Ex Parte Bown et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 201714317501 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017) 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. 14/317,501 06/27/2014 Matthew W. Bown 101672.0056P2 8117 34284 7590 Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 ANTON BLVD SUITE 1400 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 EXAMINER FERNANDES, PATRICK M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3736 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/17/2017 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): patents @ rutan. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHEW W. BOWN, MARK A. CHRISTENSEN, GUY ROME, and BRET HAMATAKE Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,5011 Technology Center 3700 Before ERIC B. GRIMES, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims directed to a medical device. The Examiner rejects the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is C.R. Bard, Inc. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1—20 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and reads as follows: 1. An elongated medical device, comprising: a core element having a distal region including: a first region with a first diameter; a second region with a second diameter less than the first diameter, the second region distal of the first region and terminating at a core element distal end; and a transition region tapering from the first diameter to the second diameter, the second diameter of the second region extending from the transition region to the core element distal end; a polymer member circumferentially disposed about an entire length of the core element and extending distal of the core element distal end; a closure element affixed to a distal end of the polymer member; and a permanent magnetic element disposed along the second region proximal to the core element distal end. Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection: A. Claims 1—5 and 12—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell2 in view of Stoy3 and Cornelius.4 Appeal Br. 9. B. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Ashby.5 Id. 2 Sell, US 2007/0032746 Al, published Feb. 8, 2007 (“Sell”). 3 Stoy et al., US 5,368,048, issued Nov. 29, 1994 (“Stoy”). 4 Cornelius et al., US 5,924,998, issued July 20, 1999 (“Cornelius”). 5 Ashby et al., US 5,622,184, published Apr. 22, 1997 (Ashby”). 2 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 C. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Frankowski.6 Id. D. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Johlin.7 Id. E. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Zaidi.8 Id. F. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Kuntz.9 Id. G. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell in view of Cornelius, and Ashby in view of Rooney.10 Id. H. Claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Boudewijn.11 Id. A. Obviousness over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius The Examiner finds that Sell teaches an elongated medical device but “does not explicitly disclose a polymer member circumferentially disposed about an entire length of the core element and extending distal of the core element distal end; or a closure element affixed to a distal end of the polymer member.” Ans. 3. The Examiner’s position is that “Sell teaches 6 Frankowski et al, US 2004/0225233 Al, published Nov. 11, 2004 (“Frankowski”). 7 Johlin, US 5,492,538, issued Feb. 20, 1996 (“Johlin”). 8 Zaidi et al., Room Temperature Magnetic Order in an Organic Magnet Derived from Polyaniline, 45 Polymer 5683—5689 (2004)(“Zaidi”). 9 Kuntz, US 4,790,809, issued Dec. 13, 1988 (“Kuntz”). 10 Rooney et al., US 6,306,105 B1 issued Oct. 23, 2001 (“Rooney”). 11 Boudewijn et al., US 2003/0208142 Al, published Nov. 6, 2003 (“Boudewijn”). 3 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 the use of a lubricious coating but does not specifically teach the use of a polymer member circumferentially disposed about the core. Stoy[, however,] teaches the use of a polymer member circumferentially disposed about the core that provides lubricity.” Ans. 12. The Examiner further relies on Stoy for teaching a polymer that provides “enhanced lubricity of the guide wire.” Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes that it would be obvious to substitute one known element for another. Ans. 12. The Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Sell and Stoy is “silent on the transition region. . . . [The Examiner concludes that i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sell with Cornelius[’s structure] because it provides more flexibility for the physician for orienting the guidewire for insertion into the body.” Ans. 3. Appellants contend that “each region has a singular diameter — i.e., the diameter does not change” and this is not taught in the references. Reply Br. 4. “The problem with Cornelius is that even adopting the Examiner’s reasoning (as indicated by his labelling of the regions), there still is no teaching of the first, second, and transition regions [as claimed] in Cornelius.” Id. at 6. “[T]he Examiner [also] does not explain where exactly in Sell the taper [of Cornelius] would be placed.” Appeal Br. 15. The issue is: Does the preponderance of evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of references renders the claimed medical device obvious? 4 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 Findings of Fact FF1. Sell teaches a guidewire with magnets. Figure 1 of Sell, reproduced below, shows such a guidewire: FIG. 1, disposed on the bent section 34 of the distal end 24 is at least one magnetically responsive element 40, of sufficient size, shape, and magnetization direction to align the bent section 34 relative with the direction of an applied magnetic field to access small branch vessels in the vasculature. Sell 117. The guidewire “tapers from a diameter of about 0.3 mm at the proximal end to about 0.05 mm at the distal end.” Id. 114. FF2. Sell teaches that “[t]he guide wire 20 may also comprise coil 36 around the core wire 26 along a portion of its length. The coil 36 can be made of a radio-opaque material useful for viewing in an X-ray or Fluoroscopic imaging system.” Id. 116. FF3. Sell teaches that “[t]he guide wire 20 may also include a lubricious coating along its outside surface to allow for smooth tracking along vessel walls.” Id. 119. 5 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 FF4. Stoy teaches a radio-opaque tipped and sleeved guidewire as shown in Figure 1, reproduced below: The guidewire 1 with its core piece 3 its first polymer composition sleeve 5 and its second polymer composition-containing mixture 7 with radio-opaque tungsten metal powder is next placed in water to extract the NaSCN solvent. This shrinks the sleeve 5 to tightly and fixedly force fit onto core piece 3, having now an outer diameter of about 0.035 inches. . . . [T]he two polymer compositions fuse to one another, creating a tight physical bond. Stoy 7:40-52. FF5. Stoy teaches that “[t]he first polymer composition and the second polymer composition must be capable of forming a physical bond,” for example by “crosslinking, adhesion, fusion, network polymer interlinking or interweaving and the like.” Id. at 5:24—36. The first polymer composition can provide “lubricity.” See id. at 5:8. “Preferred [polymer sleeves] are [made of] hydrogels, which impart the lubricious characteristics,” the polymers including polyacrylonitrile-containing polymers. See id. at 5:18—22. FF6. Cornelius teaches a guidewire having a lubricious distal portion. Figure 1, reproduced below, shows a cross-sectional view of the 6 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 guidewire having a coil in the intermediate portion. Cornelius 2:65— 67. FIG. 1 illustrates a [] side cross-sectional view of a guide wire 20 having a distal portion 22, an intermediate portion 24, and a proximal portion 26. Guide wire 20 has a surface extending the length thereof, as indicated at 21. . . . Guide wire 20 includes an elongate core member 28 having a constant cross section portion 30, a tapered portion 32 and a reduced cross section portion 34. Core member 28 preferably has a circular cross section in portions 30 and 32. Id. at 3:16—25. FF7. Cornelius teaches that the “intermediate portion 24 includes tapered core portion 32 which is encased in a coil 42.” Id. at 4:8—10. FF8. The Examiner finds that “Cornelius teaches the transition region tapering from the first diameter to the second diameter, the second diameter of the second region extending from the transition region to the core element distal end (Figure 1; See [annotated] Following Figure [1])” reproduced below. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. 7 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 Examiner notes that an annotated Figure of Cornelius was provided to distinguish how the Examiner would be interpreting the art. Specifically because Cornelius labels element 32 as being the tapered portion. But examiner is not using the wording of Cornelius in the rejection but instead is pointing out the different regions of the device that are being interpreted as the “first region,” “second region,” and “transition region.” Again Examiner notes that the element labeling explicitly stated by Cornelius is not being used. Ans. 13 (emphasis added). FF9. The Specification describes that the “[ejlongated body 11 may be formed in any number of shapes and sizes. For example, in certain embodiments, elongated body 11 may have a substantially constant cross-sectional size, taken transverse to the longitudinal axis of elongated body 11.” Spec. 148. FFlO.The Specification describes “transition region[s] [as] coupling the second region to the first region.” Id. 14. The Specification further describes that a “transition region 64, second region 66, or both may be formed by centerless grinding or any other processes known in the art. In another embodiment, first region 63 and second region 66 may be separate elements coupled or connected to one another.” Id. 170. 8 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 Principle of Law “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Analysis Claim 1 Appellants contend that, in the claimed device, “each region has a singular diameter — i.e., the diameter does not change throughout the region.” Reply Br. 4. Appellants contend that “according to the claim language, the first region has a first diameter — one diameter that is common to all portions of the first region — and a second diameter — one diameter that is common to all portions of the second region.” Reply Br. 4. As we understand Appellants’ argument, the position is that “a” is an indefinite article that is used to indicate “one” when referring to the diameter of a region. “[DJuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, we first turn to the Specification to interpret the term “a” in reference to the first or second diameter representing regions of the medical device. Here, the Specification describes that the elongated body “may be formed in any number of shapes and sizes” and “may have a substantially constant cross-sectional size, taken transverse to the longitudinal axis of elongated body 11.” FF9 (emphasis added). The Specification, therefore, includes elongated bodies having the same diameter along the longitudinal axis. But by describing that the 9 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 elongated body “may” have a constant cross sectional size implies that other cross sectional forms of the elongated body are not excluded. In other words, the Specification provides that a constant diameter is one embodiment but that other shapes of the elongated body are also contemplated. Therefore, the limitations of “a first diameter” and “a second diameter” as read in light of the Specification would encompass structures that have the same diameter throughout a region but also include structures having varying diameters along the longitudinal axis of the elongated body. Sell teaches a guidewire with magnets that can also contain a coil of radio-opaque material. See FF1 & FF2. Sell teaches that the guidewire tapers along its length. FF1. In other words, the diameter of the guidewire of Sell changes along the entire length of the wire. Sell also teaches that the wire can contain a coating made of lubricious material. FF3. Stoy similarly teaches a guidewire containing a sleeve. FF4. Stoy’s sleeve may be made of polyacrylonitrile-containing polymers that impart lubricious characteristic onto the surface of the guidewire. FF5. Cornelius also teaches a guidewire with a lubricious distal portion. FF6. Cornelius teaches “an elongate core member 28 having a constant [circular] cross section portion 30.” FF6. Cornelius teaches a core portion 32 that is tapered and encased in coil. FF8. In formulating the rejection, the Examiner labels three different sections of Cornelius’s Figure as representing “a first region,” “a second region,” and “a transition region” as claimed. FF8. The three regions identified by the Examiner are taught in Cornelius as having a tapered core, in other words, the diameter of the structure changes along the longitudinal length of the device. FF6&FF7. We have no issue with the Examiner 10 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 identifying various portions of Cornelius’s Figure as meeting certain claim elements, in this case first, second, and transition regions. Because our interpretation of claim 1 encompasses that the first, second and transition regions include structures that may vary in diameter along the length of the device, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius renders claim 1 obvious. We address Appellants’ other arguments below. Appellants contend that neither Sell nor Stoy teach a “transition region” as claimed. Appeal Br. 12. The Specification describes transition region as an area that couples two regions. FF10. The coupling can take the form of joining two separate elements or it can take the form of grinding one element to form the final structure that contains two regions. FF10. We further note that the Specification is silent with respect to defining what constitutes a “region,” so we interpret this to be anything from a thin cross sectional slice to lengths that can encompass larger portions of the device. Thus, reciting something as a region does not provide insight into how large of an area is encompassed by each. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “transition region” in light of the Specification is an area that joins two different regions having different diameters. Appellants contend that “Sell does not have such a transition region.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellants contend that “Sell does not exhibit a clearly defined first and [second] regions with an identifiable diameter for each. . . . [and] lacks the transition from a first diameter to a second diameter.” Appeal Br. 13. 11 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 We are not persuaded. As discussed above, the medical device can encompass a first region, a second region, and a transition region that is made up of the same material. SeeFFlO. Sell’s device tapers along the entire length. Thus, the area between the proximal and distal ends would reasonably meet the tapered transition region as claimed. See FF10. The limitations of claim 1, as read in light of the Specification, encompass structures that have varying diameters along the entire length of the device. This is taught by Sell, as acknowledged by Appellants, “Sell teaches a first region [and a second region] and an elongated area that tapers continuously to the tip of the device.” Appeal Br. 13; FF1. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Sell does not meet the claimed elements. The Examiner, however, does not rely on Sell to teach a tapered region but instead relies on Cornelius to teach this feature. See Ans. 3 (“Sell in view of Stoy are silent on the transition region”); FF8. Appellants contend that the combination with Cornelius is in error because the Examiner has not given “any guidance as to where or how that structure [of Cornelius] could be incorporated into the Sell device.” Appeal Br. 15. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is 12 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (citations omitted)). Here, the Examiner has directed us to Cornelius for teaching a transition region. FF8. The Examiner concludes that it “would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sell with Cornelius[’s core] because it provides more flexibility for the physician for orienting the guidewire for insertion into the body.” Ans. 3. “[A]pplying the tapering pattern of Cornelius with the magnetic elements of Sell would teach the limitations of the claims as the core element of Sell would be replaced by the core element of Cornelius.” Ans. 13. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that the Examiner has not explained how to apply the changes into Sell’s device. Appellants do not explain why adding a tapered core as taught in Cornelius would not function in Sell’s tapered device. We conclude that the preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius renders claim 1 obvious. We, thus, affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious, and as claims 2—5, 12—14, and 19 fall with that claim, we affirm the rejection as to those claims as well. 37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 15 and 20 Appellants contend that the “first region and a second region for Sell ... do not meet the explicit requirements of the first and second regions” as recited in claim 15. Reply Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants contend that claim 13 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 15 makes clear that “the length of the first region ha[s] a constant diameter.” Reply Br. 9. Claim 20 recites “a first region with a constant first diameter; a second region with a constant second diameter less than the first diameter.” See Appeal Br. 24 (Claims Appendix), see also id. at 16 (rejection is “improper for the reasons set forth above in connection with independent claim 1”); see also Reply Br. 10 (“independent claim 20 nevertheless makes explicit that both the first region and second region have constant first and second diameters”). “An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). We agree with Appellants’ position that the rejections of claims 15 and 20 as articulated by the Examiner do not meet all the elements as claimed, specifically, that a region have a constant diameter. Here, the Examiner’s reliance on the Figure in Cornelius (see FF8) to show an area described in the underlying text of Cornelius as containing a tapered core (see FF6) would not reasonably meet the claim limitation of having a constant diameter. In formulating the rejection, the Examiner makes it clear that the description of Cornelius’s disclosure is not relied upon in making the rejections. Instead, the Examiner labels two different sections of Cornelius’s Figure as representing the first region, the second region, and the intermediate region as claimed. FF8. The region identified by the Examiner, however, is taught in Cornelius as having a tapered core. FF6, FF7. We understand that Figures are routinely relied upon to show relative information regarding the placement of components. See, e.g.,In re 14 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the Examiner is relying on more than just relative information such as a placement of a particular feature. Instead, the Examiner is relying on drawing effects that appear to show a portion of the element 24 of Cornelius’s Figure as being parallel, and therefore having a constant diameter. Compare FF8 (first region) & FF6 (element 32). This interpretation, however, is not supported by Cornelius’s corresponding description of element 32 in the relevant drawing. FF7. The Examiner’s contention that Cornelius’s wording is not relied on in making the rejection is of no avail in this instance because the Examiner is solely relying on features of the Figure that are not supported by the disclosure of Cornelius. We have no issue with the Examiner identifying various portions of Cornelius’s Figure as meeting certain claim elements. In this case, however, the text of Cornelius is clear that the sections identified by the Examiner and relied on in the rejection have a tapered configuration within the core which means that those regions of the guidewire do not have a constant diameter as required by the claims. We conclude that the preponderance of the evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius teaches a medical device having all the limitations of independent claims 15 and 20. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of independent claims 15 and 20 and dependent claims 16—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) that rely on the combination of Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius. 15 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 B—F & H Obviousness over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius The Examiner has rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius and further including Ashby; claim 8 based the same three base references and further including Frankowski; claim 9 further including Johlin; claim 10 further including Zaidi; claim 11 further including Kuntz; and claim 4 further including Boudewijn. The Examiner has rejected claim 1 as obvious based on Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius. See Ans. 2—9 and 11—14. Appellants’ only argument with respect to each of these rejections is that the additional reference “has no bearing on the deficiencies present with respect to the combination cited for claim 1.” Appeal Br. 17—19. This argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above (see A.), we conclude that the combination of Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius would have made obvious the elongated medical device of claim 1. We affirm the rejections of claims 4 and 7—11 for the reasons given by the Examiner. We note that claim 17 was also rejected based on Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius and further in view of Boudewijn. Because claim 17 is dependent on claim 15, which as indicated above is not obvious based on Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius, we also reverse the rejection of claim 17 that further includes Boudewijn because the Examiner has not pointed to a disclosure in Boudewijn that makes up for the deficiency discussed above. 16 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 G. Obviousness over Sell, Cornelius, Ashby, and Rooney The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 6 as obvious based Sell, Cornelius, Ashby, and Rooney. See Ans. 9—11. We adopt the Examiner fact findings and conclusions as set out in the Final Action and Answer. Appellants’ argument with respect to this rejection is that “[f]or the same reasons as set forth above with respect to the combination of Sell and Stoy [as applied to claim 1], this [combination of Sell with Ashby is] not a proper motivation to combine references because Sell already teaches enhanced lubricity.” Appeal Br. 18—19. We are not persuaded. The Examiner acknowledged that “Sell does not explicitly disclose a polymer member circumferentially disposed” about the core element of the medical device. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that Ashby teaches a polymer member (61) circumferentially disposed about an entire length of the core element and extending distal of the core element distal end .... Ashby discloses that the polymer member enhances lubricity of the guidewire so it will more easily traverse the body (see col. 6), while the closure element fully encloses the assembly. Id. We find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another in order to provide a device that is easier to insert into the body. “Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious.” In re Font, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (citation omitted); see also In reMayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Because the applicants merely substituted one element known in the art for a known equivalent, this court affirms [the rejection for obviousness].”). 17 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 6 as obvious based Sell, Cornelius, Ashby, and Rooney for the reason set out by the Examiner. See Ans. 9-11. SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 1—5, 12—14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius. We reverse the rejection of claims 15—18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius. We affirm the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Ashby. We affirm the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Frankowski. We affirm the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Johlin. We affirm the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Zaidi. We affirm the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Kuntz. We affirm the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell in view of Cornelius, and Ashby in view of Rooney. We affirm the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, and Cornelius in view of Boudewijn. We reverse the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sell, Stoy, Cornelius, and Boudewijn. 18 Appeal 2016-008463 Application 14/317,501 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation