Ex Parte Feeney et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 18, 201612736136 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121736,136 10/19/2010 Carrie A. Feeney 40256 7590 05/18/2016 FERRELLS, PLLC P. 0. BOX 312 CLIFTON, VA 20124-1706 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. IM-08-lB 6849 EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1768 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2016 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CARRIE A. FEENEY, MICHELE FARRELL, and HARRIS A. GOLDBERG Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 Technology Center 1700 Before CHUNG K. PAK, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and JAMES T. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Applicants (hereinafter the "Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1--6, 15, 17-24, 26-29, and 38--45.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The Appellants state that the Real Party in Interest is "INMAT, INC." (Appeal Brief filed October 17, 2013, hereinafter "Appeal Br.," 2). 2 Appeal Br. 1; Final Office Action mailed August 16, 2013 (hereinafter "Final Act."). Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 BACKGROl.J1'-JD The subject matter on appeal relates to "barrier coating compositions, films, and coated articles that achieve substantial reductions in gas permeability and/or permeation rate by providing a dispersion of hyperplaty kaolin and polyesters suitable for film-forming" (Specification, hereinafter "Spec.," 4, 11. 12-15). Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced from page Al of the Appeal Brief (Claims App.), with key limitations indicated in italicized text, as follows: 1. An aqueous barrier coating composition in the form of an aqueous dispersion comprising: (a) water; (b) a polyester matrix polymer; ( c) a kaolin filler having an average shape factor of at least about 40:1, the composition optionally including a dispersant and thickener and being further characterized in that: (i) the composition has a solids content of from more than 20 weight percent, up to 70 percent by weight; (ii) the composition has a weight ratio of polyester matrix polymer: kaolin filler offrom 4: 1 to 0. 75:1; and (iii) a film formed from the composition exhibits at least 5-fold reduction in oxygen permeability as compared with a like film formed of said polyester matrix polymer. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: I. Claims 1-5, 15, 17-22, 26-29, and 38--45 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Barsotti3 3 WO 00/49072 published August 24, 2000. 2 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 • • ro -.---, • .. A /-.---i • -. • , .. -.... T -t ,.., m view or !'men.· ~ bxammer, s Answer emerea 1'\J ovemoer 1, 2013, hereinafter "Ans.," 2--4; Final Act. 3--4.) II. Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barsotti in view of Finch and further in view of Feeney et al., WO 2005/044938 A2 (hereinafter "Feeney II"). 5 (Ans. 4; Final Act. 4--5.) III. Claims 1, 2, 6, 15, 17-22, 26-29, and 39--45 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Feeney et al., WO 98/56861 Al (hereinafter "Feeney")6 in view of Finch. (Ans. 4--6; Final Act. 5-7.) IV. Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feeney in view of Finch and further in view of Feeney II. (Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 7-8.) DISCUSSION A. Rejections Based Principally on Barsotti in view of Finch Unless argued separately, all claims subject to the rejections relying on Barsotti in view of Finch stand or fall together with claim 1, which we select as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). I. Claims 1-5, 15, 17-22, 26--29, and 38--45 (Barsotti and Finch) The Examiner found that Barsotti describes every component of the composition of claim 1, except that Barsotti "fails to disclose that the 4 US 2005/0059765 published March 17, 2005. 5 Published May 19, 2005. 6 Published December 17, 1998. 3 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 laminar mineral [described in the reference] is kaolin" (Final Act. 3). To account for this difference, the Examiner relied on Finch. Specifically, the Examiner stated: "Barsotti and Finch are drawn to aqueous nanocomposite dispersions" and "kaolinite (i.e., kaolin) and montmorillonite are both suitable layered silicates used in these dispersions" (id. at 3). Based on this finding, the Examiner concluded that "it would have been obvious ... to substitute the montmorillonite with kaolin as the silicate of Barsotti, absent a showing of surprising or unexpected results" (id. at 3). The Appellants contend that: (1) "Finch is nonanalogous art" (Appeal Br. 6-7); (2) "the rejection [of Barsotti in view of Finch] should be reversed" as being based on "improper hindsight" and lacking "rational underpinning because Barsotti relates to high barrier gas barrier coatings, while Finch does not" (id. at 1 O); (3) that "Finch also fails to disclose kaolin with a shape factor of 40: 1 or more as claimed; nor does Barsotti even mention kaolin" (id. at 11); and (4) that "[t]he Examiner's dismissal of claims 17-22, 26, and 27 is unwarranted" because "it is clearly demonstrated that acid treatment of kaolin and concentrating the dispersions prior to use greatly enhances performance of the coating compositions" (id. at 16). For the reasons discussed below, the Appellants' arguments, considered in light of the relied-upon evidence, fail to identify any reversible error in the Examiner's rejection In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Non-Analogous Art One of the principal issues in this appeal is whether the Appellants identified reversible error in the Examiner's determination that Finch is analogous art. The non-analogous art test considers the threshold question 4 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 whether a prior art reference is "'too remote to be treated as prior art.'" In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The two separate tests for determining whether a prior art reference is analogous are as follows: (i) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; and (ii) if the reference is not within the inventor's field of endeavor, whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Clay, 966 F.2d at 658---659. 1. Field of Endeavor Test The Appellants contend that "Barsotti relates to high barrier gas barrier coatings prepared from dilute dispersions ... , while Finch does not relate to high barrier gas barrier coatings at all" (Appeal Br. 6). According to the Appellants, "Finch does not relate to the [same] field of endeavor- high barrier gas barrier coatings, nor problem solved-reduced gas permeation, at a level of 5 times lower than the matrix polymer" (id.). We disagree. The same field of endeavor test "for analogous art requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention." In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (reference describing a toothbrush found to be in the same field of endeavor as a claim to a hairbrush based on findings regarding function and structural similarity). As discussed above, the Examiner found that Finch, like Barsotti (and the Appellants' invention), is in the field of "aqueous nanocomposite dispersions" and that "kaolinite (i.e., kaolin) and montmorillonite are both 5 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 suitable layered silicates used in these dispersions'' (Ans. 3). These findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Appellants broadly define the field of their invention as "generally to polymer/clay dispersions which are used to provide coatings having enhanced barrier properties" (Spec. 1, 11. 26-27). Specifically, the polymer and clay are described as being a polyester and a platy kaolin functional additive having a particular average shape factor, respectively (id. at 3, 11. 20-29). According to the Specification, the mean particle size of the kaolin can be below 1 micron (id. at 5, 11. 24--27). Finch discloses a compositionally similar aqueous dispersion composition comprising a water- dispersible polymer, such as polyester (i-f 24), and layered silicates or clay, including montmorillonite and kaolinite (i.e., kaolin) (i-fi-f 41--42), that may be used "as plastic additives exhibiting improved barrier properties" (i-f 9). The layered silicates or clay are described as having an average particle size ranging from 0.25 micron to 250 microns (i-f 44). Because both the subject matter of the invention and the subject matter of Finch are drawn to compositionally similar aqueous dispersions including polyester and layered or platy kaolin having similar size characteristics to yield a coating with improved barrier characteristics, we determine that Finch is in the same field of endeavor (i.e., aqueous nanocomposite barrier coating compositions). Thus, we conclude that Finch is analogous art under the same field of endeavor test. 2. Reasonably Pertinent to the Particular Problem Test Because Finch is analogous art under the same field of endeavor test, we need not discuss the second test, i.e., the reasonably pertinent to the particular problem test. 6 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 Reason to Combine Though Finch is analogous art, the Examiner needed to establish further that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a sufficient reason for combining Finch with Barsotti in the manner claimed by the Appellants. We find that the Examiner articulated a sufficient reason with some rational underpinning to support the obviousness conclusion. As found by the Examiner (Final Act. 3), Barsotti teaches a water- borne gas barrier coating composition containing at least 2 % by weight solids comprising (a) from greater than 10% to less than 90% by weight of a film-forming water-dispersible or water-soluble organic binder (e.g., polyesters), (b) from less than 90% to greater than 10% by weight of certain inorganic laminar minerals (e.g., montmorillonite having an aspect ratio of over 150) (p. 6, 11. 10-12, 16-19), and (c) from 5% to 95% by weight, based on the weight of the binder, of a cross-linking agent (p. 4, 11. 3-13; p. 6, 11. 9-12, 23-31 ). Barsotti suggests that the disclosed coating composition would be expected to have "dramatically improved barrier performance" (p. 1, line 25). Consistent with the Examiner's additional findings (Final Act. 3), Finch teaches that a layered silicate, such as montmorillonite or kaolinite, is included in an aqueous dispersion comprising a water-dispersible polymer, such as polyester, to enhance thermal shock resistance (Abst.; i-fi-1 9, 24, 41--42). Finch further states that the resultant aqueous composition "as plastic additives exhibit[] improved toughness, improved barrier properties, or improved resistance .... " (i-f 9). Because Finch teaches that layered kaolin and montmorillonite, which enhance thermal shock resistance, are interchangeable silicates in aqueous compositions that exhibit improved barrier properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been 7 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 prompted to substitute Barsotti' s laminar montmorillonite mineral with laminar or layered kaolin based on a reasonable expectation that these materials would be interchangeable laminar minerals for the purpose of producing an aqueous composition having not only improved barrier properties but also good thermal shock resistance, as suggested by Finch. As for the aspect ratio of the layered kaolin, Barsotti suggests that the physical dimensions of the laminar mineral including aspect ratio is a result- effective variable in achieving improved barrier performance (p. 6, 11. 9-22). Taking account ofBarsotti's disclosures that the amount of laminar minerals is 10-90% by weight and that the aspect ratio is typically greater than 150, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an appropriate amount of kaolin filler having a suitable aspect ratio/average shape factor, including at least about 40: 1 as required by claim 1, by routine experimentation in order to achieve an aqueous barrier coating composition with excellent barrier properties. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). For these reasons, we hold that there was sufficient reason to combine Finch with Barsotti. II. Claims 23 and 24 (Barsotti, Finch, and Feeney 11) Claim 23 depends from claim 22, which in tum depends from claim 1. Claims 22 and 23 are reproduced from page A3 of the Appeal Brief (emphasis added) as follows: 22. The aqueous barrier coating composition according to Claim 1, prepared by way of a method comprising the steps of: 8 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 (a) providing a first aqueous dispersion containing a polyester matrix resin; (b) providing a second aqueous dispersion containing a kaolin filler having an average shape factor of at least about 40: 1 · ' ( c) admixing the first dispersion and the second dispersion; and ( d) concentrating the admixed first and second dispersions by evaporating water therefrom such that solids content of the admixed dispersion is increased by at least 20 percent. 23. The aqueous barrier coating composition according to Claim 22, wherein the method further comprises pretreating the kaolin with acid prior to mixing the dispersions. With regards to claims 23 and 24, the Examiner concluded that Barsotti and Finch "fail to disclose an exfoliated platelet filler that has been pretreated with an acid" (Final Act. 5 and 7). The Examiner found: WO '938 [Feeney II] discloses a barrier coating derived from an aqueous dispersion of a non-elastomeric polymer and silicate filler (page 60, lines 2-10) and teaches that pretreating the silicate filler (i.e., an inorganic laminar filler) with an acid provides for improved compatibility of the aqueous polymer dispersion and the aqueous dispersed filler and improved stability of the coating formulation (page 22, lines 3-22). Acids include acetic acid, glycine, and citric acid (page 6, lines 20-23) (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner concluded (id. at 7-8): Given that both Barsotti and WO '938 [Feeney II] are drawn to aqueous dispersion for use in barrier coatings and further given that pretreating the laminar filler with acid provides for improved compatibility and stability as taught by WO '938, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in 9 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 the art to utilize pretreat the kaolin filler provided by the combined teachings of Barsotti and Finch with acid. The Appellants contend that "[ c ]laims 23 and 24 are nonobvious" for the same reasons offered in support of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 12). We find them unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above. The Appellants further contend that "unexpected, superior results are realized with the subject matter of claims 23 and 24" (id.). According to the Appellants, "Feeney II has no hint that acid treatment of kaolin would be beneficial" (id.). Specifically, the Appellants contend that Table 1 (page 21) of the Specification shows "that acid treatment of the kaolin prior to mixing the dispersions is an important feature which changes the performance of the compositions" as "[a]cid treatment enhances barrier [properties] up to a factor of 10 as seen in Example 4, Table 1" (Appeal Br. 18). As an initial matter, we point out that the motivation or reason for combining the references provided in the prior art (improved compatibility and stability as disclosed in Feeney II at page 22, lines 4--16) need not be the same as that of the Appellants (improved barrier properties). KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) ("Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed."). See also In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692---693 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en bane). Therefore, we consider whether the Appellants direct us to evidence sufficient to show that the improved barrier properties would have been unexpected to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Here, the Examiner found that the Appellants have not established that Table 1 illustrates unexpected 10 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 results because, inter alia, the showing was not found to be commensurate in scope with claims 23 and 24 (Ans. 9-10). We discern no error in the Examiner's finding. Table 1 provides four examples where XP6100DF, XP6100, or XP 01-6100 was pretreated with acid (either glycine or acetic acid as recited in claim 24) (Spec. 21). Only one of these examples, namely Example 4, is arguably a fair comparison against the sole comparative example (Example 1 ), which is based on a different kaolin (XP07-6140) but did not include any acid treatment and was coated on the same type of test film, i.e., a PP (polypropylene) film. The composition of Example 4 (invention) did exhibit improved barrier properties relative to the composition of Example 1 (comparative). The comparison, however, was limited to a coating composition based on specific kaolin treated with glycine as the acid and a particular binder (EASTEK 1000) applied on polypropylene film. Table 1 does not provide additional evidence sufficient to establish reasonably that the same or similar improvements would be obtained for other acids, other kaolins, and other polyester binders under identical or similar test conditions. Although Example 5 shows the use of acetic acid treatment, barrier properties for this composition when applied to polyester (PET) was not as good as Example 4 and it is not certain what results would be obtained when applied to polypropylene as in Example 1 (comparative). Table 1 also fails to show what happens to the barrier properties of the film formed from the aqueous barrier coating composition when kaolin particles with different aspect ratios are pretreated with acid. See, e.g., In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("With respect to appellants' broad claims to a 11 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 catalyst with 'an alkali metal,' the experiments detailed in Friedrich III, being limited to sodium only, are not commensurate in scope, and are, therefore, insufficient to rebut the prima facie case."). We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 23 and 24. III. Claims 17-22, 26, and 27 (Barsotti and Finch) Claim 17 recites: "The aqueous barrier coating composition according to Claim 1, wherein the composition is concentrated by evaporating off a portion of water in order to increase the total solids content by at least 20 percent" (Appeal Br. A2). The Examiner found that claims 17-22, 26, and 27 are product by process claims and that "any differences shown for the product of the product-by-process claims, as opposed to the product taught by" Barsotti in view of Finch, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "as a routine modification of the product in the absence of a showing of unexpected results" (Ans. 4, 6). The Appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner's dismissal of [these] claims [] is unwarranted" because "it is clearly demonstrated in the specification as filed that acid treatment of kaolin and concentrating the dispersions prior to use greatly enhances performance of the coating compositions" (Appeal Br. 16). The Appellants further argue that concentrating solids within the aqueous barrier composition has a large effect as shown in Table 4 of the instant application (id.) and that concentrating the solids provides superior results (id. at 16-17). In response to this argument, the Examiner found that the Examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims (Ans. 9). We agree and 12 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 affirm the rejections of the Examiner with regards to claims 17-21, 26, and 27. To explain, in Table 4, Examples 29 and 30 both show a film formed from an aqueous barrier coating composition comprising a polymer phase and a kaolin filler. The film of Example 29 has a thickness of 2.0 microns whereas the film of Example 30 has a thickness of 3.5 microns. Table 4 shows that in Example 29 there is a 4. 7 times reduction in the oxygen permeability in the film formed from the composition while Example 30 shows that there is a 7 .2 times reduction in the oxygen permeability in the film formed from the composition. The data is inconclusive because one of ordinary skill in the art cannot discern whether it is the thickness of the film-a limitation that does not appear in the claims, the aspect ratio of the kaolin, or a specific final solids content that is affecting the reduction in oxygen permeability. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention."). Examples 29 and 30, i.e. two examples, are not enough to show that unexpectedly better barrier properties will be realized for the entire scope of the claim as a result of the claimed aqueous barrier coating composition. More data should have been presented to establish unexpected results will be obtained as alleged. It has not been shown whether the same reduction in oxygen permeability would be realized as observed in Example 30 if a kaolin with an aspect reference of 150 or greater is used in the aqueous barrier coating composition. What we can glean from Table 4 are the barrier properties for an aqueous barrier coating composition with an aspect ratio 13 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 applicable to a specific kaolin (XP61000) and a polymer phase that is EASTEK 1000. Table 4 does not provide examples that are representative of the entire claimed range of a kaolin filler having an average shape factor of at least about 40: 1. We also cannot determine from the data provided in Table 4 how the concentration by evaporation results in a new and different product than what would be obtained if the total solids content was obtained without concentration by evaporation. These deficiencies in the data provided in Table 4 do not support the Appellants' allegations that the concentration evaporation step provides for unexpected improvement in oxygen permeability. As a result, we affirm the rejection of claims 17-22, 26, and 27. B. Rejections Based Principally on Feeney in view o(Finch IV. Claims 1, 2, 6, 15, 17-22, 26-29, and 38--45 (Feeney and Finch) The Examiner found that Feeney describes every component of the composition of claim 1, but that Feeney "fails to disclose that platelet filler is kaolin" (Final Act. 6). To account for kaolin as a filler in the aqueous coating composition of Barsotti, the Examiner relied on Finch. Specifically, the Examiner stated: "Feeney and Finch are drawn to aqueous nanocomposite dispersions" and "kaolinite (i.e., kaolin), montmorillonite, and beidellite are all suitable layered silicates utilized in these dispersions" (id. at 6). Based on this finding, the Examiner concluded that it "would have been obvious ... to substitute the phyllosilicate of Feeney with kaolin as the silicate of Finch, absent a showing of surprising or unexpected results" (id. at 6). 14 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 As in A. I above, the Appellants argue that Finch is non-analogous art (Appeal Br. 12). The Appellants contend further that Feeney does not mention kaolin and that Finch does not disclose a kaolin with a shape factor of 40: 1 or more (id. at 13). According to the Appellants, Feeney teaches a preference for vermiculite with an aspect ratio or shape factor of 10,000 to 30,000 (citing Feeney, p. 9, 11. 26-30) and, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to substitute it with kaolin, which has a much lower aspect ratio (Appeal Br. 13). Non-Analogous Art Regarding whether Finch is non-analogous art, we disagree with the Appellants for the same reasons discussed in A. I. 1 above. Reason to Combine Though Finch is analogous art, the Examiner needed to articulate a sufficient reason with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Finch with Feeney. We find that the Examiner has articulated a sufficient reason. Feeney teaches an aqueous barrier coating composition including a polymer, such as polyester, and an exfoliated silicate filler material having an aspect ratio greater than 25 (p. 6, 11. 9-14; p. 8, 11. 5-8; p. 9, 11. 18-20) are expected to have improved barrier performance (p. , 11. 1-2). Based on the same teachings in Finch discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to substitute the filler materials described in Feeney with Finch's layered kaolin with a reasonable expectation that the resulting composition would exhibit not only improved barrier properties but also thermal shock resistance. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of 15 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 the invention to use a kaolin filler with an aspect ratio/average shape factor greater than 25 (including at least about 40: 1 as required by claim 1) in suitable amounts relative to the polymer by routine experimentation in order to achieve an aqueous barrier coating composition with excellent barrier properties. Aller, 220 F.2d at 456. For these reasons, we conclude that the Examiner articulated a sufficient reason with some rational underpinning to support the obviousness conclusion. V. Claims 23 and 24 (Feeney, Finch, and Feeney II) For these claims, the Appellants again refer to Table 1 to argue that unexpected results are achieved by treatment of the kaolin with an acid (Appeal Br. 13). We find this argument based on this evidence unpersuasive for the same reasons given above. VI. Claims 17-22, 26, and 27 (Feeney and Finch) The Appellants' arguments in support of these claims are unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above in A. III. SUMMARY For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1---6, 15, 17-24, 26-29, and 38--45 is affirmed. 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). 16 Appeal2014-002482 Application 12/736,136 AFFIRivIED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation