10943527 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2009)

Ex Parte Alms et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 26, 2009

10943527 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte GREGORY R. ALMS and TOSHIKAZU KOBAYASHI ____________________ Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0186438 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Decided:1 March26, 2009 ____________________ Before: FRED E. McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and RICHARD TORCZON and SALLY C. MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. Statement of the case 1 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. ("DuPont"), the real party in 2 interest, seeks review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of a final rejection (mailed 3 6 July 2007). 4 1 The two-month time period (37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.304) for filing an appeal (35 U.S.C. Â§ 141) or commencing a civil action (35 U.S.C. Â§ 145) begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 2 Claims 1-16 and 19-26 are in the application. 1 The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being 2 unpatentable over: 3 Gupta WO 94/04612 03 Mar 1994 Deyrup 4,753,980 28 Jun 1988 4 Gupta and Deyrup are prior art under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b). 5 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). 6 7 B. Findings of fact 8 The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of 9 the evidence. 10 References are to the specification as published in U.S. Patent 11 Publication 2005/0186438 A1. We refer to the published application 12 because references to the specification in the summary of the claimed 13 subject matter on page 7 of the Appeal Brief do not seem to match the 14 specification in the file we have before us. Therefore the pagination of the 15 specification referred to by DuPont may not be the same as the pagination of 16 the specification in the USPTO records. 17 To the extent that a finding of fact is a conclusion of law, it may be 18 treated as such. 19 Additional findings as necessary appear in the Discussion portion of 20 the opinion. 21 The invention 22 In general, the invention concerns a composition having: 23 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 3 (a) an isotropic polyester (IPE); 1 (b) optionally, a liquid crystalline polymer (LCP); 2 (c) a reinforcing agent; 3 (d) a polymeric toughening agent which contains functional 4 groups reactive with the isotropic polyester; and 5 (e) an electrically conductive filler. 6 Specification, Â¶Â¶ 0022 through 0028. 7 According to the specification, the liquid crystalline polymer (LCP) is 8 "anisotropic." Specification, Â¶ 0044. 9 The liquid crystalline polymer (LCP) and the isotropic polyester (IPE) 10 are said to be "mutually exclusive species." Specification, Â¶ 0045. 11 An object is to prepare a composition which can be used for making 12 an "appearance part," and in particular a car body comprising an 13 "appearance part." Specification, Â¶Â¶ 0004 through 0006. 14 Claims on appeal 15 Claim 1, which we reproduce from the Claim Appendix of the Appeal 16 Brief, reads [bracketed matter and some indentation added]: 17 1. A composition, comprising, 18 (a) at least about 40 weight percent of one or more isotropic 19 polyesters [i.e. an IEP] with a melting point of about 100ÂºC or more; 20 (b) 0.0 to about 20 weight percent of a liquid crystalline 21 polymer [i.e., an LCP] whose melting point is at least 50ÂºC higher 22 than a cold crystallization point of aid isotropic polyester, or if said 23 isotropic polyester has no cold crystallization point said melting point 24 of said liquid crystalline polymer is 150ÂºC or higher; 25 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 4 (c) about 1.0 to about 35 weight percent of a reinforcing agent 1 with an average aspect ratio of about 2.5 or more, and whose average 2 longest dimension is 20 Âµm or less; 3 (d) about 3 to about 30 weight percent of a polymeric 4 toughening agent which contains functional groups reactive with said 5 isotropic polyester; and 6 (e) a sufficient amount of an electrically conductive filler so 7 that said composition has one or more of a surface resistivity of said 8 composition is about 1012 ohm/sq or less, [2] a static dissipative time 9 of about 10 seconds or less, and [3] a paint conductivity of about 90 or 10 more, and [4] wherein an average longest dimension of said 11 electrically conductive filler is 20Âµm or less; and 12 wherein all percents by weight are based on the total of all 13 ingredients in the composition. 14 15 Other claims are mentioned in the Discussion portion of this opinion. 16 C. Discussion 17 Counsel for DuPont has simplified our consideration of appeal by 18 directly addressing the precise points which are believed to support reversal. 19 We elect to address each point and, in addressing each point, make 20 such additional findings as may be necessary. 21 The points in the Appeal Brief are points (a) through (r). Points call 22 attention to limitations (a) through (e) in claim 1. Accordingly, we begin our 23 discussion with Point (f). 24 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 5 Point (f) 1 The Examiner found that Gupta describes a blend of an IPE and an 2 LCP. Examiner's Answer, page 4. 3 DuPont agrees that Gupta discusses both an IPE and an LCP, but 4 maintains that the Gupta IPE/LCP is a single polymer and not a blend. 5 DuPont also maintains that claim 1 requires a "blend." Appeal Brief, 6 pages 10-11; Reply Brief, pages 6-7. 7 The Examiner says claim 1 is not limited to a blend, particularly to the 8 extent that it is broad enough to "include" a composition with 0.0% of the 9 LCP. Gupta consistently refers to a "blend" in describing its product. 10 The fly in the ointment, from DuPont's point of view, is the manner in 11 which Gupta describes making its IPE/LCP "blend." Gupta describes a 12 method of making a "blend" comprising (1) obtaining a "preformed" 13 thermotropic polymer (an LPC), (2) mixing the polymer with the monomers 14 necessary for making an IPE in situ, and (3) forming the IPE in situ in the 15 presence of the LPC. Gupta, page 4:19-27. 16 According to Gupta, the molecular structure of the resulting "blend is 17 identified by the existence of a two phase system of interconnecting 18 crystalline [LPC] and amorphous [IPE] domains." Page 4:27-29. 19 In Example 1, Gupta illustrates the process. The product of Example 20 1 is characterized by Gupta as a "blend." Page 10:4. 21 Why does DuPont say the product is not a blend? Gupta reports only 22 a single melting point for the product said to have been made by Example 1, 23 viz., 244ÂºC. In addition, DuPont notes that as the IPE is formed in situ "ester 24 interchange began to occur â€¦" Gupta, page 11:14. 25 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 6 Apparently, DuPont has overlooked that part of Gupta, 1 discussed above, which describes the product as being a two phase system. 2 Page 4:27-29. In addition, Gupta notes that the Example 1 (emphasis 3 added): 4 sample â€¦ displayed very fine (submicron size) thermotropic 5 liquid crystalline polymer (LCP) particle distribution in a PET 6 [polyethylene terephthalate] crystalline phase. The LCP phase 7 coarsened at 235 ÂºC, the PET phase began to turn isotropic at 8 240 ÂºC, and was completely isotropic at 260 ÂºC with fine 9 distribution of LCP domains. 10 Gupta, page 13:1-7. 11 DuPont has not established that the Examiner erred in finding that 12 Gupta describes a blend. 13 Lastly, it is not apparent which limitation in claim 1 differentiates 14 (1) the claimed composition, when it has both (a) and (b) [see, e.g., claim 9 15 which requires "about 1.0 â€¦ of [an LPC] â€¦"] from (2) Gupta. To the 16 extent DuPont says claim 1 requires that (a) and (b) be a mixture of discrete 17 polymers, Gupta describes a mixture of discrete polymers. 18 Point (g) 19 According to DuPont, Gupta describes LCPs which also happen to be 20 polyesters. A review of page 3:30 through 4:17 confirm the accuracy of 21 DuPont's observation. DuPont also describes LCPs which can be polyesters. 22 Specification, Â¶ 0044. 23 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 7 We are not sure what point DuPont makes with Point (g). In view of 1 the fact that both Gupta and DuPont describe LCPs which can be polyesters, 2 we fail to see how Point (g) renders claim 1 patentable. 3 Point (h) 4 DuPont makes a point that Gupta (and Deyrup for that matter) do not 5 describe use of their respective polymers to make an appearance part of a 6 car. Appeal Brief, page 10. 7 Claim 19 on appeal reads: 8 19. An appearance part comprising the composition of 9 claim 1. 10 Claim 23 on appeal reads: 11 23. A car body comprising an appearance part of the 12 composition of claim 1. 13 14 The Examiner found that Deyrup teaches that polyesters are useful in 15 preparing finished articles. Col. 1:28-29. The Gupta blends are said to have 16 "improved mechanical and physical properties." Gupta, page 1:8-9. 17 The Technical Background in the DuPont specification reveals the 18 following: 19 In car body building, metal parts are increasingly being 20 replaced by plastic parts and not just to save weight; examples 21 include fenders, hoods, doors, lift-up tailgates, trunk lids, tank 22 caps, bumpers, protective moldings, side panels, body sills, 23 mirror housings, handles, spoilers and hub caps. 24 Specification, Â¶ 0006. 25 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 8 DuPont's acknowledgement demonstrates that there is a marketplace 1 demand for plastics to replace metal for making car parts. The marketplace 2 demand also confirms why one skilled in the art would have known that the 3 Gupta and Deyrup polyesters would be suitable for making appearance parts 4 (claim 19) or car parts (claim 23). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 5 U.S. 398, ___, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007); Muniauction, Inc. v. 6 Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed Cir. 2008). 7 Point (i) 8 In Point (i), DuPont maintains that "[c]arbon fibers are not carbon 9 black, but 'graphite' is mentioned in Gupta." Appeal Brief, page 10. 10 DuPont is correct that Gupta describes "graphite." Gupta, page 9:11. 11 We are not sure what point DuPont is trying to make. The fact that 12 DuPont believes the point is "[s]elf-explanatory" does not help. See our 13 discussion concerning Point (k), infra, with respect to electrically conductive 14 fillers. 15 Point (j) 16 According to DuPont, the polymer blends of Gupta Examples 1-5 do 17 not have a melting point of 285 ÂºC. Appeal Brief, page 10. 18 We do not find in claim 1 any limitation relating to a melting point of 19 285 ÂºC. 20 DuPont's point seems to be that (1) Gupta reports only a single 21 melting point for its PET [IPE] / LCP blends and (2) the melting point is 22 about 237-244 ÂºC. Gupta, page 12:11. DuPont reasons that "[t]his clearly 23 shows only one polymer is present." 24 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 9 As discussed above, the Gupta "blend" is a mixture of LCPs dispersed 1 within the IPE. That only one melting point is reported is not surprising. 2 DuPont fails to explain why one skilled in the art would be "looking for" 3 two melting points where the Gupta blend is concerned. 4 The fact that Gupta reports only one melting point does not 5 distinguish the Gupta IPE/LPC blend from DuPont's blend. 6 Points (k and l) 7 In its Appeal Brief, DuPont notes that: 8 [n]othing is said about the longest average dimension of either 9 the reinforcing agent (c) or of the electrically conductive filler 10 (e). 11 Appeal Brief, page 11; see also Reply Brief, page 6. 12 DuPont goes on to say: 13 [n]othing is said of using a sufficient amount of electrically 14 conductive filler (e) to obtain certain electrical properties. 15 Indeed nothing is mentioned about electrical properties at all in 16 either of the references. 17 Appeal Brief, page 11. 18 DuPont's specification confirms that the reinforcing agent (c) inter alia 19 can be mica, talc, carbon fibers, potassium titanate whiskers and aluminum 20 borate whiskers. Preferred reinforcing fillers are said to include mica and 21 talc. Specification, Â¶ 0056. 22 Gupta teaches that suitable fillers and reinforcing agents also include 23 mica, talc, alumina fibers and titanium fibers. Page 9:5-16. Deyrup also 24 describes use of reinforcing agents and filler. Col. 5:50-53 and col. 7:10-13. 25 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 10 DuPont's concern seems to be that neither Gupta nor Deyrup describe 1 the "average aspect ratio or average longest dimension" set out in claim 1. 