both the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch,” as recited in limitation (f) of claim 1. As discussed below, the internal geometry of Kitching’s tooth positioner is different from the internal geometry of Kitching arch aligner, as required by limitation (g) of claim 1. Additionally, the structure of Kitching’s connected upper and lower arch aligners, by use of auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts (i.e., tooth positioner), is more bulky than Kitching’s single alignment appliance embodiment (i.e., arch aligner) at least because the former includes two aligner appliances with auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts as compared to the latter having a single aligner appliance. See Spec. ¶ 3 (describing arch aligners as having “the advantage of being less bulky than tooth positioners”). As for the function of Kitching’s connected upper and lower arch aligners, by use of auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts, Kitching teaches that when auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts are used, such as when an elastic/rubber band is joined directly to the aligner, the elastic/rubber band has an orthodontic function. See Kitching ¶¶ 18–19, 54–56; Figs. 4A–B. This orthodontic functionality supports the notion that Kitching’s connected upper and lower arch aligners, by use of auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts, include the ability to “merge/connect both dental arches, and provide good control how the teeth of the upper dental arch meet with the lower dental arch, and vice versa” (Spec. ¶ 2). To the extent that the Appellant argues that the structure and function of Kitching’s connected upper and lower arch aligners, by use of auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts, corresponds to an aligner –– i.e., two separate aligners –– and not to the claimed tooth positioner, the Appellant fails to persuasively Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 6 explain how Kitching’s connected upper and lower arch aligners, by use of auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts, correspond to two aligners, instead of a “tooth positioner.” Moreover, we note that the Specification suggests that the functionality of a tooth positioner and the functionality of an arch aligner overlap in some regard and differ in others. The Specification describes, “[arch aligners] function similarly to tooth positioners with respect to achieving alignment within an arch” and “are more limited in application than . . . tooth positioners.” Spec. ¶ 3. As for the latter, the Specification describes that “[arch aligners] may not be able to be used for certain treatments,” including “for example, coordination of an occlusion or making anteroposterior (AP) changes, which may include, for example, class II and class III occlusal issues, transverse occlusal issues, and/or vertical occlusal issues.” Spec. ¶ 3. In this regard, we note that the Appellant does not address how Kitching’s connected upper and lower arch aligners, by use of auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts, cannot perform any of the named treatments. Although not necessarily conclusive, an explanation in this regard would provide some support that Kitching’s connected upper and lower arch aligners, by use of auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts, is not a tooth positioner. The Appellant argues Kitching fails to disclose limitations (g) and (h) of claim 1; i.e., wherein an internal geometry of the arch aligner is different from an internal geometry of the tooth positioner for each adjustment in the plurality of adjustments, and wherein each of the adjustments in the plurality of adjustments is a progressive correction of the model of the Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 7 dentition of the patient from a current occlusion to an ideal occlusion. See Appeal Br. 9. It is the Appellant’s position that “[i]n Kitching . . . for each adjustment (e.g. steps 108-122 of Figure 2), the internal geometries of the individual arch aligners prior to and after their ‘optional’ connection (e.g. in step 116 of Figure 2) are the same.” Appeal Br. 9. According to the Appellant, “tooth positioners and arch aligners are distinguished by their internal geometry” and “[e]ach adjustment corresponds to the ‘progressive correction of the model of dentition of the patient from a current occlusion to an ideal occlusion.’” Appeal Br. 7. The Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. Rather, we agree with the Examiner’s response that: Kitching clearly teaches a series of appliances having different internal geometry, i.e. “a different prescription”, in order to incrementally move teeth in a series of treatment stages (abstract; paragraphs 5-6). That is, Kitching discloses a series of appliances A1, A2, A3, An+1, each may comprise a single tray for a single arch or two trays for the upper and lower arches, for each Stage1, Stage2, Stage3, Stagen+1 in a treatment plan. So, for example, the tray(s) A1 may be the “arch aligner(s)” as claimed. The two trays A3 for the upper and lower arch, considered as one single appliance when connected together as shown in Fig. 4A, may be the “tooth positioner” as claimed. The tooth positioner/appliances A3 have different geometry than that of A1. Furthermore, note that the fact that Kitching’s positioner, which is configured to receive teeth in both the upper and lower arches (Fig. 4A), would have a different internal geometry than that of Kitching’s aligner, which is configured to receive teeth in an individual dental arch. Ans. 11. Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 8 For similar reasons as discussed above with respect to limitations (g) and (h), the Appellant argues Kitching fails to disclose the steps of limitations (c) and (d); i.e., “making a plurality of adjustments to the model comprising adjusting a position of at least one tooth in the model, and after each adjustment in the plurality of adjustments, creating an arch aligner shaped to fit the adjusted dentition of the model” and “after making the plurality of adjustments, creating a tooth positioner shaped to fit the adjusted dentition of the model.” Appeal Br. 8. We determine that the Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kitching. The Appellant does not separately argue the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2–5 under this ground. We likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kitching. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Obvious over Kitching and Bergersen The Appellant argues that “if one were to modify the optionally connected arch aligners of Kitching so as to obtain a monolithic body, [as taught by Bergersen,] the mere formation of this monolithic body does not meet either the structural features of the claimed tooth positioner or the claimed steps including the tooth positioner of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10. The Appellant supports this argument with arguments similar to those discussed for the anticipation rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10–11. For similar reasons as discussed above, we determine that the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. See Ans. 10–11. Most notably, among the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 9 that the structure and function of Kitching’s connected upper and lower arch aligners, when using auxiliaries and auxiliary mounts, fails to correspond the claimed “tooth positioner.” Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kitching and Bergersen. The Appellant does not separately argue the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kitching and Bergersen. We likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these dependent claims under this ground. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Anticipation by German The Appellant argues Kitching fails to disclose the steps of limitations (c) and (d); i.e., “making a plurality of adjustments to the model comprising adjusting a position of at least one tooth in the model, and after each adjustment in the plurality of adjustments, creating an arch aligner shaped to fit the adjusted dentition of the model” and “after making the plurality of adjustments, creating a tooth positioner shaped to fit the adjusted dentition of the model.” Appeal Br. 18. The Appellant points out that “German first creates aligners for various models to achieve ‘optimally-aligned’ teeth, and then German creates the positioner shaped to fit these new digital models, and, thus the positioner does not correspond the adjusted dentition of a model from which an aligner was shaped to fit.” Appeal Br. 19. The Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. In response, the Examiner explains, “German’s optimally-aligned teeth, are based on a resulted adjusted dentition of model. That is, the final/optimal adjusted dentition of model is itself an adjusted model within a series of adjusted dentition of models to incrementally move the dentition Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 10 from an initial position to an optimally-aligned position.” Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner’s explanation. Additionally, we note that limitation (h) further defines that “the plurality of adjustments” to the model include an ideal occlusion, which corresponds to German’s model for optimally-aligned teeth and supports the Examiner’s explanation. The Appellant also argues “because German fails to teach creating a tooth positioner shaped to fit the adjusted dentition of the model to which an arch aligner has been fitted, German fails to teach that an internal geometry of the arch aligner is different from an internal geometry of the tooth positioner for each adjustment in the plurality of adjustments.” Appeal Br. 19. It is the Appellant’s position that “German teaches a positioner designed to fit the ‘optimally-aligned’ teeth, i.e. after all aligner adjustments have been made.” Appeal Br. 19. In other words, the Appellant argues Kitching fails to disclose the steps of limitations (g) and (h). See Appeal Br. 19. The Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. In response, the Examiner explains, “German’s positioner (Fig. 6), which is configured to receive teeth in both the upper and lower arches, would have a different internal geometry than that of German’s aligner (Fig. 3), which is configured to receive teeth in an individual dental arch.” Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner’s explanation. Additionally, as discussed above, limitation (h) further defines that “the plurality of adjustments” to the model include an ideal occlusion, which corresponds to German’s model for optimally-aligned teeth and supports the Examiner’s explanation. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by German. The Appellant does Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 11 not separately argue the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2–5 under this ground. We likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these dependent claims 2–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by German. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Independent Claim 6 and Dependent Claims 7–16 In view of our determination that independent claim 6 and dependent claims 7–16 are indefinite, infra, it follows that the rejections of these claims must fall because they are necessarily based on a speculative assumption as to the meaning of the claims. See In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] claim cannot be both indefinite and anticipated.”) (quoting Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962). Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6–16. It should be understood, however, that our decision in this regard is pro forma and based solely on the indefiniteness of the claimed subject matter set forth below, and does not reflect on the adequacy of the prior art evidence applied in support of the rejections. New Ground of Rejection Independent claim 6 and dependent claims 7–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, which the Appellant regards as the invention. See In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310–13 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”); see also Ex parte McAward, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 12 (precedential) (explaining that the USPTO considers a claim indefinite when it “contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Independent claim 6, reproduced below with bracketed notations and emphasis added, recites: 6. A multiple-stage treatment method of orthodontically correcting an occlusion of one or more teeth, comprising: for each stage in a plurality of stages: [(a)] periodically wearing, until the one or more teeth adjust from a first configuration to a second configuration, one or more arch aligners, the one or more arch aligners comprising a plastic tray having depressions and raised surfaces shaped to receive one or more teeth in an individual dental arch, the individual dental arch being one of an upper dental arch and a lower dental arch, and configured to apply a force to at least one of the one or more teeth, the at least one tooth being in a different position in the second configuration as compared to the first configuration, and the force tending to move the at least one tooth from the position of the first configuration to the position of the second configuration; [(b)] periodically wearing, until the one or more teeth adjust from a first configuration to a second configuration, a tooth positioner, the tooth positioner comprising an arch-shaped body of resilient material configured to receive one or more teeth in both the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch and configured to apply a force to the at least one tooth, the at least one tooth being in a different position in the second configuration as compared to the first configuration, and the force tending to move the at least one tooth from the position of the first configuration to the position of the second configuration; and [(c)] when the at least one tooth has adjusted from the first configuration to the second configuration, exchanging the one or more arch aligners for one or more arch aligners configured to apply a force to the at least one tooth tending to move the at least one tooth from the position of the second configuration to the position of a third configuration, Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 13 [(d)] wherein an internal geometry of the arch aligner is different from an internal geometry of the tooth positioner for each stage in the plurality of stages, [(e)] wherein the tooth positioner is configured to apply a force to the at least one tooth tending to move the at least one tooth from the position of the second configuration to the position of the third configuration, and [(f)] wherein, for each stage in the plurality of stages after the first, the first configuration of the stage is the second configuration of the previous stage, and the second configuration of the stage is the third configuration of the previous stage. Appeal Br., Claims App. Claim 6 recites a “the first configuration” and “the second configuration” in limitations (c), (e), and (f), which is indefinite. In limitation (a), the claim recites “periodically wearing, until the one or more teeth adjust from a first configuration to a second configuration, one or more arch aligners.” Similarly, in limitation (b), the claim recites “periodically wearing, until the one or more teeth adjust from a first configuration to a second configuration, a tooth positioner.” Because these limitations use the indefinite article “a,” the claim is open to an interpretation where “a first configuration” and “a second configuration” in limitation (a) is not the same as “a first configuration” and “a second configuration” in limitation (b). In limitations (c), (e), and (f), the claim recites one or both of “the first configuration” and “the second configuration.” In these limitations, the claim uses the definite article “the” prior to “first configuration” and “second configuration.” However, it is unclear if each instance of “the first configuration” and “the second configuration” in limitations (c), (e), and (f) refers back to “a first configuration” or “a second configuration,” respectively, to only limitation (a), to only limitation (b), or in some Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 14 instances limitation (a) and in other instances limitation (b). As a specific example, it is unclear if “the first configuration” in limitation (c) refers back to “a first configuration” in limitation (a) or to “a first configuration” in limitation (b). Additionally, we determine that the remainder of claim 6 does not provide adequate context to make the scope of limitations (c), (e), or (f) clear. In one circumstance, it is possible that the Appellant intended the two separate instances of the phrase “a first configuration” –– and, likewise intended the two separate instances of the phrase “a second configuration” –– in limitations (a) and (b) to refer to the same configuration. In other circumstances, the context of the claim does provide adequate context to make the scope of the claim clear. For example, limitations (a) and (b) recite, identically, “the at least one tooth being in a different position in the second configuration as compared to the first configuration, and the force tending to move the at least one tooth from the position of the first configuration to the position of the second configuration.” Plainly, in limitation (a) there is no misunderstanding of “the first configuration” and “the second configuration” because the second instance of “a first configuration” and “a second configuration” in limitation (b) has yet to be introduced. In limitation (b), the references to “the first configuration” and “the second configuration” seems to refer back to limitation (b)’s recitation of “a first configuration” and “a second configuration.” Otherwise, the second instance of the identical recitation would be redundant. Therefore, we determine that independent claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the Appellant regards as the Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 15 invention. Also, we determine that dependent claims 7–16 are indefinite due to their dependency on an independent claim 6. Additionally, dependent claims 9 and 10 also recite “the first configuration” and “the second configuration” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) and are indefinite based on similar reasoning as discussed above. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kitching; claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kitching and Bergersen; and claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by German. We REVERSE pro forma the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 6–8 and 11–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kitching; claims 6–8 and 11–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kitching and Bergersen; claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kitching, Bergersen, and Mason; and claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kitching, Bergersen, and Khardekar. We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 6–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: Appeal 2021-002262 Application 15/284,843 16 (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1–8, 11–15 102(a)(2) Kitching 1–5 6–8, 11–15 1–8, 11–15 103 Kitching, Bergersen 1–5 6–8, 11–15 9, 10 103 Kitching, Bergersen, Mason 9, 10 16 103 Kitching, Bergersen, Khardekar 16 1–5 102(a)(2) German 1–5 6–16 112(b) Indefiniteness 6–16 Overall Outcome 1–5 6–16 6–16 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)