Ex Parte Pacetti et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 10, 201814053000 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/053,000 10/14/2013 45159 7590 08/14/2018 SQUIRE PB (Abbott) 275 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3356 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stephen D. Pacetti 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. 050623.01684 2256 EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1717 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/14/2018 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): sfripdocket@squirepb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN D. PACETTI and LAURA MELTON KAL VASS 1 Appeal 2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARK NAGUMO, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7-9, 12, 14, and 15.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a system for supporting a stent during a coating process. E.g., Spec. ,r 2; Claims 7, 12. Claims 7 and 12 are 1 The applicant is Abbott Cardiovascular Systems Inc., which is also identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 After the Notice of Appeal was filed, claims 1-6, 10, 11, and 13 were cancelled, and dependent claim 12 was rewritten into independent form. See Amendment after Appeal dated May 1 7, 2016 ( entered June 8, 2016). Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 reproduced below from pages 19--20 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief3 ( emphasis added to certain claim limitations): 7. A system for coating a stent having an outer surface facing radially outward and an inner surface facing radially inward, the inner surface forming a passageway that extends through the center of the stent from a distal end of the stent to a proximal end of the stent, the passageway having a circular opening at each of the distal and proximal ends, the stent having a central axis extending through the center of the circular openings, the system compnsmg: an apparatus that supports the stent, wherein no part of the apparatus intersects a midplane of the stent, the midplane located halfway between the distal and proximal ends, the outer surface of the stent defining the outer boundary of the midplane, the midplane perpendicular to the central axis of the stent; and a coating device adjacent to the apparatus, the coating device configured to discharge a coating substance onto the stent, wherein a stream of gas rotates the stent about the central axis of the stent, and the stream of gas is discharged from a blower adjacent the stent or from the coating device. 12. A system for coating a stent having an outer surface facing radially outward and an inner surface facing radially inward, the inner surface forming a passageway that extends through the center of the stent from a distal end of the stent to a proximal end of the stent, the passageway having a circular opening at each of the distal and proximal ends, the stent having a central axis extending through the center of the circular openings, the system compnsmg: an apparatus that supports the stent, wherein no part of the apparatus intersects a midplane of the stent, the midplane located halfway between the distal and proximal ends, the outer surface 3 The Claims Appendix does not have page numbers. Our numbering continues sequentially from the Appeal Brief, with the first page of the Claims Appendix being page 19. 2 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 of the stent defining the outer boundary of the midplane, the midplane perpendicular to the central axis of the stent; and a coating device adjacent to the apparatus, the coating device configured to discharge a coating substance onto the stent, wherein the apparatus rotates the stent at least 360 degrees about the central axis of the stent, the apparatus extends into the passageway of the stent, and the apparatus has no point that remains in continuous contact with the stent while the stent rotates 360 degrees about the central axis of the stent, wherein the apparatus has a point of contact that makes momentary contact with the stent while the stent rotates 3 60 degrees about the central axis of the stent. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 1. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 1, for failure to comply with the written description requirement. 2. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 2, as indefinite. 3. Claims 7-9, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Schwarz (US 7,407,551 B2, issued Aug. 5, 2008) in view of Pacetti (US 7,504,125 Bl, issued Mar. 17, 2009). 4. Claims 7-9, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Palasis (US 2005/0079274 Al, published Apr. 14, 2005) in view of Pacetti. 5. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Schwarz. 6. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Palasis. 3 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 ANALYSIS After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the Appellant has not identified reversible error in Rejection 3. Accordingly, we affirm that rejection for reasons set forth below and in the Examiner's Answer. See generally Ans. 3--4, 12-14. However, as set forth below, we reverse as to Rejections 1, 2, and 4---6. Claims 7-9, 14, and 15 (Re} ections 3 & 4) 1. Rejection Based on Schwarz (Rejection 3) The Examiner finds that Schwarz teaches a system for coating a medical device, including a stent, meeting each limitation of claim 7, except that Schwarz does not expressly teach "a blower adjacent the stent for discharging a gas stream thereon or the coating device discharging the gas stream in rotating the stent about the central axis of the stent." Ans. 3--4. However, in view of Pacetti, the Examiner finds: [I]t was known in the art ... to appropriately place a stream of gas discharged from a blower adjacent the stent or even from the coating device in its rotation with coating application thereto to a stent to enable movement of the stent about a central axis with at least one benefit of the gas stream being to inhibit solvent evaporation of the coating. Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to provide a blower adjacent the stent or even from the coating device as taught by Pacetti into the Schwarz system for several benefits one of which is inhibiting solvent evaporation of the coating." Id. The Appellant argues that "Pacetti is silent as to using a stream of gas to rotate a stent about its central axis." App. Br. 13. The Appellant 4 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 acknowledges that "Pacetti describes the use of gas to induce or inhibit evaporation of a solvent," but asserts that "Pacetti does not disclose whether such a[] gas, which is applied to induce or inhibit solvent evaporation, would cause rotation of a stent about its central axis." Id. The Appellant also argues that Schwarz coats the stent while the stent is suspended or vibrating freely on a tray, while, in Pacetti' s system, "the stent is secured on [a] rotating support element ... which rotates the stent about its central axis while a gas from [a] blower ... is applied to induce or inhibit solvent evaporation." Id. According to the Appellant, "[even] if it were assumed ... that the stent in Pacetti is somehow rotated about its central axis by the gas instead of the support element ... , [t]here would be no stent support in Schwarz to ensure rotation of the stent about its central axis." Id. The Appellant asserts that "[ a ]dding any such stent support to Schwarz is contrary to its principle of operation. For this reason, it would not have been obvious to add the blower ... of Pacetti to the Schwarz apparatus in an attempt to rotate the stent about [its] central axis." Id. Those arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the rejection. The Examiner relies on Schwarz, not Pacetti, for "provid[ing] the basis of a rotationally suspended/levitated stent combined with use of a gas stream continuing to move the stent in air via one or more gas structures." Ans. 13. In Schwarz, "air suspension or mechanical vibration" is used to position medical devices such as stents for coating. Schwarz at 2:55-56. As the stents are in the air, they are coated by spray from adjacent nozzles. See, e.g., Figs. 8 & 9. Although Figures 8 and 9 depict mechanical and acoustical means, respectively, for vibrating the stents, and they do not specifically depict gas flow, Schwarz teaches that "[i]n addition to the mechanical and 5 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 acoustical means ... , other embodiments ... can include one or more gas flow structures," which "help[] to suspend the medical devices, move the medical devices into and out of the coating chamber, or both." Id. at 16:57- 61. Schwarz also teaches embodiments in which multiple coating layers are applied and that "it may be preferable to dry the coatings between each coat." Id. at 16:36-39. Schwarz teaches that "drying refers to driving off of a solvent from the coating material." Id. at 16:41--42. As set forth above, Schwarz itself discloses the use of gas in connection with its coating system. Pacetti provides additional reasons to provide gas through a blower adjacent the stent, consistent with the teachings of Schwarz, i.e., facilitating solvent evaporation. E.g., Pacetti at 4:23-26 ("The present invention can also include a blower 46 for directing a gas (e.g., air) onto stent 10 to induce or inhibit evaporation of the solvent from the composition applied on the stent 10."). Although Schwarz does not expressly disclose the use of gas to rotate a stent about a central axis, the Examiner finds that "the teachings of Schwartz [sic] would effect manipulation of the stent with rotation ... with Pacetti further supporting the use of a gas structure in the form of a blower or from the coating device." Ans. 13 (emphasis added). In the Reply Brief, the Appellant does not address that determination or otherwise attempt to show error in it. See generally Reply Br. On this record, the Appellant's arguments that Pacetti does not expressly disclose rotation due to the gas stream, and that Schwarz does not have a "stent support" as in Pacetti "to ensure rotation of the stent," App. Br. 13, do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that the gas supplied to the system of Schwarz naturally would cause at least some rotation of at least one stent 6 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 about its central axis sufficient to fall within the scope of claim 7. In particular, the Appellant's argument that "[t]here would be no stent support in Schwarz to ensure rotation of the stent about its central axis," id., assumes, without elaboration, that rotation of the stent about its central axis requires that the stent be supported. However, just as a straw in a stream of moving air would be expected to twirl and thus, to some extent, rotate about its central axis, so would a stent. The Appellant has not directed our attention to any disclosure in the Specification or in the prior art of record that indicates that a support of some sort is necessary. Moreover, there are no structural or functional limitations recited in claim 7 that require the presence of a particular support to ensure rotation about the central axis of the stent. The Appellant does not argue that the apparatus of Schwarz Figures 8 and 9 falls beyond the scope of the term "an apparatus that supports the stent." The Appellant raises no other substantive arguments for the patentability of claim 7. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 7. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections .... "). With respect to dependent claims 8 and 9, the Appellant's arguments consist of a recitation of the claim language and a naked assertion that the prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. See App. Br. 13-14. The Examiner provides further discussion of those claims in the Answer, e.g., Ans. 14--15, which the Appellant does not address or dispute in the Reply Brief, see generally Reply Br. The Appellant's arguments are 7 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 unpersuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art"); see Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365. With respect to claim 14, the Appellant argues that it "includes all the features of claim 7," and that the rejection should be reversed "for at least the same [reasons] given above for claim 7." App. Br. 14. Because we affirm the rejection of claim 7, discussed above, we likewise affirm the rejection of claim 14. With respect to claim 15, the Appellant recites the claim language and states that "there is no description that [Pacetti's] blower is a type of a coating device that discharges a coating substance." App. Br. 14. That argument, however, does not address the Examiner's specific findings regarding Pacetti's blower, or otherwise show error in them. See, e.g., Ans. 16 ("Pacetti teaches that the coating device (36) can be air assisted such that th[e] gas stream would dispense the coating material .... "). On this record, the Appellant's limited discussion of claim 15 fails to show reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357; Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365. We therefore affirm Rejection 3. 2. Rejection based on Palasis (Rejection 4) The Examiner finds that Palasis teaches a system for coating a medical device, including a stent, that meets the limitations of claim 7 except that "Palasis is silent concerning a stream of gas being discharged 8 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 from a blower adjacent the stent or from the coating device so as to rotate the stent about the central axis of the stent." Ans. 5. The Examiner relies on the same portions of Pacetti discussed above and concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to provide a blower adjacent the stent or even from the coating device as taught by Pacetti into the Palasis system for several benefits one of which is inhibiting solvent evaporation of the coating." Id. The Appellant argues that "Pacetti is silent as to using a stream of gas to rotate a stent about its central axis," and that "Pacetti does not disclose whether such a[] gas, which is applied to induce or inhibit solvent evaporation, would cause rotation of a stent around its central axis." App. Br. 16. The Appellant explains that, in Palasis, stent rotation "is controlled via mechanical engagement between element 18 in Palasis and the stent." Id.; see also Palasis Fig. 6c ( depicting element 18). The Appellant further explains that, in Palasis, stents 8 are carried on rotating pins 7, which are coupled to a belt 1 such that the pins ( and, along with them, the stents) rotate as the belt advances. App. Br. 16; see also Palasis ,r,r 21-24, Figs. 1--4. The Appellant argues that "[t]here is no evidence that ... the gas, as used in Pacetti to induce or inhibit solvent evaporation, would overcome the mechanical engagement in Palasis to cause rotation of the stent." App. Br. 17. The record supports the Appellant's arguments. The Examiner does not address the fact that stent rotation in Palasis is achieved by mechanical engagement of rotating pins 7 and belt 1. E.g., Palasis Fig. 1. Even assuming a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include Pacetti's blower in the system of Palasis for purposes of solvent evaporation, claim 7 requires the blower to provide "a stream of gas [that] 9 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 rotates the stent about the central axis of the stent." Given that Pacetti is silent as to using the blower for purposes of rotation, there is not sufficient evidence in the record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place Pacetti's blower into the system of Palasis so that the blower would be positioned to rotate the stents of Palasis. Moreover, even if the blower were positioned such that it theoretically could rotate the stents about their central axis, the Examiner has identified no basis to believe that the gas from the blower-the primary purpose of which is to effect solvent evaporation-would exit the blower with sufficient force to overcome the mechanical engagement of the stents to the rotating pins such that the stream of gas would itself cause the stents to rotate. On this record, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Palasis and Pacetti in a way that reasonably would have been expected to achieve the subject matter of claim 7. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 7. Because claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 depend from claim 7, and the Examiner's rejection of those claims does not remedy the error identified above, we likewise reverse the Examiner's rejection of those claims. Claim 12 (Rejections 1, 2, 5, & 6) 1. Rejection based on 35 USC§ 112, f 1 (Rejection 1) The Examiner determines that "the specification [0044] fails to explicitly teach or suggest ... the further wherein clause in combination that "the [support] apparatus has a point of contact that makes momentary contact with the stent while the stent rotates 360 degrees about the central axis of the stent." Ans. 2. The Examiner appears to understand the recitation of claim 12 that "the apparatus has no point that remains in 10 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 continuous contact with the stent while the stent rotates 360 degrees about the central axis of the stent" to require that, at some point during rotation of the stent, the stent is suspended in the apparatus and makes no contact with the apparatus. See id. at 10 ("no part of the stent touches the [support] apparatus" (brackets in original)), 12 (referencing "full suspen[sion] with no contact (suspended) at some point of the rotation"). Because claim 12 subsequently recites that "the apparatus has a point of contact that makes momentary contact with the stent while the stent rotates 3 60 degrees about the central axis of the stent," the Examiner states: "This sequence of events, in which no part of the stent touches the [support] apparatus to another embodiment wherein different parts (points) of the stent touches the [support] apparatus, would not appear to be clearly supported or even be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art .... " Id. (brackets in original). "[T]he test for [ compliance with the written description requirement] is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). "The invention claimed does not have to be described in ipsis verbis in order to satisfy the description requirement of§ 112." In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA 1971); see also Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Examiner's rationale is not persuasive. Contrary to the Examiner's apparent interpretation of claim 12, the language "the apparatus has no point that remains in continuous contact with the stent while the stent rotates 360 degrees about the central axis of the stent" (emphasis added) 11 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 does not mean that "no part of the stent touches the [support] apparatus." See Ans. 10. Rather, the claim states that no "point" of the apparatus "remains in continuous contact" with the stent. Thus, the claim permits the apparatus to be in continuous contact with the stent, so long as "no point," i.e., no single point, of the apparatus remains in continuous contact with the stent. As the Specification explains: Movement of the stent 7 0 within the cage 72, whether due to cage rotation, the spray plume or other cause, assures that there are no permanent contact points between the cage and the stent. That is, a particular point of contact between the stent 70 and the cage 72 exists only momentarily before the stent shifts in relation to the cage and forms a different point of contact. Spec. ,r 40. With respect to Figure 6, which appears to depict an embodiment of claim 12, the Specification includes a similar disclosure: As the stent 90 with the support apparatus 88, the stent will shift around slightly and, thus, avoid any permanent contact points between the stent and the support wires 92, 94, 96, 98. That is, contact points between the stent [9]0 and the support apparatus 88 exist temporarily during the coating process. Id. ,I 54. Under the proper understanding of claim 12, those disclosures adequately show possession by the inventors of the disputed subject matter. Accordingly, we reverse the § 112, ,r 1 rejection. 2. Rejection based on 35 USC§ 112, f 2 (Rejection 2) The Examiner's § 112, ,r 2 rejection is based on the same interpretation of claim 12 discussed above. Namely, assuming that claim 12 requires "full suspen[ sion] with no contact ( suspended) [between the stent and the apparatus] at some point of the rotation," Ans. 12, the Examiner 12 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 determines that the "wherein clauses appear to be conflicting in nature in that it is unclear whether the apparatus can support and rotate the stent with or without some type of contact," id. at 3. The legal standard for definiteness in prosecution is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "[D]efiniteness of the language employed must be analyzed-not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art." In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). Essentially for reasons stated above, we reverse the rejection. We do not interpret claim 12 as requiring periods during rotation where the apparatus does not contact the stent. Rather, consistent with the language of the claim and the disclosures of the Specification discussed above, we interpret claim 12 as requiring that no single point of the apparatus "remains in continuous contact with the stent," and that the apparatus has one or more points of contact that make momentary contact with the stent, the momentary contact points changing as the stent shifts around. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 54. In view of that understanding of claim 12, we are not persuaded that the wherein clauses "conflict[]" with each other so as to render the claim indefinite. Accordingly, we reverse the § 112, ,r 2 rejection. 3. Rejection based on Schwarz (Rejection 5) Claim 12 is similar to claim 7, but claim 12 does not require a blower or a stream of gas for rotation. Instead, claim 12 requires that the "the apparatus rotates the stent" and that "the apparatus extends into the passage of the stent." As discussed above in the context of the§ 112 rejections, 13 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 claim 12 further requires that "the apparatus has no point that remains in continuous contact with the stent while the stent rotates 360 degrees about the central axis of the stent, wherein the apparatus has a point of contact that makes momentary contact with the stent while the stent rotates 360 degrees about the central axis of the stent." Relying in part on Figures 4 and 5, the Examiner finds that Schwarz teaches or suggests each limitation of claim 12. Ans. 6-7. However, the Examiner fails to address the requirement of claim 12 that "the apparatus extends into the passage of the stent." Figures 4 and 5 of Schwarz depict medical device 410 secured attached to cage 420 by securements 430, which "can be wires that are tied to medical device 410 and to cage 420." Schwarz at 12:35---64. Those figures do not show any portion of wires 430 extending in to any passage of medical device 410, and the Examiner makes no findings regarding whether or why a person of ordinary skill might have been motivated to arrange wires 430 in that manner. Even assuming a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to arrange wires 430 in that manner, the Examiner makes no persuasive findings about whether that specific arrangement would meet the other relevant limitations of claim 12, e.g., "the apparatus has no point that remains in continuous contact with the stent while the stent rotates 360 degrees" and "the apparatus has a point of contact that makes momentary contact with the stent while the stent rotates 360 degrees." On this record, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Schwarz. 14 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 4. Rejection based on Palasis (Rejection 6) Principally relying on Palasis Fig. 6c, the Examiner finds that Palasis teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 12, including an apparatus that extends into the passageway of the stent. Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that Palasis is silent regarding the limitation that "the apparatus has no point that remains in continuous contact with the stent while the stent rotates 3 60 degrees about the central axis to the stent," but that "it would have been obvious ... to provide any suitably arranged wire type support structure ... to enable rotation of the stent about its central axis with centrifugal force enable momentary lift of the stent (having no point of contact) because this would enable coating of all surfaces of the stent." Id. That argument is not persuasive. The Examiner cites no portion of Palasis in support of the finding that centrifugal force would cause the stent to detach from the apparatus. Figure 6c of Palasis, relied upon by the Examiner, is reproduced below with annotated red circles added. 15 ("'· . ______ , .. ---·-· ·1 7 [·····- 't--T· ··1 "'""'""·'··, ··-1 I J, ·-=] ........ I . i ~ ................ : l .Ii 7 __ .... , .... ! ·----- e" ---· .... _L .. 15 Appeal2016-008624 Application 141053,000 Figure 6c depicts "stent 8 ... held under a light compressive force between the ends 18." Palasis ,r 29. If anything, it appears that the light compressive force between stent 8 and ends 18 would maintain continuous contact between stent 8 and the portions of ends 18 shown circled in red as the stent rotates. On this record, a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's finding that the embodiment of Palasis depicted in Figure 6c shows "an apparatus [that] has no point that remains in continuous contact with the stent while the stent rotates 360 degrees around the central axis of the stent." Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Palasis. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 7-9, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Schwarz and Pacetti (Rejection 3). We REVERSE the remainder of the Examiner's rejections (Rejections 1, 2, and 4---6). 12 § 112, i1 1 NIA 12 12 § 112, i12 NIA 12 7-9, 14,and § 103(a) Schwarz and 7-9, 14,and 15 Pacetti 15 7-9, 14,and § 103(a) Palasis and 7-9, 14,and 15 Pacetti 15 12 § 103(a) Schwarz 12 12 § 103(a) Palasis 12 Summary 7-9,14,and 12 15 16 Appeal2016-008624 Application 14/053,000 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation