Ex Parte Adams et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 7, 201611861954 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 11/861,954 0912612007 94678 7590 06/09/2016 Armstrong Teasdale LLP (32736) 7700 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Daniel 0. Adams 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 035.US 9203 EXAMINER TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3731 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2016 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): USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL 0. ADAMS and PAUL PIGNAT0 1 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,9 54 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 26, 27, and 29-36. 2, 3, 4 Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate that the real party in interest is AGA Medical Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Appellants cancelled claims 10, 15-25, and 28 and those claims are not before us on this Appeal. Appeal Br., Claims App. 13, 14. 3 Claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 2. 4 We note that the Examiner has also objected to the drawings. Final Act. 2-3. However, an objection is a petitionable matter and not an appealable matter and is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCP A 1967). As such, we do not address the matter in this Appeal. Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to "intravascular devices for selective occlusion of a vessel and/or shunting or restricting flow in a vessel or organ within the body's circulatory system." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 36 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and recites: 1. A collapsible medical device, comprising: at least one layer of a plurality of metal strands woven into a tubular braided metal fabric having a longitudinal axis, a proximal end, a distal end, and a segment there between, the tubular braided metal fabric having wire ends at each of the proximal and distal ends and an expanded preset configuration shaped for treatment of an opening in a body organ, the expanded preset configuration being deformable to a lesser cross-sectional dimension for delivery through a channel in a patient's body, the tubular braided metal fabric having a memory property whereby the tubular braided metal fabric returns to the expanded preset configuration, the wire ends being unsecured and free at each of the proximal and distal ends such that the wire ends are exposed, wherein the free wire ends extend radially inward to define an opening having an inner diameter smaller than an outer diameter of at least a portion of the segment, and further wherein the proximal and distal ends of the tubular braided metal fabric each defines an end wall arranged within a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis such that the free wire ends of the proximal and distal ends are positioned in the plane of the end wall. THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL5 The Examiner rejected claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31, and 33-36 5 Claims, 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 26, 27, and 29-35 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, but that rejection has been withdrawn. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 as unpatentable over Yodfat (US 7,306,624 B2; iss. Dec. 11, 2007), Erickson (US 2008/0228256 Al; pub. Sept. 18, 2008), Berg (US 6,451,048 Bl; iss. Sept. 17, 2002). The Examiner rejected claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Callister (US 6,096,052; iss. Aug. 1, 2000) and Freudenthal (US 2008/0262518 Al; pub. Oct. 23, 2008). The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 26, 27, 31-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Callister, Erickson, and Berg. The Examiner rejected claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frid (US 5,741,333; iss. Apr. 21, 1998) and Freudenthal. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31, and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frid, Erickson, and Berg. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Callister, Erickson, Berg and Kotula (US 5,846,261; iss. Dec. 8, 1998, hereinafter "Kotula '261"). The Examiner rejected claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Callister, Erickson, Berg and Kotula (US 5,725,552; iss. Mar. 10, 1998, hereinafter "Kotula '552"). The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Y odfat, Erickson, Berg, and Callister. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frid, Erickson, Berg, and Callister. 3 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 29 and 30 as Failing to Comply with the Written Description Requirement The Examiner finds that claims 29 and 30 do not comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3--4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Appellants "do[] not describe, in the original [S]pecification, the bell-shaped medical device in Figure 9 having 'end walls arranged within a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis such that the free wire ends of both ends are positioned in the plane of the end wall."' Id.; see also Adv. Act. 2. From this finding the Examiner concludes that claims 29 and 30 contain new matter. Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that when viewed in light of the Specification and drawings - in particular, paragraphs 55, 57, and 66 and Figs. 6 and 9 - claims 29 and 30 find adequate support. Appeal Br. 5---6. For reasons elaborated below, we agree with Appellants. According to Appellants: [T]he manufacturing process shown in Fig. 6 applies to embodiments of the invention including the embodiment of Fig. 9. In paragraph [0055], as stated above, the description of the manufacturing process notes that "[ s ]ince the clamps contain braided heat set filaments set in the axial direction, the braid should be cut to place the wire ends in the plane of the device ends." Again, Paragraph [0066], which references Fig. 9, states that "[t]here are no clamps in device 150 and wire ends 151 are cut so as to be positioned near the central axis of the device's tapered distal end .... Optionally, wire ends 152 could be cut to a longer length to end near the proximal device central axis." Appeal Br. 5. Appellants further contend that Figure 9 clearly shows "a bell shaped occluder" (Id.) and that "the flow chart of Fig. 6 contemplates forming an 4 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 occluder having a predefined shape, such as a bell shape." Id. Quoting paragraph 57, Appellants state: "The shape of the molding element should be selected to deform the fabric into substantially the expanded shape of the desired component of the medical device." Id. Appellants conclude: Id. rather than providing a flow chart of the manufacturing process for every conceivable shape of device, Appellant chose to provide a single, general flow chart in Fig. 6 that applies to various described embodiments, including the embodiment of Fig. 9. To require otherwise is unreasonable and is inconsistent with the requirements imposed on an applicant. The Examiner did not respond to the foregoing arguments. As argued by Appellants, the general manufacturing process flow chart of Figure 6 and its attendant written description in paragraphs 55-59 describes a process for making an occluder having end walls arranged within a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis such that the free wire ends of both ends are positioned in the plane of the end wall. Moreover, we determine that such description also applies to all disclosed embodiments of the medical device according to the invention, including the bell shaped occluder of Figure 9 (which is claimed in claims 29 and 30). As such, we agree with Appellants that this general description along with Figure 9 adequately demonstrate that the inventors were in possession of the bell shaped occluder having end walls arranged within a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis such that the free wire ends of both ends are positioned in the plane of the end wall. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 30 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 5 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6--9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31 and 33-36 as unpatentable over Yodfat, Erickson, and Berg Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31, and 33-36 as a group. See Appeal Br. 7-8. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). Claims 2, 6-9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31, and 33- 3 6 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Y odfat discloses a collapsible medical device comprised of at least one layer of a plurality of metal strands woven into a tubular braided metal fabric, the fabric having unsecured and free wire ends at each of the ends and an expanded preset configuration, wherein the fabric has a memory property to return to the expanded preset configuration (citing Yodfat, col. 6, 11. 61---64; col. 9, 11. 26-45; Figs. la and 2a). Final Act. 5. The Examiner acknowledges that Yodfat "does not expressly disclose the wire ends extending radially inward or the ends defining an end wall within a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the fabric." Id. The Examiner further finds that Erickson teaches a braided metal fabric (paragraph 28) wherein wire ends extend radially inward to define an opening having an inner diameter smaller than an outer diameter of a segment 112 of the fabric, and further wherein an end of the tubular braided fabric defines an end wall arranged within a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis such that the wire ends of the end are positioned in a plane of the end wall (Figure 3) and wherein the segment between the ends is in the shape of a disc, in order to lock the device in place (paragraphs 60 and 61 ). Id.; see also Ans. 2-3. The Examiner also finds that Berg teaches "forming discs (Figures 17 a-18b) at each end of a device in order to connect both ends to tissue (column 7, lines 59-64)." Id. The Examiner concludes: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at 6 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 the time the invention was made to modify the device of Y odfat and make the free wire ends extend radially inward and define an opening having an inner diameter smaller than an outer diameter of at least a portion of a segment of the fabric, and further wherein the ends of the fabric define an end wall arranged within a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, as taught by Erickson, for the purpose of locking the device in place within the body (paragraph 60 and 61 ). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Y odfat/Erickson and duplicate the discs on the other side of the device, as taught by Berg, for the purpose connecting both ends to tissue. Id. at 5-6. Appellants contend that: "Figure 3 is described in Paragraph 13 of Erickson as 'a cross-sectional view outline of the braided flange branch graft corresponding to the side plan view of Fig. 1.' As a 'cross-sectional view outline,' Fig. 3 is not informative with respect to how the wire ends are oriented." Appeal Br. 7. Appellants further assert that: "Paragraph 31 of Erickson specifically describes that 'the ends of braided flange branch graft 100 are fused, crimped, folded, or otherwise prevented from unraveling,' in direct opposition to the teaching of the present specification and wording of Claims 1 and 36" (Id. at 8) and that "Berg does not cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to Y odfat and Erickson, and the Office Action does not assert this." Id. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. With regard to Appellants' first argument, inspection of both Figure 1 and Figure 3 of Erickson reveals that the wire ends at opening 122 define an end wall arranged within a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device, as claim 1 recites. Our precedent has held that drawings can be used as prior art, 7 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 without referring to the surrounding description, only if the prior art features are clearly disclosed by the drawing. See, e.g., In re Wagner, 63 F.2d 987, 988 (CCPA 1933) ("While it is true that drawings may not always be relied upon for anticipation of a later application, it is also true that, if a drawing clearly suggests to one skilled in the art the way in which the result sought is accomplished by a later applicant, it is immaterial whether the prior patentee's showing was accidental or intentional."). Since both Figures 1 and 3 of Erickson show wire ends at opening 122 arranged as set forth in claim 1, and since the Examiner has provided a reason supported by a rational underpinning for providing such an arrangement in the Y odfat device (Final Act. 5---6; see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ), we determine that Erickson overcomes the deficiency of Y odfat in regard to the claimed disposition of the wire ends. With regard to Appellants' second argument, as suggested by the Examiner in the Advisory Action mailed May 28, 2013, Appellants are individually addressing the secondary references, such as Erickson, when the rejections are based on a combination of references. In particular, the Examiner cites Yodfat, not Erickson, for teaching a collapsible medical device having free wire ends. Therefore, it matters not whether Erickson teaches means for preventing the wire ends from unraveling. "Non- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants make several new arguments in the Reply Brief which are variously directed to alleged deficiencies of certain references individually as well as certain alleged improprieties in the combination of the secondary 8 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 references with the primary references. First, Appellants argue that the trunk 108 of the Erickson device does not have a radially inwardly turned end. See Reply Br. 1-2. Second, Appellants argue that the primary references have no need for flanges at all. Reply Br. 2-3. Third, Appellants argue that the devices of primary references and the secondary references are implanted in different areas of the body and for different reasons. Reply Br. 4. We do not consider these new arguments because Appellants have not presented a showing of good cause explaining why the arguments could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1476-77 (BPAI 2010) (informative). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Examiner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Y odfat, Erickson, and Berg, in combination, teach a collapsible medical device as independent claim 1 recites. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31 and 33-36 as unpatentable over Yodfat, Erickson, and Berg. Rejection of Claim 36 as unpatentable over Callister and Freudenthal The Examiner finds that Callister discloses a collapsible medical device comprised of at least one layer of a plurality of metal strands woven into a tubular braided metal fabric, the fabric having wire ends at each of the ends and an expanded preset configuration, the fabric having a memory property to return to the expanded preset configuration, the wire ends being unsecured and free at each of the ends. Final Act. 6 (citing Callister, col. 7, 11. 28--43; col. 7, 1. 64---col. 8, 1. 32; Figs. 1--4). The Examiner acknowledges that Callister "does not expressly disclose a reduced diameter portion of the 9 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 wire ends extending radially inward and along respective planes to define an end wall at each end." Id. The Examiner further finds that Freudenthal teaches "a braided metal fabric (paragraph 31) wherein the proximal and distal ends extend radially inward and along respective planes to define an end wall at each of the ends and a reduced diameter portion (Figure 72) in order for good stability in relation to unwanted displacement (paragraphs 13, 21-23)." Id. at 6-7. The Examiner concludes: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Callister and make the free wire ends extend radially inward and along respective planes to define an end wall at each of the ends and include the reduced diameter portion, as taught by Freudenthal, for the purpose of good stability in relation to unwanted displacement (paragraphs 13, 21-23). Id. at 7; see also Ans. 3--4. In response, Appellants argue that: Freudenthal, however, is silent as to the structure or orientation of the end wires of the device. Figure 72 of Freudenthal is described in Paragraph 88 as showing "diagrammatic views in section." Thus, as noted above with respect to Fig. 3 of Erickson, Fig. 72 of Freudenthal is not informative as to how the discrete wire ends are oriented. As stated above with respect to Erickson, the lines shown in Fig. 72 of Freudenthal do not represent individual wires of the device. Note, for example, that the elements of Fig. 72 are labeled as "parts" 13, 14, 133, and 144, rather than a "wire-like element" 5, shown in the close-up view of the embodiment of Fig. 22. See, e.g., List of References, paragraphs [0153]-[0201]. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants continue: Moreover, as a "diagrammatic view," no conclusions can be 10 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 Id. made as to how the wire ends are held together (e.g., whether there is or is not a clamp or other fixing means at the wire ends), as certain necessary elements of the depicted device are not show for explanatory purposes. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Despite being a "diagrammatic view," inspection of Figure 72 of Freudenthal reveals that the wire ends at the proximal and distal ends of the device extend radially inward and along respective planes to define an end wall at each of the ends, as claim 36 recites. See Wagner, 63 F.2d at 988. Further, the Freudenthal device is an implantable braided wire medical device. See, e.g., Freudenthal, Abstract, i-f 31. Hence, one of skill in the art would understand all of the drawing figures of the device, including the diagrammatic view of Figure 72 and those images shown more clearly in other figures of Freudenthal (see, e.g., Figs. IA, IB, IJ, IK, 14--21, 25, 26, 58-65, and 75-77), to be views of implantable braided wire medical devices. Thus, the elements of Figure 72 of Freudenthal, while labeled as "parts" 13, 14, 133, and 144 are, in fact, portions of braided wire similar to the "wire-like element" 5, shown in the enlarged view of the embodiment of Figure 22. In this regard, paragraph 88 of Freudenthal refers to Figures 69-7 4 and describes implantable devices "with portions which are folded rearwardly a plurality of times in a helix- like configuration." (Emphasis added). This description does not reference any separate "parts" of the devices that are not portions of the braided wire itself. In addition, Appellants are again individually addressing the secondary references, such as Freudenthal, when the rejections are based on a combination of references. In particular, the Examiner cites Callister, not 11 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 Freudenthal, for teaching a medical device having free wire ends. Therefore, it matters not whether Freudenthal teaches whether or how the wire ends are held together. Further, Appellants raise a new argument in the Reply Brief with respect to Freudenthal. In particular, Appellants argue that paragraph 21 of Freudenthal would not motivate one to extend the ends of the devices of the primary references radially inward. Reply Br. 3. Paragraph 21 teaches the benefits of providing a bulge at a proximal end of the implantation device in order to provide a "good hold" for the device. See Freudenthal i-f 21. We do not consider this new argument because Appellants have not presented a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1476-77 (BPAI 2010) (informative). For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 36 as unpatentable over Callister and Freudenthal. Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 26, 27, 31-35 as unpatentable over Callister, Erickson, and Berg Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 26, 27, 31-35 as a group. See Appeal Br. 9-10. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). Claims 2, 5-9, 11-14, 26, 27, 31-35 stand or fall with claim 1. Based on findings and reasons similar to those expressed, supra, the Examiner relies on Callister, Erickson, and Berg for teaching, in combination, the collapsible medical device as independent claim 1 recites. Final Act 7-8. 12 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 In response, Appellants argue: Again, however, the Examiner relies on Erickson to teach a braided metal fabric "wherein wire ends extend radially inward to define an opening ... [.]" As described above in Section (a), Erickson simply does not teach this recitation. Combining Erickson with a different primary reference (Callister) does not change this fact. Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellants' argument is not persuasive. As noted above, Erickson discloses a braided metal fabric wherein wire ends extend radially inward to define an opening 122 having an inner diameter smaller than an outer diameter of at least a portion of the segment. See Erickson, Figs. 1, 3. We agree with the Examiner that combining this teaching with Callister, just as combining it with Y odfat, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1; 2; 5-9; 11-14; 26; 27; 31-35 as unpatentable over Callister; Erickson, and Berg. Rejection of Claim 36 as unpatentable over Frid and Freudenthal The Examiner finds that Frid discloses a collapsible medical device comprised of at least one layer of a plurality of metal strands woven into a tubular braided metal fabric, the fabric having wire ends at each of the ends and an expanded preset configuration, the fabric having a memory property to return to the expanded preset configuration, the wire ends being unsecured and free at each of the ends; and a reduced diameter portion (middle portion). Final Act. 8-9 (citing Frid, col. 2, 1. 63; col. 4, 11. 29--40; Figs. 1-3). The Examiner acknowledges that Frid "does not expressly disclose the wire ends extending radially inward and along respective planes 13 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 to define an end wall at each of the ends." Id. at 9. For that teaching the Examiner relies on Freudenthal for reasons similar to those expressed, supra. See id. In response, Appellants argue: The Examiner again relies on Freudenthal to teach "wherein the proximal and distal ends extend radially inward and along respective planes to define an end wall at each of the ends and a reduced diameter portion." As described above in Section (b ), however, Freudenthal is silent as to how the end wires of the device are structured or oriented. Appeal Br. IO. Appellants' argument is not persuasive. As noted above, Figure 72 of Freudenthal reveals that the wire ends at the proximal and distal ends of the device extend radially inward and along respective planes to define an end wall at each of the ends, as claim 36 recites. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 36 as unpatentable over Frid and Freudenthal. Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6--9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31, and 33-35 as unpatentable over Frid, Erickson, and Berg Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31, and 33-35 as a group. See Appeal Br. 10. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). Claims 2, 6-9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31, and 33- 3 5 stand or fall with claim 1. Based on findings and reasons similar to those expressed, supra, the Examiner relies on Frid, Erickson, and Berg for teaching, in combination, the collapsible medical device as independent claim 1 recites. Final Act 9- 11. In response, Appellants argue: "As noted above in Section (a), 14 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 however, the Examiner again relies on Erickson to teach a braided metal fabric 'wherein wire ends extend radially inward to define an opening[], 'and as further noted above, Erickson simply does not teach this recitation." Appeal Br. 10. Appellants' argument is not persuasive. As noted above, Erickson does disclose a braided metal fabric wherein wire ends extend radially inward to define an opening 122. See Erickson, Figs. 1, 3. We agree with the Examiner that combining this teaching with Frid, just as combining it with Yodfat or Callister, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Examiner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Frid, Erickson, and Berg, in combination, teach a collapsible medical device as independent claim 1 recites. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31, and 33-35 as unpatentable over Frid, Erickson, and Berg. Rejection of Claim 14 as unpatentable over Callister, Erickson, Berg and Kotula '261 For this and subsequent rejections of certain dependent claims set forth below, Appellants state: "The Examiner rejects several dependent claims as also being obvious with respect to combinations of Callister, Erickson, Berg, Kotula '261, Kotula '552, Yodfat, and/or Frid. None of these references, individually or in combination, addresses the deficiencies noted above with respect to the dependent claims." Appeal Br. 10. As the foregoing is not an argument specifically contesting the Examiner's rejection of claim 14, we summarily affirm the Examiner's 15 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 rejection of that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 l(c) (2015); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection .... the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived."). Rejection of Claims 29 and 30 as unpatentable over Callister, Erickson, Berg and Kotula '552 Since Appellants do not raise any arguments specifically contesting the Examiner's rejection of claims 29 and 30 (Appeal Br. 10), we summarily affirm the Examiner's rejection of those claims. Rejection of Claims 5 and 32 as unpatentable over Yodfat, Erickson, Berg, and Callister Since Appellants do not raise any arguments specifically contesting the Examiner's first rejection of claims 5 and 32 (Appeal Br. 10), we summarily affirm the Examiner's first rejection of those claims. Rejection of Claims 5 and 32 as unpatentable over Frid, Erickson, Berg, and Callister Since Appellants do not raise any arguments specifically contesting the Examiner's second rejection of claims 5 and 32 (Appeal Br. 10), we summarily affirm the Examiner's second rejection of those claims. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31, and 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yodfat, Erickson, and Berg. 16 Appeal2014-003839 Application 11/861,954 We atlirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Callister and Freudenthal. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 26, 27, 31-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Callister, Erickson, and Berg. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frid and Freudenthal. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-13, 26, 27, 31, and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frid, Erickson, and Berg. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Callister, Erickson, Berg and Kotula '261. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Callister, Erickson, Berg and Kotula '552. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yodfat, Erickson, Berg, and Callister. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frid, Erickson, Berg, and Callister. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation