Ex Parte 5,964,222 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201690012355 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016) 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. 90/012,355 06/14/2012 5,964,222 5317-9 2825 15933 7590 05/16/2016 The Law Office of Roger S. Thompson 116 Pinehurst Ave Suite D-14 New York, NY 10033 EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3993 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HYPOXICO, INC.1 Appellant, Patent Owner ____________________ Appeal 2015-004931 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 Patent No. 5,964,2222 Technology Center 3900 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SONG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Hypoxico, Inc. is the real party in interest (Appeal Brief (hereinafter "App. Br.") 4). 2 Issued October 12, 1999 (hereinafter “the ’222 patent”). Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 2 Claims 6–11, 13–19, 26–32, 34, and 35 are subject to a Final Rejection rejected in the present reexamination, and are appealed by the Patent Owner under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 (App. Br. 6; Answer (hereinafter “Ans.”) 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306. In addition to the Appeal Brief, the Patent Owner also relies on a Reply Brief (hereinafter “Reply Br.”), and various declarations of record including the declarations of Messrs. Ito, Thompson and Rhodes. The ’222 patent is directed to a hypoxic tent system wherein oxygen depleted air is transmitted inside the tent (Abstract). Representative independent claim 6 reads as follows (App. Br. Claims App., amendments incorporated): 6. A portable travel system for providing a low- oxygen environment to a user for sleeping comprising: a breathing tent comprising soft walls supported by a supporting structure and an entry defining a closed space, accessible to the user through said entry being selectively closable so that when closed, the tent is substantially isolated from the outside environment; a gas-processing device having an outlet communicating with said closed space and transmitting an oxygen-depleted gas mixture through said outlet into said closed space. The Examiner rejects the following claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the noted combination of references in the record: 1. Claims 6–11, 13–16, 18, 19, 26–30, 32, 34 and 35 over JP ’9583 in view of Gamow.4 3 JP 3-16958 issued to Kawatomo (references to the English translation of record). 4 U.S. Patent No. 4,974,829, issued December 4, 1990. Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 3 2. Claims 17 and 31 over JP ’958, Gamow, and Baugh.5 3. Claims 26–30 and 32 over JP ’958, Gamow, and Frey.6 4. Claim 31 over JP ’958, Gamow, Frey, and Baugh. We AFFIRM. ISSUES The following issues have been raised in the present appeal. 1. Whether the Examiner erred in finding JP ’958 is prior art. 2. Whether the Examiner erred in concluding that various claims would have been obvious based on the combination of JP ’958 and Gamow. 3. Whether the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 34 and 35 would have been obvious based on the combination of JP ’958 and Gamow. ANALYSIS We note that only those arguments timely made in the briefs of record in this appeal have been considered. Other arguments not made or those not properly presented to the Board have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal”). 5 U.S. Patent No. 5,935,516, issued August 10, 1999. 6 U.S. Patent No. 4,439,213, issued March 27, 1984. Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 4 The Patent Owner groups claims 6–11, 13–16, 18, 19, 26–30 and 32 together as “GROUP 1” and argues these claims together (App. Br. 11). Thus, we deem claim 6 representative. The Patent Owner also groups claims 34 and 35 together as “GROUP 2” and argues these claims together (App. Br. 21). Group 1: Claims 6–11, 13–16, 18, 19, 26–30 and 32 As noted above, each of the rejections is based on combination of JP ’958 and Gamow. The Examiner finds that JP ’958 discloses the claimed invention except that the disclosed enclosure is not a tent (Ans. 4). The Examiner further finds that “Gamow shows a portable enclosure with a controlled atmosphere for the purpose of athletic training. The enclosure may be a tent as noted in column 9, lines 4-18. See Figure 1.” (Id.). The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the room of JP ’958 into an enclosure, such as a tent, in view of the teaching of Gamow so as to provide portability of the training environment as taught by Gamow.” (Id.). Thus, contrary to the Patent Owner’s argument (App. Br. 17), the Examiner has set forth a sufficient prima facie case of obviousness. JP ’958 Is Not Prior Art The Patent Owner argues that JP ’958 is not a prior art reference because it is not a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (App. Br. 11–15). Relying on declarations of Messrs. Ito, Thompson and Rhodes, the Patent Owner argues that in accordance with the Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 5 procedures in the Japanese Patent Office (hereinafter “JPO”), only the “claims, bibliographic information and drawings of a Utility Model application, as well as a reference designator list identifying the elements shown in the drawings of that application” are initially published in the Official Gazette of the JPO (App. Br. 12, citing Ito Declaration (hereinafter “Ito Decl.”) ¶ 6). The Patent Owner argues that “[a]s of the date of publication of the bibliographic information, the single microfilm copy of the complete application was laid open for public inspection in the JPO (no copies were pre-made).” (Id., citing Ito Decl. ¶ 7). Based on these facts, the Patent Owner asserts: [t]he law is clear that, where a foreign application is only available as a single [microfilm] copy in the files of a foreign patent office, and only bibliographic identifying material is published, the underlying patent application itself is not a ‘printed publication’ within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In re Tenney, 117 U.S.P.Q. 348[, 254 F.2d 619] (C.C.P.A. 1958). (Id. at 14). The Examiner finds: The complete specification of the patent application for JP ’958 was laid open for public inspection on the publication date of 02/20/1991; therefore, it was made available to interested persons. The remaining question is whether interested persons, exercising reasonable diligence, could have located the complete specification. . . . Upon entry of the utility model publication number from the Official Gazette, one could access/view the publication and print it on paper if desired. Therefore, one of ordinary skill, exercising reasonable diligence, could have located and printed the published application for JP ’958. (Ans. 9). Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 6 The Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive for various reasons. Firstly, “[t]he determination of whether a reference is a ‘printed publication’ under 35. U.S.C. § 102(b) involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although the Patent Owner relies on Tenney for its position and seeks to distinguish In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221 (CCPA 1981) (App. Br. 14–15), the facts of this case are more similar to the facts of Wyer and Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and Tenney is distinguishable. In Bruckelmyer, the issue was whether two figures of a Canadian application that were withdrawn, and thus, absent in the issued patent but still of record in the prosecution history, are part of the subsequently published patent. Bruckelmyer, 445 F.3d at 1377. Bruckelmyer argued that a patent application located in a foreign patent office that has been laid open for inspection is not a printed publication, especially considering absence of evidence indicating that the contents of the file wrapper were disseminated or copied. Id. at 1377–78. The court disagreed explaining: [t]he “printed publication” provision of § 102(b) “was designed to prevent withdrawal by an inventor . . . of that which was already in the possession of the public.” . . . Whether a given reference is a “printed publication” depends on whether it was “publicly accessible” during the prior period. A given reference is “publicly accessible” upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 7 skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation. Bruckelmyer, 445 F.3d at 1378 (internal citations omitted); see also Wyer, 655 F.2d at 226. With respect to Wyer, the issue was whether an Australian patent application laid open for public inspection was a printed publication if only an abstract of the application was published by the Australian Patent Office. Wyer, 655 F.2d at 223, 226. The court found that although there is no evidence of actual viewing or dissemination of any copy of the application: there is no dispute that the records were maintained for this purpose. Given that there is also no genuine issue as to whether the application was properly classified, indexed, or abstracted, we are convinced that the contents of the application were sufficiently accessible to the public and to persons skilled in the pertinent art to qualify as a ‘printed publication.’ Id. at 226. In considering Wyer, the court in Bruckelmyer also explained: The existence of a published abstract that would have allowed one skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence to locate the foreign patent application and the fact that the application was classified and indexed in the patent office, were central to the Wyer court’s conclusion that the application was “publicly accessible.” Bruckelmyer, 445 F.3d 1379. Thus, the decisions in Bruckelmyer and Wyer found the published documents to be roadmaps to their respective application files, and that, in view of the disclosure in that document, “no reasonable trier of fact could Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 8 find that a person of ordinary skill in the art interested in the subject matter of the patents in suit and exercising reasonable diligence could not locate” the subject application. Id. at 1379; Wyer, 655 F.2d at 222, 226. In the present case, the allegedly incomplete JP ’958 application as published in the JPO Official Gazette clearly would have been a roadmap to the complete application. In contrast, in Tenney, the patent application at issue was recorded “on microfilm, along with a large amount of other technical material,” and was listed in the Bibliography at the Library of Congress with the designation: PBL 83291. Reichspatentamt, Berlin. German patent applications on aircraft. (FIAT Microfilm Reel B 134, Frames 8522-9442) 1937-1945. 942 f. Price: Microfilm—.$9.00— Enlargement print— $120.00 In German. Tenney, 254 F.2d at 620–21. No other information or identification of the material recorded on the frames of the microfilm was present, and the Bibliography was found to include incorrect information in that “[t]he cited frames of the microfilm have no relation to aircraft.” Id. at 621. The court found that under such facts, the microfilmed document at issue was not a printed publication. The present case does not pose issues with respect to vague and incorrect information. The facts of the present appeal are more closely aligned with Bruckelmyer and Wyer than with Tenney. In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner that the complete JP ’958 application is a printed publication with an effective date of February 20, 1991. Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 9 Secondly, the allegedly incomplete JP ’9587 document published in the Official Gazette of the JPO (see Ito Decl. ¶ 11, Exhibit A; Thompson Decl. (dated Dec. 17, 2012), Exhibit D) contained “claims, bibliographic information and drawings” and “reference designator list identifying the elements shown in the drawings of that application,” i.e., information sufficient to support the Examiner’s finding that it discloses each of the limitations of claim 6 for which JP ‘958 is cited. In particular, according to the Patent Owner, such information would have included Figures 1 and 2, Figure 1 being reproduced below. Figure 1 reproduced above shows “a schematic drawing showing an embodiment of a position of a training room of the present invention.” The allegedly incomplete JP ’958 document would have also included a listing of the components shown in the figures as follows: 1: Training room 2: Oxygen enrichment air unit 3: Oxygen enrichment membrane 4: Air inlet 5: Oxygen enriched air outlet 6: Oxygen reduced air outlet 7: Blower 8: Suction blower 7 Application Number H01-78333. Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 10 9: Booth or room Moreover, the allegedly incomplete JP ’958 document would have further set forth the invention through its claim, which states: (1) A training room comprising a substantially sealed training room and an oxygen enrichment unit having an inlet for air with a built-in oxygen enrichment membrane, an outlet for oxygen enriched air, and an outlet for oxygen reduced air, characterized in that said outlet for oxygen reduced air communicates with said training room, and a ventilator is provided at said outlet for oxygen enriched air and said inlet for air. (Id., emphasis added). Thus, the contents of the allegedly incomplete JP ’958 document published in the Official Gazette of the JPO would have included sufficient information to disclose the structural limitations of claim 6 except for the recited tent limitation as found by the Examiner (Ans. 4). Although the allegedly incomplete JP ’958 document published in the Official Gazette may have lacked discussion as to the benefits of training in oxygen-reduced conditions provided in the complete JP ’958 application, such discussion pertains to the intended use of the training room. Because either of the above reasons is a sufficient basis for applying the JP ’958, we do not agree with the Patent Owner that the Examiner erred. JP ’958 Is Inoperable The Patent Owner argues that the training room disclosed in JP ’958 is inoperable because it is “substantially sealed.” (App. Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 4). The Patent Owner points to the definition of this term provided in JP ’958 which states: Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 11 n this specification[], the phrase, substantially sealed, refer [sic., refers] to exclusion of open structures in which the outside air is allowed to enter and exit freely and a predetermined oxygen concentration cannot be substantially maintained, and even if there are localized parts with higher oxygen concentration, if the predetermined oxygen concentration can be maintained in the majority of parts, it is sufficient. (JP ’958, pg. 3). The Patent Owner argues that “according to the teachings of the Japanese Reference, air is not allowed to escape from the structure disclosed, and so the structure would become pressurized,” and “pressure in the substantially sealed structure would push back on the ‘blower’ which operates to push air into the substantially sealed structure, until the substantially sealed structure would no longer allow more air to enter.” (App. Br. 15–16). Thus, the Patent Owner concludes that the training room disclosed in JP ’958 is inoperable (id.). However, we agree with the Examiner that “substantially sealed does not mean completely closed off from the environment such that it is hermetically sealed. Nothing in JP ’958 states that the environment is hermetically sealed.” (Ans. 10). We agree. The above reproduced portion of JP ’958 makes clear that “substantially sealed” refers to a sufficient degree of sealing to effectuate the predetermined lowered oxygen concentration in the training room. As also made clear, the training room is “substantially sealed” because if outside air is allowed to “enter and exit freely,” then “a predetermined oxygen concentration cannot be substantially maintained.” We also agree with the Examiner that “substantially sealed” within the context of JP ’958 would have been understood by those in the art as being Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 12 essentially the same in meaning as the limitation “substantially isolated” recited in the claims (id. at 11). The Patent Owner disagrees with the Examiner’s position and argues that the Specification of the ’222 patent explains that “substantially isolated” means that the tent allows air to exit or escape, and that air escape openings may optionally be provided (Reply Br. 4, quoting col. 2, ll. 43–49). However, the Specification of the ’222 patent also makes clear the extent to which air is allowed to exit or escape, that is, air exiting around zippers or other closing mechanisms. Hence, we fail to see any material difference between the terms at issue. The disclosed tent of the ’222 patent is substantially sealed like the training room of JP ’958, and, by the same token, JP ‘958 is ‘substantially isolated’ in the manner described and claimed in the ’222 patent. The Patent Owner further argues that a “blower” as disclosed in JP ’958 cannot provide a high output volume like a compressor, and that a blower provides low output volume, which cannot separate oxygen from the atmosphere through a membrane unit (App. Br. 16–17, citing Rhodes Decl. ¶ 7; see also Reply Br. 5). Accordingly, the Patent Owner asserts that the training room disclosed in JP ’958 is inoperable on this basis, as well (id.). The Examiner disagrees, stating that “the Patent Owner has not provided any actual arguments as to why JP ’958 is inoperable.” (Ans. 10). We generally agree with the Examiner. It is clear that the two blowers (one blower on one side of the membrane and a suction blower on the other side of the membrane) disclosed in JP ’958 are described therein as being sufficient for the intended use of providing oxygen-reduced air to the training room. Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 13 Mr. Rhodes declares: It is my understanding that membrane separators require pressure differences of the order of several bars across the membrane in order to promote separation. Such pressure differences are unlikely to be achieved by “blowers”. In my opinion, an air compressor would be required to provide the pressure required for separation. (Rhodes Decl. ¶ 7). However, the asserted “understanding” and opinion that such pressure differences (whatever they may be) are “unlikely to be achieved by ‘blowers,’” are equivocal in nature and are not substantiated by objective supporting evidence. Thus, while inoperability has been asserted by the declarant based on the use of “blowers,” the assertion is of little probative value. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination”). In addition, we also are of the opinion that the Patent Owner and its declarant rely too heavily on the term “blower.” JP ’958 is a Japanese document and the term “blower” is from the English translation of this document. The record does not establish that the Japanese term translated into “blower” excludes devices capable of generating pressure differences asserted to be required. Therefore, preponderance of the evidence does not persuasively support the Patent Owner’s assertion of inoperability. The Patent Owner also asserts that we should reverse the Examiner’s rejections because the Examiner has not addressed its arguments (App. Br. 17). However, while the Examiner may not have addressed the Patent Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 14 Owner’s arguments to the level of detail desired by the Patent Owner, the Examiner nonetheless did address them as discussed above. Teaching Away The Patent Owner argues that Gamow teaches away from the suggested combination with JP ’958 (App. Br. 17–21; Reply Br. 5–6). As discussed supra, JP ’958 discloses a training room wherein oxygen level is reduced. This allows for training in simulated high altitude conditions. The Patent Owner argues that in contrast, Gamow describes a portable hyperbaric chamber that is filled with air having standard oxygen content but at greater than ambient pressure for use in treating the negative effects of exposure to low-oxygen environments referred to as “mountain sickness.” (App. Br. 18, citing Gamow, col. 1, ll. 11–12, 23–64). The Patent Owner notes that Gamow disparages “the concept of training at altitude,” and instead, teaches the benefit of training at pressures equal or greater than normal pressure at sea level (App. Br. 18–19, citing Gamow, col. 2, ll. 17– 18, 26–30; col. 3, ll. 2–10, 21–24). The Patent Owner argues that the Examiner fails to consider the references in their entireties and engages in impermissible hindsight by combining “a reference which describes the benefit of simulating a lower altitude [(i.e., Gamow)] with one which describes the benefits of a higher altitude [(i.e., JP ’958)].” (App. Br. 19– 20). The Examiner disagrees and states: Gamow is relied upon for the teaching of using a tent instead of a fixed structure for an altered oxygen level training. The tent and system of Gamow is not being bodily incorporated into JP Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 15 ’958. Thus, the use of a tent by Gamow does not teach away from the device of JP ’985 [sic, JP ’958]. (Ans. 10). We agree with the Examiner. In our view, it is the Patent Owner that does not fully consider the references, and relegates a person of ordinary skill in the art to an automaton. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton"). The teachings of Gamow to one of ordinary skill and creativity is not limited to whether high or low altitude training technique is superior, nor to a hyperbaric chamber. Gamow teaches that the major problem with the prior art hyperbaric chambers in which athletes train is as follows: [h]yperbaric chambers of the prior art have been heavy, rigid structures, permanently installed. . . . Cylindrical chambers large enough to admit a human being and allow movement within the chamber have been disclosed . . . but such structures are not truly portable, which term is used herein to mean capable of being dismantled, packaged and carried by an individual person. (Gamow, col. 3, ll. 27–39). Gamow then teaches a solution to this problem wherein, instead of the permanently installed or non-portable chambers as disclosed in the prior art, a portable chamber is constructed as a tent and erected with flexible wands of aluminum or fiberglass so that it can be folded or collapsed and carried in a backpack (id. at col. 3, ll. 21–23, col. 9, ll. 14–19). Thus, the broader teaching of Gamow, which would have been appreciated by a person of ordinary skill, is that the disadvantages of permanent/non-portable chambers for training under altered environmental conditions can be addressed by using a portable chamber constructed in a manner similar to a tent. Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 16 It is based on this teaching of Gamow that the Examiner suggests modifying the training room of JP ’958 to make its training room a tent structure when the Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the room of JP ’958 into an enclosure, such as a tent, in view of the teaching of Gamow so as to provide portability of the training environment as taught by Gamow.” (Ans. 4). There is nothing in either JP ’958 or Gamow that discourages making the training room of JP ’958 a tent structure so as to be portable, or leads in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the inventor of the ’222 patent. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant”). The Patent Owner further argues that the suggested combination would change the principle of operation of the references (App. Br. 20). This argument appears to be again based on the argument against combining “a reference which describes the benefit of simulating a lower altitude with one which describes the benefits of a higher altitude.” (Id. at 19). However, this line of reasoning is unpersuasive for the reasons already discussed. We see no technical difficulties or change in operation in making the training room of JP ’958 a tent structure so that it is portable, in view of the teachings in Gamow. In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion. The claimed invention is a combination of familiar elements according to known Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 17 methods or a substitution of one element for another known in the field that yields predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16. Group II: Claims 34 and 35 The Patent Owner argues claims 34 and 35 separately, these claims reciting that the pressure inside the tent is “generally equalized” to the outside pressure (App. Br., Claims App.). The Patent Owner asserts that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the training room of JP ’958 is “substantially sealed” so that interior would be pressurized, and Gamow discloses a hyperbaric chamber wherein the pressure is greater than the ambient air (App. Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 6). This argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner’s rejection specifically states that “[r]egarding claims 34 and 35, the space within JP ’958 is ‘generally’ equalized with the outside air pressure to the broad degree claimed.” (Ans. 7). In this regard, as discussed supra, “substantially sealed” as used in JP ’958 refers to sufficient degree of sealing to effectuate the predetermined lowered oxygen concentration, not that the training room of JP ’958 is hermetically sealed so as to allow build-up of pressure therein. To any extent that substantial sealing of the training room of JP ’958 results in slight increase in pressure as compared to the ambient air, we agree with the Examiner that such differences in pressure would be encompassed by the broad language of these claims that merely require the pressure within the tent to be “generally equalized” to the outside pressure. Appeal 2015-004931 Patent No. US 5,964,222 Reexamination Control 90/012,355 18 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 6–11, 13–19, 26–32, 34, and 35 are AFFIRMED. Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED hh for PATENT OWNER: The Law Office of Roger S. Thompson 116 Pinehurst Ave Suite D-14 New York, NY 10033 for THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP 8055 EAST TUFTS AVE., SUITE 450 DENVER, CO 80237 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation