Ex Parte AMARASINGHE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2018

13097501 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/097,501 04/29/2011
23117 7590 08/29/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Amal Shirley AMARASINGHE
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.
BKK-4398-1140 6643
EXAMINER
SUL, DOUGLAS YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3771
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMAL SHIRLEY AMARASINGHE,
ANGELENE MARIE OZOLINS, LEE JAMES VELISS,
ALICIA KRISTIANNE WELLS, ERIC SIU, IAN FREDRICK JOHNSON,
and ALISON RUTH NORCOTT
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501 1
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Amal Shirley Amarasinghe et al. ("Appellants") identify ResMed Limited
as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (March 29, 2017) (hereinafter
"Appeal Br."), at 3.
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-73, 76, 77, 83, 91-94, 109-119,
122-130, and 132-135. Non-Final Office Action (December 28, 2016)
(hereinafter "Non-Final Act."). 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
The claimed subject matter relates to "a respiratory mask assembly
designed to suit infants and children." Specification ( April 29, 2011)
(hereinafter "Spec."), ,r 9. The mask assembly includes a flexible patient
interface, a rigid frame to receive and support the patient interface, and an
adjustable headgear. Id. ,r,r 12, 29, Fig. 1. The Examiner rejected the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the prior art. The Examiner
also provisionally rejected claims under the doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting over a claim of a related, co-pending patent application in
combination with the prior art.
Appellants contest the Examiner's rejections. For the reasons
explained below, we sustain only one of the§ 103 rejections. We do not
reach the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM-IN-PART.
2 The Examiner objected to claims 74, 90, and 131 as being dependent upon
a rejected base claim, and indicated the claims would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim
and any intervening claims. Non-Final Act. 1, 41. Claims 120 and 121 are
cancelled, and claims 75, 78-82, 84-89, and 95-108 are withdrawn. Id. at 2.
2
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 115 are the independent claims on appeal and are
reproduced below with the disputed claim language emphasized in italics.
1. A patient interface system for delivering breathable
gas to a patient, comprising:
a flexible patient interface structure configured to interface
with and deliver air to a nose of the patient, the patient interface
structure comprising cylindrical protrusions extending from
respective opposite sides of the patient interface structure, the
cylindrical protrusions being dimensioned and configured to be
adjacent the patient's nares when the flexible patient interface
structure is engaged with the patient's face;
a frame configured to support the patient interface
structure, the frame comprising a pair of cylinders, each cylinder
having an inner circumferential surface configured to receive a
respective cylindrical protrusion of the patient interface
structure;
headgear arranged for releasable attachment to the frame;
and
an air delivery tube connected to either one of the
cylindrical protrusions, the air delivery tube being configured to
be assembled to the cylindrical protrusion in an assembly
direction,
wherein each of the cylindrical protrusions of the flexible
patient interface structure comprises a shoulder having a
diameter larger than a diameter of each of said cylinders of the
frame, each of the shoulders being configured to prevent
movement of the respective cylindrical protrusion relative to the
corresponding cylinder in the assembly direction of the air
delivery tube when the air delivery tube is assembled to the
respective cylindrical protrusion.
3
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
115. A headgear for use with a patient interface system,
compnsmg:
a pair of side straps, each side strap extending from a
region adjacent a wing portion of a patient interface frame and
configured to extend along the patient's cheek to above the
patient's ear when the patient interface system is engaged with
the patient's face;
a pair of top straps, each top strap extending from a
respective side strap and configured to extend at least to a top of
the patient's head;
a pair of upper rear straps, each upper rear strap extending
from a respective side strap and configured to extend at least to
a back of the patient's head;
a pair of reinforcing structures, each reinforcing structure
having a forward finger extending from a respective wing portion
of the frame and configured to extend generally along the
patient's cheek when the patient interface system is engaged with
the patient's face, an upper finger extending from the forward
finger and configured to extend to above the patient's ear, and a
lower finger extending from the forward finger and configured
to extend to below the patient's ear;
a lower rear strap connected at each end to a respective
lower finger of a respective reinforcing structure; and
a quick release buckle comprising a tab, the quick release
buckle being configured to connect one end of the lower rear
strap to a respective lower finger and release the lower rear
strap from the respective lower finger when a pulling force is
applied to the tab,
wherein the quick release buckle is configured so that the
pulling force causes the quick release buckle to move directly
from a secured position to a fully released position,
wherein the quick release buckle is in the secured position
when the lower rear strap is secured to the respective lower
finger, and
4
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
wherein the quick release buckle is in the fully released
position when the lower rear strap is fully removed from the
respective lower finger.
Appeal Br. 20, 34-35 (Claims Appendix).
Scozzafava
Sink
Iund et al.
Vandenbroek et al.
Utterberg
Carlsen et al.
Ging et al.
Gunaratnam et al.
Ho et al. ("Ho '228")
Hallett et al.
Henry
Ng et al.
Ho ("Ho '933")
Veliss et al. ("the '801
application")
Veliss et al.
EVIDENCE
us 4,231,675
us 5,471,769
us 5,598,840
us 5,709,664
us 5,951,519
US 6,588,427 B 1
US 7,047,972 B2
US 7,066,178 B2
US 2007/0221228 Al
US 2008/0060653 Al
US 2008/0178875 Al
US 2009/0050156 Al
US 7,640,933 Bl
US Appl. No. 12/377,801
WO 2008/106716 Al
REJECTIONS
Nov. 4, 1980
Dec. 5, 1995
Feb.4, 1997
Jan.20, 1998
Sept. 14, 1999
July 8, 2003
May 23, 2006
June 27, 2006
Sept. 27, 2007
Mar. 13, 2008
July 31, 2008
Feb.26,2009
Jan.5,2010
Aug.31,2010
( § 3 71 ( c) date)
Sept. 12, 2008
The Non-Final Office Action includes the following rejections under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a):
1. Claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-29, 33, 35-50, 53, 57-68, 91, 92, 109, 112-
114, 122, 127, and 128 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss
and Gunaratnam.
2. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss,
Gunaratnam, and Hallett.
3. Claims 14 and 111 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss,
Gunaratnam, and Ho '228.
5
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
4. Claim 15 stands rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam,
Ho '228, and Ho '933.
5. Claims 30-32 and 34 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss,
Gunaratnam, and Ng.
6. Claims 51, 52, 55, 56, and 110 stand rejected as unpatentable over
Veliss, Gunaratnam, and Ging.
7. Claim 54 stands rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam,
and Henry.
8. Claim 69 stands rejected as unpatentable over Veliss, Gunaratnam,
and Iund.
9. Claims 70 and 77 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss,
Gunaratnam, Iund, and Utterberg.
10. Claims 71-73 and 76 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss,
Gunaratnam, Iund, and Scozzafava.
11. Claim 83 stands rejected as unpatentable over Veliss,
Gunaratnam, Iund, and Carlsen.
12. Claims 93 and 94 stand rejected as unpatentable over Veliss,
Gunaratnam, and Vandenbroek.
13. Claims 115-119, 123-126, 129, 130, and 132-135 stand rejected
as unpatentable over Veliss and Sink.
The Non-Final Office Action also includes the following rejection
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting:
14. Claims 115-119, 123-126, 129, 130, and 132-135 stand
provisionally rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over
then-pending claim 73 of the '801 application in view of Sink.
6
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection: Unpatentability over Veliss and Gunaratnam
As to independent claim 1, the Examiner found that V eliss discloses a
patient interface system substantially as recited in the claim, including
flexible patient interface structure 12 having cylindrical protrusions 88,
frame 14 having a pair of cylinders 112, headgear 16, and air delivery tube
11. Non-Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner acknowledged, "Veliss does not
disclose each outer cylindrical protrusion comprises a shoulder having a
diameter larger than the cylinders of the frame." Id. at 4. The Examiner
turned to Gunaratnam to demonstrate that, in the respiratory mask art, it was
known at the time of the invention to include a shoulder (retaining ring 29)
on a connector, where the shoulder has a diameter larger than the cylinders
of another respiratory component (mask shell 15), to prevent movement of
the components relative to each other in an assembly direction. Id. at 5. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the cylindrical protrusions 88 of Veliss to include a
shoulder, as taught by Gunaratnam, "in order to provide a means of securing
the cylindrical protrusions to the mask frame." Id. at 6 ( citing Gunaratnam,
col. 5, 11. 34-38); see also id. at 43 (Examiner stating that the proposed
modification would have been obvious "to provide an additional means of
securing the cushion to the frame").
Appellants argue that if one of ordinary skill were to apply the
"retaining ring" teaching of Gunaratnam to V eliss' s mask, the teaching of
Gunaratnam would have suggested adding the retaining ring to Veliss' s
elbow, and not to Veliss's cylindrical protrusions. Appeal Br. 8-9. In
keeping with this assertion, Appellants argue that the Examiner's reason for
7
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
modifying Veliss' s cylindrical protrusions with Gunaratnam' s retaining ring
is insufficient. Id. at 10-12. The Examiner responds that it would have been
obvious to provide a shoulder to the cylindrical protrusion of Veliss "to
provide an additional means of securing the cushion to the frame, as it would
be a predictable use of using a connection known in the respiratory art in a
known application." Ans. 40.
The Examiner's reasoning falls short of articulating a reason why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to add a shoulder to the
cylindrical protrusions of Veliss for securing these protrusions to the mask
frame. In particular, Veliss describes a connection between the cushion and
frame, and the Examiner fails to explain why one having ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to provide an additional means of securing these
components. The Examiner alludes to "additional benefits in providing
additional securing means" (Ans. 40), but the Examiner does not elaborate
on what such additional benefits would be or why one having ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to achieve these additional benefits
through modification to Veliss.
Veliss describes that each cylindrical protrusion 88 comprises an inner
cylinder 96 and a substantially concentric an outer cylinder 98. Veliss
,r 136. Inner cylinder 96 and outer cylinder 98 are joined at an end closest to
frame 14 by a thin membrane 102 that, by virtue of its flexibility, allows
inner cylinder 96 to be substantially decoupled from outer cylinder 98. Id.
,r,r 13 6-13 7. Groove 108 disposed on the outer surface of elbow 18 mates
with rib 104 on the inner surface of inner cylinder 96 when the two are
joined to fix elbow 18 in inner cylinder 96. Id. ,r 139. Thus, elbow 18 and
air delivery tube 11 are substantially decoupled from cushion 12. Id.
8
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
According to Veliss, "[ t ]he decoupling mechanism is also supported by the
[frame] 14 since the outer cylinders 98 of the cushion 12 are snugly seated in
respective, relatively rigid cylinders 112 provided in the [frame] 14." Id.
,r 141; id. ,r 143 ( describing that frame 14 "acts as an exoskeleton" adjacent
cushion 12). Veliss describes that "[i]n use, the rigid cylinders 112 may be
flexed outwardly to receive the cylindrical protrusions 88 and then released
to mechanically lock the cushion 12 to the [frame] 14." Id. ,r 147 (emphasis
added). Veliss further describes that cushion 12 can rotate with respect to
frame 14 by virtue of the fact that cylindrical protrusions 88 can rotate
within rigid cylinders 112, which allows the patient a greater range of
movement without disrupting the seal of the mask. Id. Thus, Veliss
describes that once cylindrical protrusions 88 are inserted into rigid
cylinders 112, cushion 12 is locked to frame 14. Veliss identifies no reason
to further secure cushion 12 to frame 14 or a reason to further limit
movement between cylindrical protrusions 88 and rigid cylinders 112.
Gunaratnam teaches retaining ring 29 for rotatably coupling end 28 of
connector 10 to rigid mask shell 15. Gunaratnam, col. 5, 11. 34-36. The
other end of connector 10 is connected to gas supply conduit 31. Id. at
col. 5, 11. 28-36, Fig. 2. Connector 10 of Gunaratnam corresponds to
Veliss's elbow 18, which also connects a gas supply conduit 11 to a mask
(cushion 12). As noted above, Veliss already teaches using a mating groove
and rib on the outer surface of the elbow and on the inner surface of the
inner cylinder 96 to couple elbow 18 to cushion 12. Gunaratnam teaches an
alternate technique, using a retaining ring, in lieu of the mating groove and
rib, to mate these elements. We agree with Appellants that one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ this alternate
9
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
technique taught in Gunaratnam on Veliss's elbow 18. The Examiner has
not adequately explained, however, why one having ordinary skill in the art
would have been led by the prior art to add a retaining ring to the outer
surface of cylindrical protrusion 88.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1, and its dependent claims 2, 3, 6-13, 16-29, 33, 35-50, 53, 57-68,
91, 92, 109, 112-114, 122, 127, and 128, as unpatentable over Veliss and
Gunaratnam.
Second through Twelfth Grounds of Rejection: Unpatentability over Veliss,
Gunaratnam, and additional references
The second through twelfth grounds of rejection are directed to claims
that depend from claim 1 and similarly rely on the proposed modification of
Veliss's cylindrical protrusions with Gunaratnam's shoulder. Non-Final
Act. 17-30. The Examiner does not rely on the cited additional references to
cure the above-noted deficiency in the base combination of Veliss and
Gunaratnam. For these reasons, we also do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 30-32, 34, 51, 52, 54-56, 69-73, 76, 77, 83,
93, 94, 110, and 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Thirteenth Ground of Rejection: Unpatentability over Veliss and Sink
Appellants argue the claims subject to this ground of rejection as a
group. Appeal Br. 14-17. We select independent claim 115 as the
representative claim, and dependent claims 116-119, 123-126, 129, 130,
and 132-135 stand or fall with claim 115. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
As to claim 115, the Examiner found that Veliss discloses the
headgear substantially as recited in this claim, including disclosing a quick
release buckle configured to connect one end of the lower rear strap to allow
quick release of the lower rear strap. Non-Final Act. 30-31. The Examiner
10
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
acknowledged that Veliss does not disclose the quick release buckle
comprises a tab and is configured to connect and release the lower rear strap
from the lower finger of the reinforcing member when a pulling force is
applied to the tab. Id. at 31. The Examiner found that Sink teaches quick
release buckle 38 comprising tab 42 where pulling the tab releases hook
member 40 of buckle 38. Id. at 31-32. The Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to modify the quick release buckle of Veliss to
allow quick release of the lower rear strap by way of a pulling force applied
on a tab on the buckle as taught in Sink, "in order to allow the buckle to be
engaged with a single hand while allowing for precise adjustment of the
strap." Id. at 32.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in applying the teachings of
Sink to the mask of Veliss because (1) Sink is not analogous art, (2) one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have had any reasonable expectation of
success in incorporating Sink's locking member into Veliss's headgear, and
(3) one of ordinary skill would not have modified Veliss for the reason
provided by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 14-17.
Analogous Art
As to the first contention, two criteria have evolved for determining
whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellants address both criteria. We disagree with the Examiner's
determination that Sink is from the same field of endeavor as Appellants'
11
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
invention. Sink relates to a lacing or strapping system for a shoe. Sink,
col. 1, 1. 8. Appellants' invention relates to headgear for a respiratory mask
assembly. Spec. ,r,r 9, 29-30. Sink's shoelace strapping system is not
structurally similar to the claimed headgear. For instance, Sink's strapping
system does not include straps for extending about a patient's head, and
Sink' s shoelace strapping system is not suitable for attaching a respiratory
mask to a patient's head.
Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner that Sink is analogous art
because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem facing Appellants.
Appellants' Specification discusses means to adjust lower rear strap 136,
rear straps 6, and upper straps 8 to provide a comfortable fit with cushion 12
in sealing engagement with the patient's face. Spec. ,r 160. The
Specification further describes that the headgear adjustment points are
conveniently arranged and adjustable as the parent or clinician is face-to-
face with the child patient. Id. The Specification also discloses quick
release buckle 80 to provide "a quick and easy way to attach or remove the
respiratory mask assembly 10." Id. ,r 161. Quick release buckle 80
comprises slot 82 configured to accept a strap of the headgear and hook 84
connected to quick release buckle 80 by section 86. Id. Tab 94 is provided
for a person to grasp quick release buckle to attach or remove the respiratory
mask assembly 10 from the patient. Id. Thus, the problem facing
Appellants was to provide headgear that was easy to adjust and to provide a
buckle that was easy to connect and disconnect to attach and remove the
mask assembly to and from the patient.
Sink discloses "a shoe lacing system employing a lace or strap with an
improved fastener means." Sink, col. 1, 11. 8-10. Sink describes that a
12
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
problem with traditional shoe lacing systems is that "two hands and manual
dexterity are required to adjust and tie the laces," which makes this system
"difficult to use for the very young, those with dexterity problems, or those
who have only one available hand." Id. at col. 1, 11. 23-27. Sink discusses
that prior attempts to create a shoe lacing system for single hand closure and
having a single, reliable and precise adjustment means have not been totally
successful. Id. at col. 2, 11. 1--4. Sink identifies a need in the shoe lacing art
for a shoe lacing system that (1) is readily and precisely adjustable by an
adjustment means, (2) has a first locking means to positively lock the
adjustment means in the precisely adjusted position of the lacing strap, and
(3) has a second locking means for positive locking of the adjusted lacing
strap. Id. at col. 2, 11. 20-26. Sink describes that once the lacing strap has
been adjusted and securely locked by the first positive locking means, a
second positive locking means, comprising a hook member, engages with an
eye member on the shoe to lock the strap in place. Id. at col. 2, 11. 47-51.
Sink describes that this second positive locking means "may be engaged and
disengaged by the single hand of a user." Id. at col. 2, 11. 60-62. As such,
Sink presents a unitary adjustment and locking means 38 which allows a
user to adjust the length of the strap and lock the strap into place at the
adjusted length, and which allows a user to engage and disengage the hook
to the eye member on the shoe using a single hand. Id. at col. 3, 1. 54 - col.
4, 1. 28.
As shown above, Sink addresses a strapping system, the length of
which can be precisely adjusted and locked in place, where one end of the
strap can be connected or disconnected to a shoe by the user using a single
hand. Thus, Sink' s system addresses the problems of adjustability of the
13
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
length of the strapping system and easy attachment and release of the buckle.
These are the same problems of adjustability and easy attachment and
release facing Appellants in devising a headgear system for an infant, as
detailed above. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
teachings of Sink are reasonably pertinent to the problem facing Appellants.
Reasonable Expectation of Success
Appellants further contend the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings of Veliss and Sink because the lower strap and rigid member of
Veliss' s headgear are not anchored to anything so that "the movable
connection of Veliss will likely react differently to a particular force than the
stationary connection of Sink." Appeal Br. 14-15. Appellants further
contend, "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill would have understood that the stationary
aspect of the connection is critical for achieving a 'precise adjustment' with
the locking member 38." Id. at 15. Appellants fail, however, to provide any
evidence to support these assertions. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
( CCP A 197 4) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence.").
We agree with the Examiner's determination that reinforcing
members 22 of Veliss's headgear are designed to provide increased rigidity
to stabilize the mask. Ans. 44 ( citing Veliss ,r 165). Veliss discloses that
"[t]his increased rigidity stabilizes the mask 10 on the patient's face
providing a more stable and continuous seal." Veliss ,r 165. Based on this
description, we further agree with the Examiner's determination that lower
finger 134 of reinforcing member 22 is not freely movable and one having
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success
14
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
in employing Sink' s quick release fastening system to the lower fingers and
rear strap of Veliss's headgear. Ans. 44.
Reason to Combine
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify
Veliss to use the quick release locking member of Sink to allow the locking
member to be engaged with a single hand while allowing for precise
adjustment of the strap. Non-Final Act. 32. Appellants assert that this
reasoning is insufficient because one of ordinary skill would have
understood that the stationary aspect of the connection is critical for
achieving a precise adjustment with Sink's locking member. Appeal Br. 15.
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner's determination that
one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood Veliss' s
reinforcing members 22 to be designed so as not to be freely moveable.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that one having ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to applying Sink's quick release locking member as the
quick release buckle on Veliss' s headgear for the reasons provided by the
Examiner.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not identified error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 115 as unpatentable over Veliss and
Sink. Claims 116-119, 123-126, 129, 130, and 132-135 fall with claim
115. Accordingly, we sustain the thirteenth ground of rejection.
Fourteenth Ground of Rejection: Obviousness-type Double Patenting
The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 115-119, 123-126, 129,
130, and 132-135 based on obviousness-type double patenting in view of
then-pending claim 73 of U.S. Application No. 12/377,801 ("the '801
application") in view of Sink. Since the date of the Non-Final Action,
15
Appeal 2017-011330
Application 13/097,501
Applicants have amended the claims of the '801 application, and the '801
application subsequently issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,981,102. Because the
circumstances surrounding the '801 application have changed since the
Examiner made the double patenting rejection in the instant application, we
decline to reach this rejection, and leave it to the Examiner to determine
whether the obviousness-type double patenting rejection is proper in light of
the issued claims of the patent.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-73, 76, 77, 83, 91-
94, 109-114, 122, 127, and 128 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 115-119, 123-126,
129, 130 and 132-135 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We do not reach the provisional obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 115-119, 123-126, 129, 130 and 132-135.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16