Ex Parte Goldenberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2016

10350096 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/350,096 01124/2003
37013 7590 08/22/2016
Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP
20609 Gordon Park Square
Suite 150
Ashburn, VA 20147
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David M. Goldenberg
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.
IMMU-0005US2 9584
EXAMINER
SCHWADRON, RONALD B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
mail@rkmllp.com
EOfficeAction@rkmllp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID M. GOLDENBERG and HANS J. HANSEN
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
Technology Center 1600
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
for treating an autoimmune disorder. The Examiner rejected the claims as
failing to comply with the written description requirement and as obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Statement of the Case
Background
"[T]his invention is directed to methods for treating autoimmune
disorders by administering antibodies that bind to a B-cell antigen, such as
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as lmmunomedics, Inc. (see
App. Br. 2).
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
the CD22, CD20, CD19, and CD74 or HLA-DR antigen" (Spec. 1, 11. 12-
14).
The Claims
Claims 1--4, 7-11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 31-33, 36-38, 51, 53, 56,
58, 64---67, 69, and 72-75 are on appeal. 2 Claims 1 and 69 are representative
and read as follows:
1. A method for treating an autoimmune disorder,
comprising administering to a subject having an autoimmune
disorder a therapeutic composition comprising a
pharmaceutically acceptable carrier and at least one human,
humanized or chimeric anti-CD20 antibody which binds to
human CD20 and at least one human, humanized or chimeric
anti-CD74 antibody which binds to human CD74.
69. The method of claim 1, wherein the anti-CD20 and anti-
CD7 4 antibodies deplete the blood of normal B-cells for an
extended period.
The Issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 64---67 under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(a) or
§ 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description
requirement (Final Act. 2--4).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 31-
33, 36-38, 51, 53, 56, 58, 64---67, 69, and 72-75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Meyer,3 Davis,4 and Rybak5 (Final Act. 10-12).
2 We note that claim 56, not listed in the Claims Appendix, is under
consideration and subject to rejection (see Final Act. 4/22113, 2).
3 Meyer et al., EP 0 332 865 A2, published Sept. 20, 1989.
4 Davis et al., WO 98/04281 Al, published Feb. 5, 1998.
5 Rybak et al., WO 98/50435 Al, published Nov. 12, 1998.
2
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
C. The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 31-
33, 36-38, 51, 53, 56, 58, 64---67, 69, and 72-75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Meyer, Anderson,6 and Rybak (Final Act. 4--10).
D. The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 31-
33, 36-38, 51, 53, 58, 64---67, 69, and 72-75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Curd,7 Anderson, and Rybak (Final Act. 12-15).
A. 3 5 U.S. C. § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner finds that "[t]here is no support in the specification as
originally filed for the limitation of claims 64/65" and that "the limitation
under consideration does not recite 'for an extended period' and thus
encompasses depletion that is not for an extended period wherein such a
time frame is not disclosed in the specification" (Final Act. 3). The
Examiner also finds that "[t]here is no support in the specification as
originally filed for the limitation of claims 66/67" and that "[t]here is no
description in the specification as originally filed for the scope of the
claimed invention" (Final Act. 3).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner's conclusion that the phrases "deplete the blood
of normal B-cells" and "for an extended period" lack descriptive support in
the Specification?
6 Anderson et al., US 5,736,137, issued Apr. 7, 1998.
7 Curd et al., US 7,820,161 Bl, issue Oct. 26, 2010.
3
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
Findings of Fact
1. The Specification teaches "treating autoimmune diseases using
antibody" and "to use comparatively low doses of a naked antibody to a B-
cell antigen, preferably to CD22 antigen, or a combination of naked
antibodies to a CD22 antigen and another B-cell antigen, preferably CD20
and/or CD74" (Spec. 2:21-25).
2. The Specification teaches that the "therapeutic compositions
described herein are useful for treatment of autoimmune diseases,
particularly for the treatment of Class III autoimmune diseases ... In this
context, the therapeutic compositions are used to deplete the blood of normal
B-cells for an extended period" (Spec. 15: 17 to 16:2).
3. The Specification teaches in Example 1 that "B-cells in the
blood prior to therapy with hLL2 were significantly depleted from the blood
2 months post-therapy" (Spec. 19:18-19).
Principles of Law
"[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession. And
while the description requirement does not demand any particular form of
disclosure ... or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec
verba, a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not
satisfy the requirement." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d
1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(citations omitted).
Analysis
We find that the Specification provides descriptive support for claims
64---67. The Specification teaches a limited number of therapies including
treatment of autoimmune diseases with antibodies to the CD20 and CD7 4
4
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
antigens (FF 1 ). The Specification teaches that these treatments "deplete the
blood of normal B-cells for an extended period" (FF 2) and specifically for
two months (FF 3).
Written description does not require disclosure of every species but
rather "disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within
the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the
genus so that one of skill in the art can 'visualize or recognize' the members
of the genus." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Here, the Specification teaches a
limited set of therapeutic compositions that function to deplete the blood of
B-cells for extended periods such that the ordinary artisan would
immediately envisage the claimed set of anti-CD20 and anti-CD74
antibodies, satisfying the written description requirement.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner's conclusion
that the phrases "deplete the blood of normal B-cells" and "for an extended
period" lack descriptive support in the Specification.
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Meyer, Davis, and Rybak
The Examiner finds that Meyer teaches "use of [one or more] antiB
cell antibodies to treat autoimmune disease" but that Meyer does "not teach
use of antiCD20 antibody and antiCD74 antibody" (Ans. 10-11). The
Examiner finds that Rybak teaches the "use of immunotoxin containing
antiCD74 antibody to kill B cell tumors" and that "CD74 is found on normal
B cells" (id.). The Examiner finds that Davis teaches "treatment of the
autoimmune disease RA using chimeric or human antiCD20 antibody" (id.).
5
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
The Examiner finds the combination obvious
because Meyer et al. teach that antibody/ combinations of
antibodies against a B cell surface marker can be administered
to treat autoimmune disease and MS, while Davis et al. teach
that treatment of RA with human antiCD20 antibody and Rybak
et al. disclose use of immunotoxin containing anti CD7 4
antibody to kill B cell tumors
(Final Act. 11 ).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner's conclusion that Meyer, Davis, and Rybak
render claim 1 obvious?
Findings of Fact
4. Meyer teaches "administration to a mammal of a
pharmaceutically effective amount(s) of one or more anti B-lymphocyte
antibodies or fragments thereof ... in an amount sufficient to suppress the
response of the B-lymphocytes" (l\1eyer 2:35-39).
5. Meyer teaches that "it may be necessary to utilize more than
one antibody to effectively achieve the desired suppression of the B-
lymphocyte response. This invention envisions the utilization of as many
antibodies as necessary to accomplish this goal" (Meyer 3 :28-30).
6. Davis teaches that the "present invention relates to an improved
method for treating systemic, immune cell mediated diseases, such as
autoimmune diseases, with a therapeutic protein that recognizes an antigen
expressed on the surface of an immune cell" (Davis 4:2--4).
7. Davis teaches that "[p ]referably, the therapeutic protein is a
monoclonal antibody ... antibodies can either be engineered antibodies
6
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
(e.g., chimeric or humanized antibodies) or antibody fragments lacking all or
part of an immunoglobulin constant region" (Davis 6: 10-18).
8. Davis teaches that "antigens include, but are not limited to ...
CD20 ... as well as other members of the CD family" (Davis 5:3-7).
9. Davis specifically teaches "wherein the therapeutic protein is a
monoclonal antibody to human CD20" and "wherein the B-cell mediated
disease is rheumatoid arthritis" in claims 25 and 28 (see Davis 34: 1-12).
10. Rybak teaches that "CD74, described below, is an example of a
cell surface marker found on B cells" and that "CD7 4, also known as the
MHC Class II associated invariant chain (Ii), is found on B cells,
macrophages, monocytes and other MHC class II positive cells" (Rybak
12: 1-2 and 13: 17-18).
11. Rybak teaches that the "preferred antigens which bind to
immunoglobulins of the invention are the CD22 and the CD7 4 cell surface
marker" (Rybak 6: 19-21 ).
Principles 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."
KSR!nt'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). "If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability." Id. at 417.
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Final Act. 10-12; FF 4--11) and agree that
7
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
the claims are rendered obvious by Meyer, Davis, and Rybak. We address
Appellants' arguments below.