2 The DuPont specification makes a point about the average aspect ratio and 3 average maximum dimension. DuPont does not reveal what the typical 4 average aspect ratio or average maximum dimension is for typical 5 reinforcing agents used in the prior art. Moreover, DuPont would relegate 6 the person skilled in the art to an automaton and thus DuPont's position flies 7 in the face of KSR. 127 S. Ct. at 1742. A person skilled in the art is taught 8 to use known reinforcing agents, some of which are the same as those 9 described by DuPont. DuPont fails to explain, or offer any Rule 132 10 testimony explaining, why one skilled in the art would use a reinforcing 11 agent with aspect ratios and dimensions which "would not work." DuPont 12 has failed to convincingly show that its aspect ratios and dimensions are 13 patentably critical. 14 The following discussion appears in the DuPont application [emphasis 15 added]: 16 [i]n addition for some painting processes such as 17 electrostatically aided painting processes, it is desired that the 18 part to be painted be more electrically conductive than typical 19 thermoplastic compositions (TCs). In some instances the part 20 may be coated with an electrically conductive primer, but this is 21 an extra step in manufacture. It is known that adding sufficient 22 amounts of electrically conductive fillers (ECFs) to (some) TCs 23 renders these compositions more electrically conductive (less 24 electrically resistant), although the increase in conductivity 25 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 11 depends on the type and amount of ECF used, the actual 1 makeup of the TC, and the degree of dispersion of the ECF in 2 the TC. 3 In using electrically conductive fillers, DuPont is using known fillers 4 for one of their intended purposes. KSR counsels against non-obviousness 5 under the circumstances. 127 S. Ct. at 1740. The Board need not ignore 6 what the specification reveals what is conventional in the art. 7 Point (m) 8 Point (m) augments DuPont's argument with respect to Point (f), 9 citing on and relying on headnotes from the United States Patents Quarterly 10 associated with Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 11 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (construing claims in a patent infringement case). We 12 would caution against citing and relying on inter partes infringement cases 13 for claim construction principles when claims are before the USPTO. In 14 examination, as well on appeal from a rejection by the examiner, claims are 15 given their broadest reasonable construction. In re Prater, 56 CCPA 1381, 16 1395-96, 415 F.2d 1393 1395-06 (CCPA 1969). When claim 1 on appeal is 17 given its broadest reasonable construction, and Gupta is properly considered, 18 we entertain no doubt that the Gupta IEP/LCP mixtures fall within the scope 19 of DuPont's claims. 20 Point (n) 21 DuPont expresses agreement with the Examiner on the Gupta "blend" 22 issue insofar as DuPont presents claims wherein the LCP is "optional." 23 However, DuPont notes that there are claims where an LCP is required, e.g., 24 claim 9 [bracketed matter added]: 25 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 12 9. The composition as recited in claim 1 wherein about 1 1.0 to about 10 weight percent of a liquid crystalline polymer 2 [LCP] is present. 3 We previously addressed claim 9 in addressing DuPont's Point (f). 4 Point (o) 5 In Point (o), DuPont re-argues the point that the Gupta uniform blend 6 is a single polymer. For reasons already given in our discussion of Point (f), 7 we disagree. 8 Point (p) 9 DuPont notes the Examiner's observation that (1) DuPont uses the 10 term "length" instead of "average length" and (2) DuPont has not presented 11 any convincing evidence "about the length of the glass fiber used by Gupta." 12 Appeal Brief, page 12. 13 Agreeing that it should have said "average length," DuPont goes on to 14 say that it cannot determine the lengths of glass fibers described Gupta. We 15 agree with DuPont that it could not have divined, and cannot divine, the 16 length of the Gupta fibers unless Gupta reveals the lengthâ€”which it does 17 not. DuPont further calls attention to evidence in Appendix B of the Appeal 18 Brief which, according to DuPont, reveals that "typical" lengths are 3-4 mm, 19 which is said to be 150 times longer than the fibers used by DuPont. DuPont 20 still further calls attention to a Rule 132 declaration of inventor Almsâ€”now 21 retired from DuPont. The declaration appears as Appendix A of the Appeal 22 Brief. 23 The Alms declaration is entitled to little, if any, weight. Why? Alms 24 first says that the Gupta fibers are "apparently" "ordinary" chopped glass 25 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 13 fiber and that ordinary chopped glass fiber in essence "won't work." As we 1 have previously discussed, the Appendix B evidence does not come to grips 2 with the fact that those skilled in the art use sizes of materials, including 3 fillers, which are calculated to achieve a satisfactory result. The skilled 4 artisan is not an automaton. 5 Alms also addresses why it is desirable to achieve what he and the 6 DuPont specification call as "Class A" surface. Specification, Â¶ 0004. 7 Unfortunately for DuPont, there is nothing in the claims which calls for a 8 "Class A" surface. For example, (1) claim 19 calls for an appearance part, 9 (2) claim 23 call for a car body part and (3) nowhere is there mentioned 10 whether the parts are "Class A." As noted by the Examiner, while claims are 11 interpreted in light of the specification [In re Prater, supra], limitations are 12 not read into the claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 13 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See paragraph bridging pages 8-9 of the Examiner's 14 Answer. 15 Also DuPont is not the first to achieve a "Class A" surface. 16 Specification, Â¶ 0016. 17 Point (q) 18 In Point (q), DuPont embellishes on its Point (k) argument. We have 19 already addressed Point (k). 20 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 14 Point (r) 1 DuPont maintains that neither Gupta nor Deyrup reveal the need for a 2 sufficient amount of electrically conductive filler. We have addressed the 3 electrically conductive filler argument in addressing Points (k and l). 4 Other claims 5 (1) Claim 9 6 DuPont says claim 9 requires the presence of both an IPE and an LCP. 7 For the reasons given in addressing Point (f), we find that Gupta describes a 8 blend of an IPE and an LCP. 9 (2) Claims 13 and 16 10 Claims 13 and 16 call for the presence of carbon black. DuPont 11 maintains that neither Gupta nor Deyrup describe the use of carbon black. 12 Appeal Brief, page 14. 13 Gupta describes the use of graphite. Page 9:11. 14 More to the point is DuPont's acknowledgement that electrically 15 conductive fillers are used in paints to coat body parts. Specification, 16 Â¶ 0015. Carbon black electrical conductive fillers are known. See Appendix 17 C of the Appeal Brief, page 16, 2d full paragraph, line 3. See also 18 Specification, Â¶ 0021 describing known use of conductive carbon black. 19 DuPont is using a known carbon black for its intended purpose. 20 (3) Claims 19-20 and 23-24 21 DuPont argues that neither Gupta nor Deyrup mentioned appearance 22 parts or coated appearance parts. Appeal Brief, page 14. 23 We have addressed DuPont's argument in addressing Point (h). 24 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 15 (4) Claims 21 and 25 1 Claim 21 reads: 2 21. The appearance part as recited in claim 20 wherein 3 said coating was applied by electrostatic coating. 4 Claim 25 also calls for a car body part wherein a coating is applied by 5 electrostatic coating. 6 The Examiner held that claim 21 defines an appearance part in terms 7 of a product-by-process. Examiner's Answer, page 9. 8 The Examiner was unable to determine any difference between an 9 appearance part having a coating applied by electrostatic means vis-Ã -vis an 10 appearance part having a coating applied by some other means. Nor can we. 11 The Examiner's rationale in consistent with In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 12 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no convincing evidence in the record which 13 would establish that applying the broad range of coatings defined by claim 1 14 via electrostatic coating would produce a different result. 15 (5) Claims 22 and 26 16 DuPont maintains that neither Gupta nor Deyrup mention "a minimum 17 DOI." Appeal Brief, page 14. 18 Claims 22 reads: 19 22. The appearance part as recited in claim 21 which has 20 a DOI of about 70 or more. 21 Claim 26 also calls for a DOI of 70 or more. 22 The specification reveals the following [Â¶ 0108]: 23 Surface quality can be judged by a variety of methods. One is 24 simply visual, observing the smoothness and the reflectivity of 25 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 16 the surface, and how accurately it reflects its surroundings. 1 Another more systematic method is DOI. It is preferred that the 2 appearance surfaces (those that need to be smooth, etc.) have a 3 DOI of about 65 or more, more preferably about 70 or more, 4 when measured using the AutoSpectÂ®Paint Appearance Quality 5 Measurement system. It is understood by the artisan that 6 factors other than the composition itself can affect the surface 7 quality of a part produced. For example the condition 8 (porosity, flatness) of the mold surface, molding conditions 9 such as fill time and fill pressure, mold design such as gate 10 location and thickness of the part, mold and melt temperatures, 11 and other factors can affect surface quality. If painted, the 12 surface quality also depends on the painting technique used and 13 the quality of the paint which is applied. 14 First, DuPont does not maintain that it is the first to achieve a DOI of 15 70 or more. For example, the record does not reveal, and the USPTO has no 16 means for determining, whether the DOI of the prior art coated parts 17 described in Â¶Â¶ 0007 through 0015 of the specification or the Gupta coatings 18 is the same as the DOI claimed. Second, DuPont does not convincingly 19 demonstrate in the specification precisely how one skilled in the art would 20 achieve a DOI of 70 or more using the composition of claim 1. 21 DuPont's other arguments 22 We have considered DuPont's remaining arguments and find none that 23 warrant reversal of the Examinerâ€™s rejection. Cf. Hartman v. Nicholson, 483 24 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 25 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 17 Other observations 1 (1) 2 We have considered Schaefgen, U.S. Patent 4,118,372 (3 Oct 1978), 3 mentioned at Â¶ 0044 of the Specification, to gain an understanding of what is 4 referred to in the record as the TOT test. See Schaefgen, col. 5:51-68 and 5 col. 8:26 through col. 10:25, as well as col. 1:41-48 describing Fig. 1 6 showing curve A for an isotropic polymer and curve B for an anisotropic 7 polymer. 8 (2) 9 During our deliberations we have also uncovered Makhija, U.S. Patent 10 5,541,240 (30 July 1996) describing blends of isotropic IPE polyesters and 11 thermotropic LCP polyesters, optionally containing fillers. Since Makhija 12 was not relied upon by the Examiner, we have not taken into account its 13 teachings in reaching our decision. We call attention to Makhija in the event 14 of further prosecution of the application. 15 (3) 16 DuPont maintains that claims 19 and 23 are "independent" claims. 17 The Examiner disagrees. Since claims 19 and 23 limit the scope of claim 1, 18 both are properly treated as dependent claims. We agree with DuPont that 19 the characterization of claims 19 and 23 as independent or dependent does 20 not affect the merits. Reply Brief, page 5. 21 (4) 22 DuPont notes that claim 26 should depend from claim 23, not claim 1. 23 Appeal Brief, page 14. In addressing the merits, we have treated claim 26 as 24 Appeal 2009-2220 Application 10/943,527 18 depending from claim 23 and have assumed that if necessary an appropriate 1 amendment may be made in the event of further prosecution, e.g., and RCE. 2 D. Decision 3 DuPont has not sustained its burden on appeal of showing that the 4 Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal as being unpatentable under 5 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 over the prior art. 6 On the record before us, DuPont is not entitled to a patent containing 7 claims 1-16 and 19-26. 8 Upon consideration of the appeal, and for the reasons given herein, 9 it is 10 ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting 11 claims 1-16 and 19-26 over the prior art is affirmed. 12 FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any 13 subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 14 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2008). 15 AFFIRMED ack cc: E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY LEGAL PATENT RECORDS CENTER BARLEY MILL PLAZA 25/1122B 4417 LANCASTER PIKE WILMINGTON DE 19805