Ex Parte Kurohashi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 6, 2011

11286644 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 6, 2011)

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.
11/286,644 11/25/2005 Masaharu Kurohashi NZK-149 3267
23290 7590 12/06/2011
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
SCHUBERG, LAURA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MASAHARU KUROHASHI and YOJI SHIBAYAMA
__________

Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644
Technology Center 1600
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
STEPHEN WALSH, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a process
for manufacture of a product with Kallikrein Production Inhibition activity.
The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

2
Statement of the Case
Background
The Specification teaches “a pharmaceutical preparation of an extract
from inflammatory rabbit skin inoculated with vaccinia virus . . . which is a
pharmaceutical containing the present extract as an effective ingredient”
(Spec. 1 ¶ 0003). The Specification teaches that “the present extract has a
suppressive action for liberation of bradykinin” (Spec. 4 ¶ 0007). According
to the Specification, “pharmaceuticals having an inhibiting action for
liberation of bradykinin have been shown to express various pharmaceutical
effects such as analgesic, anti-inflammatory and anti-edema actions” (Spec.
4 ¶ 0006).
The Claims
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-30 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative
and reads as follows:
1. A process for the manufacture of a dried product
having a Kallikrein Production Inhibition (KPI) activity
of an extract from inflammatory rabbit skin inoculated
with vaccinia virus comprising admixing a liquid extract
from inflammatory rabbit skin inoculated with vaccinia
virus with at least one member selected from the group
consisting of monosaccharides, oligosaccharides, water-
soluble polysaccharides, sugar alcohols, and ascorbic
acid to obtain a mixture, and then drying the mixture to
obtain a dried product having a KPI activity of not less
than 0.1.

Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

3
The issues

A. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-12, 14, and 16-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Konishi „935,
1
Konishi „353,
2
Matsuyama,
3

Rajendran,
4
and Bronshtein
5
(Ans. 4-10).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-12, 14, and 16-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Konishi „935, Konishi „353, Matsuyama, Ishida,
6

and Bronshtein (Ans. 10-11).
C. The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Konishi „935, Konishi „353, Matsuyama, Rajendran, Ishida,
Bronshtein, and Ohno
7
(Ans. 12-13).
A. & B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Konishi ‘935, Konishi ‘353,
Matsuyama, Rajendran or Ishida, and Bronshtein
The Examiner finds that Konishi „353 teaches “a method of making a
dried product of an extract from inflammatory rabbit skin inoculated with
vaccinia virus . . . Conventional adjuvants, such as lactose and mannitol, are
included” (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that Bronshtein teaches “that
biological solutions may be combined with a protectant prior to drying.
Similar to other methods of preservation in the dry state, sugars, polyols and

1
Konishi et al, US 5,560,935, issued Oct. 1, 1996.
2
Konishi et al, EP 0348353 A2, published Dec. 27, 1989.
3
Matsuyama et al., US 6,165,515, issued Dec. 26, 2000.
4
Rajendran et al., US 7,060,308 B2, issued Jun. 13, 2006.
5
Bronshtein et al., US 6,306,345 B1, issued Oct. 23, 2001.
6
Ishida, H., JP 2000-086528, published Mar. 28, 2000 (Machine
translation with multiple page numbers which we will number
consecutively beginning with the cover page).
7
Ohno et al., US 3,957,523, issued May 18, 1976.
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

4
their polymers can be used to protect biological material from the damaging
effect of desiccation” (Ans. 9).
The Examiner finds that the ordinary artisan “would have also been
motivated to add sugars to a biological solution prior to drying because
Bronshtein et al teach that these sugars can protect the biological solution
from the damaging effects of drying and preserve the activity of the
biologically active material” (Ans. 9).
Appellants contend that the “references do not disclose admixing a
liquid extract with an additive which is a monosaccharide, oligosaccharide,
water-soluble polysaccharide, sugar alcohol, or ascorbic acid as claimed.
Furthermore, none of the references teach or suggest that mixing the liquid
extract and the additive, such as lactose, and then drying” (App. Br. 14).
Appellants contend that “there is no reason to admix certain additives
with a liquid extract. Also, there is no reasonable expectation of successfully
achieving a KPI activity where none is observed in the first place, and not all
additives result in a KPI activity even when admixed with a liquid extract
instead of a dried extract” (App. Br. 15). Appellants contend that “there is
no reason to expect that combining only certain additives as claimed, with a
liquid extract as opposed to combining other additives with a liquid extract
would result in unexpected KPI activity” (App. Br. 18).
Appellant contends that “[e]ven if it were obvious to combine the
references, there would be no reasonable expectation of achieving
unexpected results in terms of KPI activity” (App. Br. 19). Appellants
contend that “the Declaration [of Dr. Shibayama] provides objective
evidence in terms of KPI activity, is commensurate in scope with the claims,
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

5
and provides a comparison representative to the closest specifically
disclosed working examples of the primary references” (App. Br. 20).
The issues with respect to this rejection are:
(i) Does the evidence of record support the Examiner's finding that
Konishi „935, Konishi „353, Matsuyama, Rajendran or Ishida, and
Bronshtein render claim 1 obvious?
(ii) If so, have Appellants presented evidence of secondary
considerations, that when weighed with the evidence of obviousness, are
sufficient to support a conclusion of non-obviousness?
Findings of Fact
1. Konishi „935 teaches that “[s]kin of a healthy adult rabbit was
inoculated with vaccinia virus to activate or stress the tissues. The activated
skin was aseptically removed, finely cut, and water was added thereto. The
mixture was ground using a homogenizer to prepare an emulsion” (Konishi
„935, col. 5, ll. 6-10)
2. Konishi „935 teaches that “filtrates were combined, neutralized
with hydrochloric acid, desalted using a reverse osmotic filter membrane
(molecular weight: 100) and dried in vacuo. The yield from 1 kg of the
activated skin was 3 g” (Konishi „935, col. 5, ll. 29-32).
3. Konishi „935 teaches that in “the case of preparations for oral
administration, the substance of the invention ,per se or a mixture of it with
suitable additives such as fillers (e.g., lactose, mannitol, corn starch,
crystalline cellulose, etc.) may be combined together” (Konishi „935, col. 7,
ll. 55-58).
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

6
4. Konishi „353 teaches that “[v]accinia virus was inoculated into
the skin of a healthy adult rabbit. The inflamed skin was cut off under
aseptic conditions and well macerated. . . The filtrate was adjusted to a near
neutral pH (ca. pH 7) by addition of hydrochloric acid and concentrated to
dryness under reduced pressure” (Konishi „353, col. 3, l. 52 to col. 4, l. 8).
5. Konishi „353 teaches that “the substances may be used alone or
in combination with appropriate adjuvants in the form of tablets, powders,
granules or capsules, e.g. with conventional adjuvants such as lactose,
mannitol” (Konishi „353, col. 6, ll. 41-45).
6. Formulation examples 1 and 2 of Konishi „353 are reproduced
below:

The formulations include the substance of the invention as well as lactose
and other components (see Konishi „353, col. 7, ll. 20-50).
7. Rajendran teaches the steps of “vii. contacting the first
Caralluma extract with a suitable excipient and further with a suitable binder
as necessary, and subjecting the materials to a mixing/blending operation;
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

7
viii. drying the material obtained from step (vii) by any of the known
methods” (Rajendran, col. 6, ll. 17-21).
8. Bronshtein teaches
that the biological solution or suspension may be combined
with a protectant prior to drying. Similar to other methods of
preservation in the dry state, sugars, polyols and their
polymers can be used to protect the material from the
damaging effect of desiccation. More specifically, the
protectant comprises a mixture comprising a
monosaccharide, a disaccharide, and a polymer.

(Bronshtein, col. 2, ll. 58-64).
9. Bronshtein teaches that a “variety of polyols and polymers are
known in the art and may serve as protectants as long as they enhance the
ability of the biologically active material to withstand drying and storage and
do not interfere with the particular biological activity” (Bronshtein, col. 4, ll.
36-40).
10. Bronshtein teaches that “protectants in accordance with the
present invention may include, without limitation, simple sugars, such as
sucrose, glucose, maltose, sucrose, xylulose, ribose, mannose, fructose,
raffinose, and trehalose, nonreducing derivatives of monosaccharides and
other carbohydrate derivatives, sugar alcohols like sorbitol” (Bronshtein, col.
4, ll. 44-49).
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 Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

8
“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. As noted by the Court in KSR,
“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” 550 U.S. at 421.
Analysis
Prima facie case of obviousness
8

Konishi „353 teaches a process for the manufacture of a product
where “[v]accinia virus was inoculated into the skin of a healthy adult rabbit.
The inflamed skin was cut off under aseptic conditions and well macerated. .
. The filtrate was adjusted to a near neutral pH (ca. pH 7) by addition of
hydrochloric acid and concentrated to dryness under reduced pressure”
(Konishi „353, col. 3, l. 52 to col. 4, l. 8; FF 4). Konishi „353 teaches that
“the substances may be used alone or in combination with . . . conventional
adjuvants such as lactose, mannitol” (Konishi „353, col. 6, ll. 41-45; FF 5).
Konishi „353 specifically exemplifies a formulation of the rabbit skin extract
with lactose (FF 6).
The Examiner acknowledges that Konishi „353 is “silent with regard
to the exact timing of the addition of excipients with regard to the drying
step and the specific amount of KPI activity of the dried product” (Ans. 8).

8
We consider the remaining references cumulative to the teachings
of Konishi „353 and Bronshtein. The Board may rely on less than
all of the references applied by an Examiner in an obviousness
rationale without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re
Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In
re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458, n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA
1966).
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

9
Bronshtein teaches
that the biological solution or suspension may be combined
with a protectant prior to drying. Similar to other methods of
preservation in the dry state, sugars, polyols and their
polymers can be used to protect the material from the
damaging effect of desiccation. More specifically, the
protectant comprises a mixture comprising a
monosaccharide, a disaccharide, and a polymer.

(Bronshtein, col. 2, ll. 58-64; FF 8). Bronshtein specifically teaches that one
desirable protectant is lactose (FF 9-10).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
conclude that an ordinary artisan would have reasonably found it obvious to
follow the direct guidance of Bronshtein to incorporate protectants such as
lactose into biological solutions such as the solution of Konishi „353 prior to
drying in order to reduce the damaging effects of desiccation on the Konishi
„353 solution (FF 4-6, 8-10). Such a combination is merely a “predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550
U.S. at 417.
Appellants contend that the “references do not disclose admixing a
liquid extract with an additive which is a monosaccharide, oligosaccharide,
water-soluble polysaccharide, sugar alcohol, or ascorbic acid as claimed.
Furthermore, none of the references teach or suggest that mixing the liquid
extract and the additive, such as lactose, and then drying” (App. Br. 14).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner‟s rejection satisfies the
teaching/suggestion/motivation test since Bronshtein provides a specific
teaching and motivation to incorporate protectants such as lactose into the
solution prior to drying (FF 8). Bronshtein specifically teaches that
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

10
incorporation of a protectant will reduce the damage caused by dessication
and “enhance the ability of the biologically active material to withstand
drying and storage” (Bronshtein, col. 4, ll. 36-40; FF 9). We agree with the
Examiner that given this express motivation (see Ans. 9), the ordinary
artisan would reasonably have incorporated a protectant as taught by
Bronstein into the liquid composition of Konishi „353 prior to drying in
order to enhance the ability Konishi „353‟s biological material to withstand
drying and storage (FF 8-10).
Appellants contend that “there is no reason to admix certain additives
with a liquid extract. Also, there is no reasonable expectation of successfully
achieving a KPI activity where none is observed in the first place, and not all
additives result in a KPI activity even when admixed with a liquid extract
instead of a dried extract” (App. Br. 15). Appellants contend that “there is
no reason to expect that combining only certain additives as claimed, with a
liquid extract as opposed to combining other additives with a liquid extract
would result in unexpected KPI activity” (App. Br. 18).
We are not persuaded. Bronstein specifically suggests incorporating
protectants including monosaccharides including lactose prior to drying (FF
8-10) and Konishi „353 specifically incorporates lactose into a formulation
(FF 6) which provides strong reasons to add lactose prior to drying to protect
the biological material of Konishi „353. Thus, the ordinary artisan would
have been apprised of the reasonable likelihood that incorporating lactose as
a protectant prior to drying would improve the biological activity of the
material in Konishi „353. Kubin stated that “[r]esponding to concerns about
uncertainty in the prior art influencing the purported success of the claimed
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

11
combination, this court [in O’Farrell] stated: „[o]bviousness does not require
absolute predictability of success … all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.”‟ In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Unexpected results
Appellant contends that “[e]ven if it were obvious to combine the
references, there would be no reasonable expectation of achieving
unexpected results in terms of KPI activity” (App. Br. 19). Appellants
contend that “the Declaration [of Dr. Shibayama] provides objective
evidence in terms of KPI activity, is commensurate in scope with the claims,
and provides a comparison representative to the closest specifically
disclosed working examples of the primary references” (App. Br. 20).
The Declaration of Mr. Yoji Shibayama
9
teaches, for example, that the
addition of lactose to the liquid extract prior to drying yields an absorbance
of 0.063 while the addition of lactose to an already dried extract yields an
absorbance of 0.342, while the control value is 0.364 (see Shibayama Dec. 9
¶ 8, table 2). The Shibayama Declaration states that “no or essentially no
KPI activity at all was obtained: a) in the case where lactose was added after
concentration and drying of the extract to be tested (addition of lactose to a
solid or dried extract) as in the cited references, b) in the case of a solution
containing lactose only, and c) in the case of the control” (Shibayama Dec. 8
¶ 8).
We have considered this evidence, but are not persuaded that it
demonstrates unexpected results. Appellants have the burden of showing

9
Declaration of Yoji Shibayama, filed Feb. 13, 2009.
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

12
that the claimed invention imparts not just any improvement, but an
unexpected improvement. Here, the prior art of Bronshtein directly teaches
that the incorporation of a protectant into the solution prior to drying will
result in improved biological stability and activity after drying (FF 8-10).
Thus, the expected result of such an addition to the formulation of Konishi
„353 in light of Bronshtein would be improved biological stability and
activity, which is the result obtained by Shibayama. See In re Skoner, 517
F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975) (“Expected beneficial results are evidence of
obviousness of a claimed invention. Just as unexpected beneficial results are
evidence of unobviousness”).
We also conclude that even if we treated the results in the Shibayama
Declaration as somewhat “unexpected”, the instant showing is insufficient to
overcome the strong showing of obviousness in this case, where Konishi
„353 and Bronshtein provide reasoned guidance suggesting the claimed
composition (FF 4-6, 8-10). See Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[W]e hold that even if Pfizer showed that
amlodipine besylate exhibits unexpectedly superior results, this secondary
consideration does not overcome the strong showing of obviousness in this
case. Although secondary considerations must be taken into account, they do
not necessarily control the obviousness conclusion. Newell Cos., Inc. v.
Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed.Cir.1988)”).
Claims 5, 23, 24, 27, and 30
Appellants argue that “[e]ven if the pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 disclosed
by the references overlaps the pH range of less than 10, none of the
references teach or suggest use of that pH range during drying of the liquid
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

13
in the presence of the additive, such as lactose, produces unexpectedly high
KPI activity” (App. Br. 23).
We are not persuaded. Konishi teaches that the “filtrate was adjusted
to a near neutral pH (ca. pH 7) by addition of hydrochloric acid and
concentrated to dryness under reduced pressure” (Konishi „353, col. 3, l. 52
to col. 4, l. 8; FF 5). Thus, the pH disclosed in the prior art falls directly
within the range asserted as “unexpected”. “When an applicant seeks to
overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by showing improved
performance in a range that is within or overlaps with a range disclosed in
the prior art, the applicant must „show that the [claimed] range is critical,
generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results
relative to the prior art range.”‟ In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470-71 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) citing In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed.Cir. 1990). In
this case, Appellants have not shown unexpected results relative to the pH
range of 6.5 to 8.5 disclosed by Konishi „353 (Konishi, col. 2, l. 62), which
falls within the range of claims 5, 23, 24, 27, and 30.
Claims 6, 25, 26, and 28
Appellants contend that “[e]ven if the pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 disclosed
by the references overlaps the pH range of 8.5 to 9.7, none of the references
teach or suggest use of that pH range during drying of the liquid in the
presence of the additive, such as lactose, produces unexpectedly high KPI
activity” (App. Br. 23-24).
As Appellants acknowledge, Konishi „353 teaches a pH range of 6.5
to 8.5. Appellants‟ claims are not adjacent ranges, but rather the pH value of
8.5 lies within both the claimed range and the disclosed range of Konishi
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

14
„353. However, the Shibayama Declaration shows that a pH of 9.5 may
have unexpected results (see Shibayama Dec. 16, table 6), but does not show
similar results for any pH values from 6 to 8.5 or pH values between 8.5 and
9.5. Thus, the scope of any unexpected result is limited to the pH value of
9.5. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Unexpected
results must also be “commensurate in scope with the degree of protection
sought by the claimed subject matter.”)
Claims 17-22
The arguments of Appellants regarding these product claims are
addressed by the response to claim 1 as discussed above. The only argument
not previously addressed is Appellants contention that “an inhibitory activity
for the production of a kallikrein-like substance (KPI activity) of not less
than 0.1 is not an inherent property of the method of adding any of the
unlimited number of protectants” (App. Br. 32).
We are not persuaded. Konishi „353 specifically teaches the use of
lactose (FF 6) and Bronshtein teaches the use of lactose as a protectant (FF
8-10). Thus, the issue is not whether any protectant will yield the required
KPI activity but rather whether the use of the obvious protectant lactose will
yield the required activity. The Shibayama Declaration shows that lactose
functions to obtain the required activity (see Shibayama Dec. 9 ¶ 8). We
agree with the Examiner‟s reliance on the inherency doctrine (see Ans. 11).
“Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or
substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical
processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art
products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

15
claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). “Whether
the rejection is based on „inherency‟ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on „prima facie
obviousness‟ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of
proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO‟s inability to
manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” Id.
This argument particularly applies to claim 22, which is a product by
process claim, where the product resulting from the process has not been
shown to differ from the product rendered obvious by Konishi „353 and
Bronshtein. The “patentability of a product does not depend on its method
of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or
obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even
though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777
F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).
Conclusion of Law
(i) The evidence of record supports the Examiner's finding that
Konishi „935, Konishi „353, Matsuyama, Rajendran, and Bronshtein render
claim 1 obvious?
(ii) Appellants have not presented evidence of secondary
considerations, that when weighed with the evidence of obviousness, are
sufficient to support a conclusion of non-obviousness.
C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Konishi ‘935, Konishi ‘353, Matsuyama,
Rajendran, Ishida, Bronshtein, and Ohno
Appellants contend that “there is no reason to impart controlled
release or enhanced ease of swallowing and improved taste to the products
of the primary references by spray coating them with a coating as taught by
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

16
Ohno et al” (App. Br. 55). Appellants contend that it “has not been
established by evidence that the pharmaceuticals of the references exhibit
release, taste, or swallowing problems which would be resolved by
application of a coating of Ohno et al, or that a spray coating of Ohno et al
would not adversely affect the pharmaceutical effectiveness of the
pharmaceuticals of the primary references” (App. Br. 55).
The Examiner finds that “the coating would have provided numerous
benefits as taught by Ohno et al including controlled release, enhanced ease
of swallowing and improved taste” (Ans. 12). The Examiner finds that
“[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation
of success because Konishi et al („353), Konishi et al („935) and Matsuyama
et al („515) all indicate that the dried product may be made into various
types by known methods” (Ans. 12).
We find that the Examiner has the better position. Konishi „353
expressly teaches the use of oral preparations “in the form of tablets,
powders, granules or capsules, e.g. with conventional adjuvants such as
lactose” (Konishi „353, col. 6, ll. 41-45; FF 5). The Examiner has provided
specific reasons, with which we agree, as to why the ordinary artisan would
coat the tablets or capsules of Konishi „353 (see Ans. 12). We are not
persuaded by Appellants arguments that the coating of Ohno might
adversely effect the effectiveness of the pharmaceutical since no evidence
that such an effect has been provided. As discussed above, Kubin stated that
“[r]esponding to concerns about uncertainty in the prior art influencing the
purported success of the claimed combination, this court [in O’Farrell]
stated: „[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success …
Appeal 2011-009090
Application 11/286,644

17
all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”‟ In re Kubin, 561
F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-
904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 17-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Konishi „935, Konishi „353, Matsuyama,
Rajendran, and Bronshtein. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also
affirm the rejection of claims 3, 4, 7-12, 14, 16, 29, and 30 as these claims
were not argued separately.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 17-28 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Konishi „935, Konishi „353, Matsuyama, Ishida, and
Bronshtein. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection
of claims 3, 4, 7-12, 14, 16, 29, and 30 as these claims were not argued
separately.
We affirm the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Konishi „935, Konishi „353, Matsuyama, Rajendran, Ishida,
Bronshtein, and Ohno.

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

alw