Appellants contend that
There is nothing to direct the skilled artisan to select an
antibody to CD20 from the list of antibodies in the Davis et al.
disclosure and combine it with autoimmune disease from the
list of widely-varying immune mediated diseases in the Davis et
al. disclosure, which include such diverse diseases as
lymphoma and AIDS, such that it would have been obvious to
use anti-CD20 antibody in treating autoimmune disease.
(App. Br. 10). Appellants also contend that "there certainly is nothing in
Davis to suggest a combination with an anti-CD74 antibody, since CD74 is
notably absent from the list of target antigens given on page 5 of Davis"
(Id.).
We are not persuaded. Davis directly teaches treatment of
autoimmune diseases with antibodies that bind to immune cell antigens (FF
6) including humanized antibodies (FF 7), and specifically identifies CD20
as an immune cell antigen (FF 8-9) and rheumatoid arthritis as a targeted
disease (FF 9). Davis further teaches the use of antibodies to antigens of
"other members of the CD family" (FF 8). These teachings, in combination
with Meyer's general teaching to treat using multiple anti B-lymphocyte
antibodies (FF 4--5) and Rybak's teaching that CD74 is another member of
the CD family that is a cell surface marker found on B-cells (FF 10) and to
which antibodies can be made (FF 11 ), reasonably provides evidentiary
support for the Examiner's rejection.
To the extent that some picking and choosing from the disclosure of
Davis may be required for the obvious combination with Meyer and Rybak,
8
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
claim 1 "recites a combination of elements that were all known in the prior
art, and all that was required to obtain that combination was to substitute one
well-known ... agent for another." Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams
USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, Davis teaches the
use of anti-CD antibodies, including anti-CD20 specifically, for treatment of
autoimmune diseases by targeting antigens on B-cells (FF 6-9), suggests the
use of other CD family members (FF 8), and Rybak teaches that CD74 is a
CD family member antigen found on the surface of B-cells (FF 11 ). We
think it is fair to say that there were "a finite number of identified,
predictable solutions" to the problem of finding antibodies to B-cells
targeting CD antigens, and that the combination of anti-CD20 and anti-
CD7 4 antibodies was "the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill."
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
Appellants contend that "[i]t is not seen how it could have been
obvious to substitute either an anti-CD20 antibody or an anti-CD74 antibody
for an anti-HLA-DR antibody if each of the antibodies are patentably
distinct" (App. Br. 8).
We do not find this persuasive because "a restriction requirement is
not substantive evidence that ... claims are patentably distinct ...
Restriction requirements are discretionary decisions, primarily for
administrative convenience, and do not represent a final determination that
the relevant claims are patentably distinct." Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese
Foundation for Cancer Research, 785 F.3d 648, 659 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here,
Davis evidences that all B-cell CD antigens were equivalents when teaching
that "antigens include, but are not limited to ... CD20 ... as well as other
9
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
members of the CD family" (FF 8) and Appellants provide no evidence
rebutting this finding.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner's conclusion that
Meyer, Davis, and Rybak render claim 1 obvious.
C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Meyer, Anderson, and Rybak
The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to
have created the claimed invention because Meyer et al. teach
that antibody/ combinations of antibodies against a B cell
surface marker can be administered to treat autoimmune disease
and MS, while Anderson et al. teach that treatment with the
chimeric antiCD20 antibody C2B8 (alias Rituximab) can be
used to effectively deplete B cells in vivo at dosages
encompassed by those recited in the claims and Rybak et al.
disclose use of immunotoxin containing anti CD7 4 antibody to
kill B cell tumors.
(Final Act. 6).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner's conclusion Meyer, Anderson, and Rybak
render claim 1 obvious?
Findings of Fact
12. Meyerteaches
In addition to cancer therapy, this novel modality would
be similarly useful in conjunction with the use of therapeutic
monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of diseases such as ...
autoimmune diseases ... In the instance of organ transplant
rejection, treatment with the murine-derived anti-T lymphocyte
OKT-3 antibody is accompanied by a strong B-lymphocyte
response to the mouse antibody, which, at least in part,
10
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
compromises this approved clinically-useful procedure ... Use
of the modality of this invention in conjunction with OKT-3
antibody and the like would enhance the efficiency of this
procedure.
(Meyer 3:47-54).
13. Anderson teaches "treatment of B cell disorders, and in
particular, B cell lymphomas" (Anderson 5: 19-21 ).
14. Anderson teaches "that low doses of immunologically active,
chimeric anti-CD20 leads to long-term peripheral blood B cell depletion in
primates" (Anderson 28:37-39).
Principles of Law
A prima facie case for obviousness requires "a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
elements in the way the claimed new invention does" KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Analysis
Appellants contend that "Meyer does not, however, use the anti-B cell
antibody to treat the autoimmune disease, as recited in appellant's claims"
(App. Br. 7).
We find Appellants' argument persuasive. The portion of Meyer
relied upon by the Examiner does not teach the use of the anti-B-cell
antibodies for direct treatment of autoimmune disease, but rather teaches
their use in suppressing immune response to the actual therapeutic antibody
(FF 12). The Examiner does not identify teachings in either Anderson or
Rybak that suggest treatment of autoimmune diseases (see Ans. 4---6, 14--15).
Therefore, the Examiner has not established that the ordinary artisan would
11
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
have had any reason, based on Meyer, Anderson, and Rybak, to combine
anti-CD20 and anti-CD74 antibodies for the treatment of autoimmune
disease itself as required by claim 1.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner's conclusion
Meyer, Anderson, and Rybak render claim 1 obvious.
D. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Curd, Anderson, and Rybak
The Examiner finds it obvious
to have created the claimed invention because Curd et al. teach
that antibody/ combinations of antibodies against a B cell
surface marker can be administered to treat autoimmune disease
and specifically disclose the use of antiCD20 or antiCD74 in
said methods, while Anderson et al. teach that treatment with
the chimeric antiCD20 antibody C2B8 (alias Rituximab) can be
used to effectively deplete B cells in vivo at dosages
encompassed by those recited in the claims and Rybak et al.
disclose use of immunotoxin containing antiCD74 antibody
(Final Act. 14).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner's conclusion Curd, Anderson, and Rybak
render claim 1 obvious?
Findings of Fact
15. Curd teaches a "method of treating an autoimmune disease in a
mammal comprising administering to the mammal a therapeutically
effective amount of an antagonist which binds to a B cell surface marker"
(Curd, col. 2, 11. 60-64).
12
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
16. Curd teaches that "[ e ]xamples of autoimmune diseases or
disorders include, but are not limited to ... rheumatoid arthritis" (Curd, col.
3, 11. 50----62).
17. Curd teaches that "[ e ]xemplary B cell surface markers include
the ... CD20 ... CD74 ... leukocyte surface markers" (Curd, col. 3, 11. 13-
17).
18. Curd teaches that the "preferred antagonist comprises an
antibody" (Curd, col. 4, 11. 31-32).
19. Curd teaches that the "monoclonal antibodies herein
specifically include 'chimeric' antibodies ... 'Humanized' forms of non-
human (e.g., murine) antibodies are chimeric antibodies that contain
minimal sequence derived from non-human immunoglobulin" (Curd, col. 7,
11. 41---60).
20. Curd teaches that the "formulation herein may also contain
more than one active compound as necessary for the particular indication
being treated, preferably those with complementary activities that do not
adversely affect each other" (Curd 24:50-53).
21. Curd teaches "antibodies that have binding specificities for at
least two different epitopes. Exemplary bispecific antibodies may bind to
two different epitopes of the B cell surface marker. Other such antibodies
may bind a first B cell marker and further bind a second B cell surface
marker" (Curd 16:47-51).
22. Curd specifically suggests, in prophetic Example 1, that
patients with "rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are treated with rituximab", a
genetically engineered chimeric murine/human monoclonal antibody
13
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
directed against the CD20 antigen, and provides specific dosing schedules
(Curd 27:35-67; see Curd 2:29-31).
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Ans. 12-15; FF 4, 5, 10, 11, 15-22) and
agree that the claims are rendered obvious by Curd, Anderson, and Rybak.
We address Appellants' arguments below.
Appellants contend that
The result of combining two different antibodies is not
predictable. Often it is not known whether an antibody is
agonistic or antagonistic, leading to unpredictability as to the
result of a combination. Moreover, different antibodies may
occupy nearby positions on the cell membrane and compete for
sites so that no additive effect is seen. Also, when combining
two antibodies it is not known whether the toxicities are
additive, which would lead to an unacceptable level of toxicity.
Thus, a skilled person would not have been able to predict
whether a combination of antibodies would have an additive or
synergistic effect or whether the antibodies would interfere with
each other so that the combination would have a reduced effect.
(App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded. Curd specifically teaches the use of antibodies
that bind two different B cell surface markers (FF 21) and Curd teaches the
use of more than one active compound (i.e. antibody) in the formulation (FF
20). Appellants provide no evidence that the combination of anti-CD20 and
anti-CD74 antibodies rendered obvious by the prior art would have been
expected to have any degree of toxicity. "[A]ttomey argument [is] not the
kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In re
14
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a
brief cannot take the place of evidence.")
Appellants recite "data which show that a combination of anti-CD74
and anti-CD20 antibodies evokes a potent cytotoxicity in mantle cell
lymphoma" (App. Br. 13). Appellants contend that
the foregoing data show that the presently claimed combination
is effective even in a very aggressive cancer with a poor
prognosis, and a skilled artisan would find this probative as to
the treatment of other diseases characterized by a disorder with
respect to cells to which anti-CD20 and anti-CD74 antibodies
bind, to include autoimmune diseases.
(App. Br. 14). Appellants contend that "[r]esults in cancers led
Immunomedics to proceed to the treatment of autoimmune disease with
epratuzumab and led Roche to proceed to treatment of autoimmune disease
with rituximab" (App Br. 15).
\X/ e find this argument unpersuasive because the evidence does not
establish any unexpected results within the scope of claim 1, which is drawn
to "treating an autoimmune disorder" not mantle cell lymphoma. This
evidence is therefore not commensurate in scope with claim 1. See In re
Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971) ("objective evidence ofnon-
obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the
evidence is offered to support"). In Tiffin, evidence showing commercial
success of thermoplastic foam "cups" used in vending machines was not
commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam
"containers" broadly. (Id.). Here, where the evidence is drawn to the
efficacy of the antibodies on an entirely different type of disease, mantle cell
15
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
lymphoma, the evidence is also not commensurate in scope with a claim
limited to autoimmune disease.
Moreover, autoimmune disease is not a single condition, but
encompasses many different diseases as evidenced by instant claim 7 which
lists about 43 different conditions affecting organs from the kidneys (lupus
nephritis) and lungs (fibrosing alveolitis) to skin (bullous pemphigoid) and
thyroid (Hashimoto's thyroiditis) (see Spec. 24--25, claim 7). The evidence
discussed by Appellants does not even fall within the general class of
autoimmune diseases, must less commensurate in scope with the large
number of different diseases impacting different organs expressly
encompassed by the claims.
In addition, Appellants have not provided a comparison of their
results to the closest prior art of Curd, who provides specific details of
treatment of an autoimmune disease, rheumatoid arthritis, with an anti-CD20
antibody (FF 22). Appellants provide no evidence of any unexpected result
relative to the closest prior art of Curd. "[W]hen unexpected results are used
as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected
compared with the closest prior art." In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Moreover, the Court of Customs and Patent
Appeals has concluded that "[when an] advantage is not disclosed in
appellant's application" he is "not in a favorable position to urge it as a basis
for the allowance of claims." In re Herr, 304 F.2d 906, 909 (1962) (internal
citation and quotations omitted)
16
Appeal2015-001997
Application 10/350,096
Conclusions of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner's conclusion Curd,
Anderson, and Rybak render claim 1 obvious.
SUMMARY
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 64---67 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) or§ 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Meyer, Davis, and Rybak. Claims 2--4, 7-11, 14, 16, 18, 21,
24, 25, 31-33, 36-38, 51, 53, 56, 58, 64---67, 69, and 72-75 fall with claim 1.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1--4, 7-11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25,
31-33, 36-38, 51, 53, 56, 58, 64---67, 69, and 72-75 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Meyer, Anderson, and Rybak.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Curd, Anderson, and Rybak. Claims 2--4, 7-11, 14, 16, 18, 21,
24, 25, 31-33, 36-38, 51, 53, 58, 64---67, 69, and 72-75 fall with claim 1.
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
17