Ex Parte Mariscal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201512238069 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOSE MARISCAL and ALEXANDER BIMANAND1 ____________ Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as not complying with the written description requirement and claims 1, 2, and 5–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants’ invention relates to electrically conductive multilayer stacks including a coated substrate, a primary conductive layer, and a second 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is PPG Industries, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 2 protective stack finding use to protect aircraft canopies and other substrates. Spec. Abstract. Independent claims 1 and 36 and dependent claim 12 are illustrative of the claimed invention: 1. An electrically conductive multilayer stack, comprising: a coated substrate comprising a substrate, a tie layer disposed over the substrate, and a substrate base layer disposed over the tie layer, wherein the substrate base layer comprises an organopolysiloxane; a conductive primary stack containing at least one metal oxide layer and at least one metal layer, disposed over the coated substrate; and a protective secondary stack including at least one conductive layer, disposed over the conductive primary stack. 12. The multilayer stack of claim 1, wherein the protective secondary stack includes a first tie layer, a hydrophobic barrier layer disposed over the first tie layer, a second tie layer disposed over the barrier layer, and a conductive topcoat disposed over the second tie layer. 36. An electrically conductive multilayer stack, comprising: a polycarbonate substrate; an acrylic first tie coat, disposed over the polycarbonate substrate; a polysiloxane base layer disposed over the first tie coat; a conductive primary stack disposed over the polysiloxane base layer, said conductive primary stack comprising first and second layers of indium tin oxide, with a layer of conductive metal sandwiched there between; Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 3 a second tie coat, disposed over the conductive primary stack; a polyurethane layer disposed over the second tie coat; and a protective topcoat containing one or more layers of material, at least one of which is compounded with a conductive material selected from the group consisting of metal oxides, quaternary ammonium salts, and inherently conductive polymers. Rejections (1) The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 5–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.2 FOA 2–3; Ans. 4–5. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 5–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable as follows: (2) Claims 1, 2, 5–10, 12, 14, 15, and 29–31 over Graham3 in view of Moncur ’535,4 Qiu,5 and APA.6 FOA at 3–9. (3) Claims 10 and 11 over Graham in view of Moncur ’535, Qiu, APA, and Nishihara.7 Id. at 9–10. 2 The Examiner lists claims 1–35 and claims 21, 22, 24, and 26–27 as subject to this rejection in the Final Office Action (FOA) and Answer, respectively. As the limitation at issue is recited in claim 1, from which claims 2 and 5–35 depend, the rejection is of claims 1, 2, and 5–35 and we address it accordingly. 3 Graham et al., US 2009/0074973 A1, published March 19, 2009. 4 Moncur et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,378,535, issued January 3, 1995. 5 Qiu et al., US 2008/0176973 A1, published July 24, 2008. 6 The Examiner refers to Appellants’ FIG. 1 and Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Specification as “Admitted Prior Art” (APA). FOA 3. 7 Nishihara et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,465,736, issued August 14, 1984. Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 4 (4) Claims 13 and 16–19 over Graham in view of Moncur ’535, Qiu, APA, and Moncur ’188.8 Id. at 10–12. (5) Claims 20–25 over Graham in view of Moncur ’535, Qiu, APA, Moncur ’188, and Housel.9 Id. at 12–15. (6) Claims 26 and 27 over Graham in view of Moncur ’535, Qiu, APA, and Rukavina.10 Id. at 15–16. (7) Claim 28 over Graham in view of Moncur ’535, Qiu, APA, Rukavina, and Hatta.11 Id. at 16–17. (8) Claims 32 and 35 over Graham in view of Moncur ’535, Qiu, APA and Suga.12 Id. at 17–18. (9) Claims 33 and 34 over Graham in view of Moncur ’535, Qiu, APA, and Allemand.13 Id. at 18–19. (10) Claim 36 over Moncur ’188 in view of Graham. Id. at 19–21. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in light of arguments advanced by Appellants in the Appeal Brief, but are not persuaded the Examiner erred reversibly in concluding the claims are unpatentable for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the 8 Moncur et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,939,188, issued August 17, 1999. 9 Housel, US 2008/0073622 A1, published March 27, 2008. 10 Rukavina et al., US 2007/0002421 A1, published January 4, 2007. 11 Hatta et al., US 2007/0224340 A1, published September 27, 2007. 12 Suga et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,859,722, issued January 12, 1999. 13 Allemand, U.S. Patent No. 5,780,160, issued July 14, 1998. Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 5 Examiner’s Answer, which we adopt except as otherwise indicated.14 See FOA 2–21; Ans. 4–25. We add the following for emphasis. Rejection 1 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 5–35 as failing to comply with the written description requirement because while there is “support for a first and second metal oxide layer with a metal layer sandwiched in-between . . . there is no support provided for more than two metal oxide layers or more than one metal layer in the conductive stack.” FOA 3. Appellants argue that “the specification necessarily provides support of the recitation of ‘at least one’” of the metal oxide and metal layers because it recites two metal oxide layers and one metal layer. App. Br. 20. The Appellants also argue, for the first time in the Reply Brief, that paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Specification provide support for additional metal and/or metal oxide layers. Reply Br. 5 (quoting, inter alia, ¶ 33) (“[o]ptionally, an extra layer of titanium is sputtered on the metal layer 50”). Having failed to raise their arguments that paragraphs 33 and 34 provide support, we find these Appellants have waived these arguments and we need not consider them. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We find no reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection grounded in the written description requirement, the purpose of which is to “‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 14 Rather than reiterate all arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Final Office Action (mailed January 5, 2012), the Appeal Brief (filed October 5, 2012), the Answer (mailed December 17, 2012), and the Reply Brief (filed February 19, 2013). Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 6 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). “An applicant complies with the written description requirement ‘by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations.’” Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (1997)). The Examiner properly determines that “‘at least one’ covers any value more than ‘one’ . . . [and] includes all values greater than two,” and that the Specification does not provide the necessary support. Ans. 5. Even if Appellants had not waived their arguments regarding paragraphs 33 and 34, there would be support for, at most, two metal layers, which would still be inadequate support for the recited “at least one” metal layer. Rejection 2 Regarding the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–10, 12, 14, 15, and 29–31 over Graham in view of Moncur ’535, Qiu, and APA, the Appellants argue Graham teaches away from use of metal oxide and metal layers (App. Br. 5–6) and that the combination of Graham, Moncur ’535, and Qiu would not have provided the specific structure recited in claim 1 (id. at 7). In their teaching away argument, Appellants point to structural and functional drawbacks discussed in Graham, paragraphs 0007 and 0008, and observe it “appears to disclose an alternative . . . apparently intended to alleviate the drawbacks associated with the metal-containing layers.” Id. at 5–6. They argue that because of this teaching away “those of ordinary skill in the art would have found no motivation or suggestion in Graham to combine the described two-layer coating with a metal-containing layer.” Id. at 6. Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 7 Having considered the record before us, we do not find the argument persuasive. To teach away, a reference must actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As the Examiner determines, even describing that a product may be somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use does not teach away from the claimed invention. Ans. 7–8. See, e.g., In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.”). As the Examiner determines, inter alia, that Graham does not “disclose anywhere to ‘replace’ metal containing electromagnetic shielding layers” (Ans. 7) and even “suggests at ¶ [0054] that the ICP coating can be used on any surface . . . that would benefit from having a coating capable of discharging an electrostatic charge” (id. at 8), we find by a preponderance of evidence that Graham does not teach away from the invention. In their argument that the combination of cited references would not have provided the structure recited in claim 1, Appellants focus on the teachings of Moncur ’535. App. Br. 7. We find Appellants’ argument fails to address the relied-on combination as set forth by the Examiner, which included Graham as the primary reference, as well as Qiu and APA, in addition to Moncur ’535. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references . . . . [The reference] must be read . . . for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Finding Appellants’ arguments do not address Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 8 the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, we are unpersuaded of reversible error. Further, in the Answer, the Examiner sets forth that “Moncur ’535 has an electroconductive layer or layers over the primer system in at least one of two ways.” Ans. 11–12. In the first, referring to Table 1 of Moncur ’535, and the teaching of an included transparent thin film coating, as explained at col. 3:2–15. Ans. 12. In the second, the Examiner refers to teachings at col. 3:2–35, reasoning that claim 1 does not “exclude layers or substrates in the stacks because Claim 1 has the coated substrate ‘COMPRISING’ and the conductive primary stack ‘CONTAINING’ . . . no matter how many intervening layers or additional substrates are present.” Id. at 12–13. The Examiner further finds there is “proper motivation to combine Moncur ’535 with Graham . . . to achieve improved environmental durability.” Id. at 13. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner erred as to what Moncur ’535 discloses, because, in regard to the first way, Examples 11 and 13 of Table 1 in Moncur ’535 do not have any conductive coating on the substrate (Reply Br. 2) and because, in the second way, the Examiner relied on impermissible hindsight (id. at 2–3). Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding there was a motivation to combine because Moncur ’535 is not concerned with dissipation of electrostatic charge and Graham is not concerned with silicone elastomers. Id. at 3–4. We have considered these arguments, but do not find them persuasive of reversible error because, in regard to the first way, other examples in Table 1, e.g., Examples 1 and 3, do have conductive coating, and as noted in the description of Example 11 “[s]pecimens were prepared as in Example 1 Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 9 except that uncoated soda lime glass . . . was used instead of the ITO coated glass” (Moncur ’535, 7:66–69) and of Example 13 (“[s]pecimens were prepared as in Example 11 except that Primer 2 was used instead of Primer 1” (Moncur ’535 8:7–8) such that any mis-identification of particular examples was harmless. In regard to the second way, we find Appellants’ arguments regarding impermissible hindsight unpersuasive because they do not address the Examiner’s reasoning that claim 1 does not “exclude layers or substrates in the stacks.” Ans. 12–13. In regard to motivation to combine, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of reversible error because they do not address the relied-on motivation and the motivation to combine need not be the same as that of Appellants. Appellants also raise additional arguments for the first time in the Reply Brief, which we decline to consider as we find them to have been waived. In particular, Appellants raise an argument relating to electrical conductivity. Reply Br. 1–2 (citing, inter alia, Final Rejection 4, 6.) Specifically, that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the surface resistivity of the metal oxide and metal from Moncur [’535] would be much lower than the minimum value required in each layer of Graham.” Reply Br. 2. Similarly, we find Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that, because of differences between Graham and Moncur ’535, there no reasonable expectation of success in their combination. Id. at 4. Having considered the Record, we find no reason these arguments could not have been raised earlier and therefore find them to be waived and that we need not consider them. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d at 1362. Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 10 Appellants further argue that claim 12 is independently allowable over Graham, Moncur ’535, and Qiu. App. Br. 7–9. Appellants again argue that Graham teaches away, which we find unpersuasive of reversible error for the reasons we set forth above. Appellants also argue that it is unclear which components from the prior art are being combined and in what manner, but then set forth how, when various components are combined in a particular manner, that the resulting structure is not that claimed because it lacks the conductive topcoat. Id. at 8–9. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of reversible error because they do not address the Examiner’s relied-on combination. The Examiner finds Graham discloses the acrylic polyurethane as “a tie layer for the second layer with electrically conductive polymer” (FOA 6–7), but that it does not expressly disclose the other claimed features “with the second tie layer and conductive topcoat” (id. at 7). The Examiner then relies on APA to provide these elements in a combination where Graham’s second layer with electrically conductive polymer is the conductive topcoat. Id. at 7–8; Ans. 14 (“including the conductive topcoat layer from the second ICP layer of Graham”). In other words, the relied-on combination included elements of the APA inserted underneath the conductive topcoat layer. Appellants’ arguments directed to combining elements in a different manner, overlaying various layers on the second ICP layer, are not persuasive of error. App. Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 4. Appellants also argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that Graham appears to disclose the second intrinsically conducting polymer intermixed with the second binder polymer such that “Graham does not appear to disclose two layers (i.e., a conductive layer and a tie layer), as suggested by Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 11 the Examiner.” Reply Br. 4–5. Where the Examiner’s rejection included that “the binder layers with electrically conductive polymers . . . [including] acrylic polyurethane . . . [and] the first layer of the binder polymer [of Graham] as an acrylic polyurethane would be a tie layer for the second layer with electrically conductive polymer [Graham’s ICP]” (FOA 6–7; citing Graham ¶¶ 17, 34), we find these arguments waived and decline to consider them here. Rejection 3 Regarding the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 10 and 11 over Graham in view of Moncur, Qiu, APA, and Nishihara, where Nishihara is relied-on for teaching particular metals and alloys, Appellants argue that “Nishihara fails to teach or suggest the specific alloys recited in claim 10 [silver/palladium and silver/gold], and nowhere teaches or suggests the layer of titanium recited in claim 11.” App. Br. 9. Appellants argue there are an exponential number of possible alloys based on Nishihara’s disclosure and that disclosure of titanium oxide as a potential dielectric is not a disclosure of a layer of titanium. Id. at 10. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of error for the reasons set forth by the Examiner, namely, that the disclosure of “gold, silver, copper, aluminum, nickel, chromium, palladium, tin, and their alloy[s]” (Nishihara 3:20–22) may be relied upon for all they would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill, and that would include silver/palladium and silver/gold alloys (Ans. 15–16) and that Nishihara discloses “a protective layer of titanium . . . in direct contact with one or both sides of abovementioned metal layer.” Ans. 16 (citing Nishihara 3:29– 31.) As to Appellants’ arguments regarding arriving at the “specific alloys” Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 12 (App. Br. 9), we further find no merit in them where we find claim 10 reciting “the silver alloy comprises silver/palladium or silver/gold” (emphasis added) is also open to further constituents. Rejection 4 Regarding the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 13 and 16–19 over Graham in view of Moncur, Qiu, APA, and Moncur ’188, Appellants provide no separate arguments, but rely on the dependence of the claims from claim 12 (App. Br. 10–11), which we find unpersuasive of reversible error as set forth above. Rejection 5 Regarding the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 20–25 over Graham in view of Moncur, Qiu, APA, Moncur ’188, and Housel, where Housel is relied-on for teaching a conductive agent comprising a quaternary ammonium salt, Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Examiner failed to provide any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references to yield the claimed structure. Id. at 11–12. Appellants also reiterate their arguments that Graham teaches away and that the claims are patentable because they depend from claim 12. Id. at 11. We do not find Appellants’ argument regarding a lack of teaching, suggestion, or motivation persuasive of error because we find the Examiner set forth the necessary motivation, including “for improved methods of manufacturing conductive polyurethane with enhanced electrical conductivity.” Ans. 17; FOA 12–13 (citing Housel.) Appellants’ further arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 13 Rejection 6 Regarding the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 26 and 27 over Graham in view of Moncur, Qiu, APA, and Rukavina, where Rukavina is relied on for teaching “a multilayered arrangement with a second electrically conductive layer over the first electrically conductive layer wherein the conductive agent of the second electrically conductive layer is a conductive metal oxide,” Appellants argue Graham teaches away, that Rukavina fails to teach or suggest a conductive topcoat comprising conductive metal oxide, including indium tin oxide, fails to teach or suggest the configuration of layers recited in base claims 1 and 12, and that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references to yield the claimed structure. App. Br. 12–14. We do not find these arguments persuasive of error because Rukavina is relied on for its disclosure of metal oxide or indium tin oxide, i.e., specific conductive materials (Ans. 18), and we are not persuaded that Graham teaches away or that the relied-on combination does not already otherwise teach or suggest the claimed structure including a conductive topcoat (see, e.g., discussion above regarding Rejection of claim 12). Rejection 7 Regarding the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claim 28 over Graham in view of Moncur, Qiu, APA, Rukavina, and Hatta, where Hatta is relied on for its teaching of ITO nanoparticles, Appellants argue Hatta fails to teach or disclose ITO nanoparticles and fails to teach or suggest a conductive topcoat comprising indium tin oxide nanoparticles. App. Br. 14–16. In particular, Appellants argue that disclosure of “fine particles” at ¶ 67 are not nanoparticles. App. Br. 14–15. Appellants further argue Graham teaches Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 14 away from the invention and that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references to yield the claimed structure. Id. at 14. Appellants argue that in light of differences between Hatta’s structure and that claimed, the Examiner’s rejection amounts to impermissible hindsight. Id. at 15. We do not find Appellants’ argument regarding the size of particles persuasive of error because, as explained by the Examiner, “with the fine particles blocking wavelengths longer than 1,300 nm but with low blockage of wavelengths in the range of 900 to 1,300 nm while not reducing visible light transmittance at lower nm wavelengths, shows that the fine particles are nanoparticles.” Ans. 19–20. With respect to Appellants’ other arguments, we find no reversible error where Hatta was relied on for its particular teaching regarding nanoparticles. Id. Rejection 8 Regarding the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 32 and 35 over Graham in view of Moncur, Qiu, APA and Suga, where Suga is relied on for its teaching of various conductive agents, including quaternary ammonium salts, for use in various layers, Appellants argue Graham teaches away from the use of metals and that there is no teaching of the particular configuration of layers. App. Br. 16–18. Appellants argue that in light of differences between Suga’s disclosed structure and that claimed, the Examiner’s rejection amounts to impermissible hindsight. Id. at 17. We find no reversible error where Suga was relied on for its particular teaching regarding the concept that a multilayer stack contains the various conductive agents. Ans. 19–20. In particular, where we find no reversible error in the Examiner rejection of claims 1 and 12, Suga need not teach all Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 15 features of the claims. Further, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that the necessary teaching, suggestion, or motivation is found where, inter alia, “Suga discloses indium tin oxide as a conductive agent with quaternary ammonium salts for electrolyte (which is a conductive layer) to provide high electrical conductivity.” Id. at 21. Rejection 9 Regarding the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 33 and 34 over Graham in view of Moncur, Qiu, APA, and Allemand, where Allemand is relied on for its teaching of a first and second tie layer containing inorganic metal oxides in a multilayer stack, Appellants argue Graham teaches away from the use of metal-containing materials, that Allemand fails to teach or suggest the layers as configured in the claims, and that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references to yield the claimed structure. App. Br. 18–19. Appellants argue that in light of differences between Allemand’s disclosed structure and that claimed, the Examiner’s rejection amounts to impermissible hindsight. Id. at 19. We find no reversible error where Allemand was relied on for its particular teaching regarding the concept that a multilayer stack contains the inorganic metal oxides. Ans. 22–23. In particular, where we find no reversible error in the Examiner rejection of claims 1 and 12, Allemand need not teach all features of the claims. As to Appellants’ argument there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that there was motivation in Allemand’s disclosure of elements “without a need for an initial setting process of the initial state of switchability (i.e. for conductance as a conductive layer.” Id. at 23. Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 16 Rejection 10 Regarding the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claim 36 over Moncur ’188 in view of Graham, Appellants argue that there is “no motivation, teaching, or suggestion in either Moncur ’188 or Graham to replace either the low modulus polyurethane or the thermoset polyurethane of Moncur ’188 with a conductive polymer layer.” App. Br. 19–20. Graham appears to discuss the use of a two-layer electrostatic dissipating coating in place of sputtered ITO films. See, e.g., Graham, paragraphs 0008, 0010 and 0011. In contrast, Moncur ’188 appears to disclose a low modulus polyurethane coating for “minimizing glass spalling and coating delamination due to high shear stress caused by temperature extremes,” and a thermoset polyurethane coating for “provid[ing] good solvent resistance, weathering, and erosion resistance.” Moncur ’188, column 9, lines 8-27. Given these disparate purposes of the polyurethane coatings in Moncur ’188 and Graham, those of ordinary skill in the art would not have replace [sic] either of the polyurethane coatings of Moncur ’188 with a conductive coating of Graham. App. Br. 20. We do not find the argument persuasive of reversible error for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 24–25. In particular, the Examiner found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use “acrylic polyurethane with ICP [from Graham] for effective dissipation of an electrostatic charge, while also having high visible light transmittance and good performance in the areas of coating adhesion to the substrate, flexibility, abrasion resistance, and chemical resistance.” FOA 21. Further, while we find no error in the Examiner’s determination, we add for emphasis that the various desired features the Examiner finds “would benefit the multistack arrangement of Moncur ’188” (i.e., high visible transmittance, Appeal 2013-004770 Application 12/238,069 17 coating adhesion to the substrate, flexibility, abrasion resistance, and chemical resistance) (Ans. 25) are specifically identified at paragraph 10 of Graham. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that Graham, Moncur ’535, Qiu, Nishihara, Moncur, Housel, Rukavina, Hatta, Suga, Allemand, and the Admitted Prior Art, as a whole, would have suggested the electrically conductive multilayer stacks as recited in the claims on appeal within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5–35 as unpatentable as lacking written description. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5–36 as unpatentable for obviousness. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation