Ex Parte Wallage

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

13338883 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/338,883
65526 7590
NAECKEL
12127 N. 134th Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85259
12/28/2011
07/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Raymond Wallage
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.
1-57454/AET-OlORD 5796
EXAMINER
HANLEY, SUSAN MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1653
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
tnaeckel@cox.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
Ex parte RAYMOND W ALLAGE
Appeal2016-005232 1
Application 13/338,883
Technology Center 1600
Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, JEFFREY N. FRED MAN, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims to methods of
recovering hydrocarbons from oil shale. The Examiner rejected the claims
as obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
1 Raymond Wallage, the inventor, is the real party in interest of the present
application. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The following rejections are before us for review:
(1) Claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Sanderson,2 McDaniel, 3 Simpson, 4 Ritzman '930, 5 Ritzman '389, 6 Goklen,7
Cuypers, 8 and Vrvic9 (Final Action 5-16);
(2) Claim 12, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Sanderson, McDaniel, Simpson, Cuypers, and Vrvic (Final Action 16-21 );
(3) Claim 13, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Sanderson, McDaniel, Simpson, Ritzman '930, Goklen, and Vrvic (Final
Action 21-28); and
(4) Claims 13 and 14, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Sanderson, McDaniel, Simpson, Ritzman '930, Goklen, Vrvic, Cuypers, and
Ritzman '389 (Final Action 29-30).
Claim 11 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows
(App. Br. 28):
2 US Patent No. 2,641,565 (issued Jun. 9, 1953).
3 US Patent No. 3,000,793 (issued Sept. 19, 1961).
4 US Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0105115 Al (published Apr. 29, 2010).
5 US Patent No. 3,340,930 (issued Sept. 12, 1967).
6 US Patent No. 2,907,389 (issued Oct. 6, 1959).
7 Kent E. Goklen et al., A Method for the Isolation of Kero gen from Green
River Oil Shale, 23 Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev. 308-311 (1984).
8 Chiel Cuypers et al., Prediction of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Bioavailability
in Contaminated Soils and Sediments, 10 Soil and Sediment Contamination
459-482 (2001 ).
9 M.M. Vrvic et al., Demineralization of an oil shale by Bacillus circulans
('siliceous bacteria'), 16 Org. Geochem. 1203-1209 (1990).
2
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
11. A method for recovering one or more hydrocarbons
from oil shale, consisting of:
a) providing a biomedium of microorganisms, water,
sugar, and molasses, muriatic acid and yeast;
b) providing oil shale;
c) treating the oil shale with the biomedium;
d) mechanically agitating by rotary tumbling the treated
oil shale and biomedium approximately twelve hours to form a
liquid suspension; and
e) separating by centrifugation the liquid suspension to
provide the one or more hydrocarbons.
OBVIOUSNESS-CLAIM 11
The Examiner's Position
In rejecting claim 11 as obvious, the Examiner cited Sanderson as
describing a process that includes all of the basic steps of claim 11,
including providing a microorganism-containing nutrient medium, providing
oil shale, treating the oil shale with the medium, mechanically agitating the
medium, and separating hydrocarbons, in the form of kerogen, from the
treated medium. Final Action 6-8.
To show that claim 11 's use of rotary tumbling would have been an
obvious technique of mechanically agitating Sanderson's shale/nutrient
medium/microorganism mixture, the Examiner pointed to Cuypers' s
teaching that when, using microorganisms to remove hydrocarbons from
soil, i.e. bioremediating or biodegrading the soil, rotary tumbling is a
suitable method of mechanically agitating the microorganism/soil mixture.
Final Action 8-9 (citing Cuypers 464 ).
To show that claim 11 's use of centrifugation would have been an
obvious technique of separating the hydrocarbons from Sanderson's
microorganism-treated shale, the Examiner pointed to Vrvic's teaching that,
3
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
when using the microorganism Bacillus circulans to demineralize oil shale
to yield kerogen, centrifugation is a suitable method of separating the
bacterial biomass from the treated oil shale substrates. Final Action 9-10
(citing Vrvic 1207).
To show the obviousness of including claim 11 's sugar and molasses
in Sanderson' nutrient medium, the Examiner noted that Pseudomonas
jluorescens and members of the genus Clostridium were among the
microorganisms identified by Sanderson as being suitable in its process.
Final Action 6-7 (citing Sanderson 2:40-47), and cited McDaniel and
Simpson to show that sugar and molasses were known to be useful carbon
sources for those organisms. Final Action 10-12 (citing McDaniel, 1:47---60,
3:16-35; Simpson i-f 99).
To show the obviousness of including yeast, as recited in claim 11, in
Sanderson's shale/nutrient medium/microorganism mixture, the Examiner
pointed to Ritzman '930's teaching that yeast was known in the art to be
useful for dislodging and upgrading oil in situ in a production well. Final
Action 12 (citing Ritzman '930, 1:41---65).
To show the obviousness of including muriatic acid, as also recited in
claim 11, in Sanderson's shale/nutrient medium/microorganism mixture, the
Examiner noted Sanderson's teaching that acids released by microorganisms
were thought to aid in releasing kerogen from shale (Final Action 13 (citing
Sanderson 2:30-40), and also pointed to Goklen as teaching that moderate
concentrations of RCl were useful for assisting in the isolation of kerogen
from oil shale. Final Action 13 (citing Goklen 308).
Lastly, to show the obviousness of performing Sanderson's
mechanical agitation for approximately 12 hours, as also recited in claim 11,
4
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
the Examiner noted Ritzman '389's disclosure that, when using aerobic
bacteria to recover oil from inorganic solids such as oil shale, the release
time can vary significantly depending on a number of factors. Final Action
14 (citing Ritzman '398, 3:32-35). The Examiner noted in particular that
the ranges of release times described in Ritzman '389, between about 0.3
and 200 hours, and usually between 0.5 and about 20 or 50 hours, included
the 12 hour period recited in claim 11. Id.
The Examiner reasoned that, based on the teachings of Sanderson and
Ritzman '389, an ordinary artisan would have recognized that "processing
time of the oil shale by the bioremedium [sic] with agitation in a batch
process is a result effective variable dependent on the concentration of the
bacteria, degree of separation of product, oxygen availability, etc." Final
Action 15. Accordingly, the Examiner reasoned, an ordinary artisan would
have been motivated "to practice or test the parameter values widely to find
those that are functional or optimal which then would be inclusive or cover
that values as instantly claimed." Id.
Discussion
As stated in Jn re Oetiker, 977F.2d1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability ....
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us that a preponderance of the
evidence fails to support the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness as
to claim 11. To the contrary, we adopt as our own the Examiner's findings
5
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
as to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner's reasoning as to
how and why an ordinary artisan would have combined the cited teachings
of the references, and the Examiner's conclusion that claim 11 would have
been prima facie obvious over the cited combination of references.
As to Appellant's arguments, we acknowledge, as Appellant argues
(App. Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 7-8), that McDaniel is not directed to recovering
hydrocarbons from oil shale, but is instead directed to the use of
microorganisms for the fermentative production of vitamins. See McDaniel,
1: 10-15 ("This invention relates to the production of therapeutically and
nutritionally valuable substances by fermentation, and in particular to
improved nutrient mediums for the microbiological production of vitamin
substances having LLD activity or growth promoting properties for the
microorganism Lactobacillus lactis Domer."). We acknowledge, as
Appellant also argues (App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 8-9), that Simpson is not
directed to recovering hydrocarbons from oil shale, but is instead directed to
the use of microorganisms for the fermentative production of alcohols, such
as ethanol and butanol. Simpson, abstract.
Appellant does not persuade us, however, that McDaniel and Simpson
do not qualify as analogous art.
Even if a reference is in a different field of endeavor than the claimed
invention, the reference is not non-analogous art if it is "is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved." In
re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted).
"A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different
field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
6
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
inventor's attention in considering his problem." Id. (internal quotations
omitted).
In the instant case, the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved is using microorganisms to recover hydrocarbons from oil shale.
Spec. i-f 2 ("The inventive process is in the field of obtaining hydrocarbons
from oil shale, and more specifically a process conducted at room
temperature with the use of microorganisms.")(emphasis added). As
explained in the Specification, and as claimed, this process requires the use
of a nutrient medium for the microorganisms. Id. at i-fi-121-23. Indeed,
Sanderson, a reference that undisputedly qualifies as analogous prior art,
teaches that, when using microorganisms to recover hydrocarbons from oil
shale, a nutrient medium for the microorganisms is required. See Sanderson,
3 :31-53 (nutrient medium inoculated with microorganisms mixed with shale
and agitated); see also id. at 2:40-60 (identifying Pseudomonasfluorescens
and members of the genus Clostridium as microorganisms suitable
recovering kerogen from oil shale; describing nutrient medium)
McDaniel explains that, when using microorganisms, including
Pseudomonas jluorescens, to fermentatively produce certain vitamins
(McDaniel, 1: 10-15, 3:44--52), the "usual nutrients include a source of
carbon, nitrogen, inorganic salts and growth factors when required. The
carbon may be provided by a carbohydrate such as dextrose, maltose,
xylose, invert sugar, com syrup, beet molasses and the like" (id. at 3 :27-31 ).
Simpson describes processes that "involve fermenting a suitable
fermentable carbohydrate-containing feedstock (such as molasses sugars or
sugars derived from other sources) in a suitable nutrient medium in the
7
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
presence of Clostridium microorganisms which convert the sugar to a
solvent mixture containing butanol, ethanol and acetone." Simpson i-f 99.
Therefore, because the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved necessarily implicates a determination of suitable nutrient media
for the microorganisms used in the process, and because McDaniel and
Simpson both provide disclosures as to suitable nutrient media for
microorganisms known in the art to be useful in that process, we find that
McDaniel and Simpson logically would have commended the inventor's
attention in considering his problem. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in finding that McDaniel and Simpson qualify as
analogous prior art.
We agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 8-9), that in considering whether
McDaniel and Simpson are analogous art, the determination must focus on
the problem the inventor sought to address. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d at
1348 (A reference qualifies as analogous art if "it is one which, because of
the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor's attention in considering his problem.")( emphasis added).
Nevertheless, that McDaniel and Simpson ultimately produce different
products than the hydrocarbon produced by the claimed process does not
persuade us that those references would have failed to command the
inventor's attention, given that those references provide teachings regarding
ingredients useful in nutrient media for microorganisms known in the art to
be suitable in the inventor's claimed process for recovering hydrocarbons
from oil shale.
In sum, for the reasons discussed, Appellant does not persuade us that
McDaniel and Simpson fail to qualify as analogous art.
8
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 19--20; Reply Br. 11-12), also do not
persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding that the 12 hour
mechanical agitation time recited in claim 11 would have been obvious as a
matter of routine optimization.
It is well settled that "the discovery of an optimum value of a variable
in a known process is usually obvious." Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d
1348, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The rationale for determining the optimal
parameters for prior art result effective variables "flows from the 'normal
desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally
known."' Id. (quoting In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir.
2003)). In general, however, "an applicant may overcome aprimafacie case
of obviousness by establishing 'that the [claimed] range is critical, generally
by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the
prior art range."' In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330 (quoting In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the instant case, we acknowledge that the disclosure identified by
the Examiner regarding the reaction time in Ritzman '389 refers to the
amount of time that the oil-containing inorganic material (e.g., oil sand)
must react with the microorganism to effect oil release, and does not appear
include any specific disclosure about the mixture being agitated. See
Ritzman '389, 3:26-36. Nonetheless, Sanderson's mechanical agitation step
is performed for the purpose of encouraging reaction between its
microorganisms and the oil shale. See Sanderson 3 :49--51 ("This insures
intimate and continued contact of the microorganisms with the shale
particles."). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinary
artisan would have understood that, like the reaction time in Ritzman '389,
9
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
the duration of the mechanical agitation step in Sanderson, during which
reaction between the microorganisms and the inorganic substrate occurs,
would be routinely varied, depending the degree of hydrocarbon separation
achieved or desired. Appellant's arguments do not, therefore, persuade us
that the Examiner erred in finding that an ordinary artisan would have
considered the duration of the mechanical agitation step of Sanderson's
process to be a result-effective variable, and would therefore have
considered obvious the determination of a suitable duration of that step,
including the 12 hour duration recited in Appellant's claim 11.
Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 20-26; Reply Br. 12-24) also do
not persuade us that the Examiner failed to articulate clearly with adequate
reasoning, and a rational underpinning, a motivation for combining Cuypers
and Vrvic with Sanderson, nor are we persuaded that the combination
posited by the Examiner would render Sanderson unsuitable for its intended
purpose.
As the Supreme Court has explained, "when a patent 'simply arranges
old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The Court also explained that, in
determining whether the prior art supplied a reason for practicing the
claimed subject matter, the analysis "need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418; see also id. at 421 ("A
10
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
person of ordinary skill is ... a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.").
In the instant case, as the Examiner found (Final Action 6-8),
Sanderson describes a process that includes all of the basic steps of claim 11,
including providing a microorganism-containing medium, providing oil
shale, treating the oil shale with the medium, mechanically agitating the
medium, and separating hydrocarbon-containing kerogen from the treated
medium. Specifically, Sanderson discloses "treatment of shale with
microorganisms capable of metabolizing certain hydrocarbons, sulfur-
containing, and nitrogen-containing constituents thereof in the presence of a
microbiological nutrient medium capable of supporting such metabolism,
whereby the bulk of the kerogen is released and made available for
recovery." Sanderson, 1:54--2: 1.
In describing one example of its process, Sanderson explains that the
"shale and medium are combined in proportions to form a slurry which can
be agitated as by mechanical means to maintain the solid particles of the
shale in suspension. This insures intimate and continued contact of the
microorganisms with the shale particles." Id. at 3 :46-51.
Although Sanderson differs from claim 11 in that the reference does
not appear to use rotary tumbling as its mechanical agitation method, as the
Examiner found (Final Action 8), Cuypers teaches that when using
microorganisms to remove hydrocarbons from soil, i.e. bioremediating or
biodegrading the soil, rotary tumbling is a suitable method of mechanically
agitating the microorganism/soil mixture. Cuypers 464 ("[D]egradation
potential was demonstrated during growth of the enrichment and during
experiments in which the inoculum was added to sterilized contaminated
11
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
soil. After inoculation bottles were capped and incubated at 30°C. Samples
were mixed on a rotary tumbler at 22 rpm."). Given Cuypers' s teaching that
rotary tumbling was a useful method of mechanically agitating a mixture of
microorganisms and hydrocarbon-containing soil for the purpose of
removing the hydrocarbons, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinary
artisan would have reasonably inferred that technique would be also useful
for mechanically agitating the microorganism/shale medium described in
Sanderson.
Although Sanderson differs from claim 11 also in that the reference
does not appear to use centrifugation as its separation technique, as the
Examiner found (Final Action 9), Vrvic teaches that, when using the
microorganism Bacillus circulans to demineralize oil shale to yield kerogen,
centrifugation is a suitable method of separating the bacterial biomass from
the oil shale substrates. See Vrvic 1203 ("Demineralization of an oil shale
by Bacillus circulans ('siliceous bacteria')" (article title); see also id. at
1207 ("The bacterial biomass was separated from the [oil shale] substrates
by centrifugation. The substrates were then rinsed successively several
times with warm distilled water (80°C), 10% aqueous solution of ammonia
and warm distilled water again. The solid residues were finally separated by
centrifugation and dried at 80°C."). Given Vrvic's teaching that
centrifugation was a useful method of separating microorganisms and solid
residues from microorganism-treated oil shale, we agree with the Examiner
that an ordinary artisan would have reasonably inferred that centrifugation
would be similarly useful in separating those components from the
microorganism/shale medium described in Sanderson.
12
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner failed to provide reasons, supported by rational underpinnings, for
combining the teachings of Cuypers and Vrvic with Sanderson.
Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to establish motivation
for combining Cuypers and Vrvic with Sanderson because the Examiner did
not explain specifically how an ordinary artisan could or would have
modified the device shown in Sanderson's Figure 1 to accommodate
Cuypers's rotary tumbler or Vrvic's centrifuge. App. Br. 20-22; Reply Br.
12-18, 21-22. Appellant contends further that modifying the device shown
in Sanderson's Figure 1 to accommodate a rotary tumbler and centrifuge
would have rendered Sanderson' device unfit for its intended use, and would
have required a complete redesign of that device. App. Br. 22-26; Reply Br.
19-23.
As the Examiner explained, however (Final Action 7, 8), Sanderson
described the device shown in Figure 1 as merely "one example" of how its
process could be performed (Sanderson, 3 :9), and later expressly stated that
"[ o ]bviously, many modifications and variations of the invention as set forth
above may be made without departing from the spirit and scope thereof, and
therefore only such limitations should be imposed as are indicated in the
appended claims" (id. 4:75-5:5). As the Examiner also noted, the claims of
the Sanderson patent "do not require the use of the disclosed device." Final
Action 7; see also Sanderson, 5:6-6: 10 (claims of Sanderson).
Indeed, in the Final Action from which this appeal was taken, the
Examiner repeatedly avers that the posited combination of references is not
intended to demonstrate the obviousness of modifying the exemplified
device shown in Sanderson's Figure 1. Final Action 8 ("Regarding carrying
13
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
out the method of Sanderson without the disclosed device but employing a
mechanical rotary tumbler to form the suspension and obtaining the
hydrocarbons via centrifugation, it is again noted that the use of the
mechanical device by Sanderson is simply one embodiment of the
invention.")(emphasis added); id. at 10 ("[T]he disclosures by Vrvic and
Cuypers reasonably inform the ordinary artisan that the method of
Sanderson can be carried out by combining fine particles of oil shale with a
bioremedium [sic] with agitation by a mechanical rotary tumbler in a plain
vessel (as opposed to the device taught by Sanderson) followed by
separation of the reaction mixture via centrifugation.")( emphasis added); id.
at 43 ("[T]he rejection in no way states or suggests that the device of
Sanderson could or should be modified with a rotary tumbler and/or
centrifuge .... [T]he rejection makes clear that the Examiner is not
proposing a modification of the device by somehow adding and/or
modifying with a rotary tumbler and/or centrifuge.").
Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner's position was simply that,
based on the cited references as discussed above, an ordinary artisan would
have considered it obvious to perform the process taught in Sanderson using
rotary tumbling to effect Sanderson's mechanical agitation step, and using
centrifugation to effect Sanderson's separation, and not to somehow force-fit
a rotary tumbler and centrifuge onto the device shown in Sanderson's Figure
1 and described at Sanderson's column 3. Accordingly, Appellant's
arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner failed to explain adequately
why an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sanderson's
process by using rotary tumbling to effect Sanderson's mechanical agitation
step, and centrifugation to effect Sanderson's separation.
14
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
Moreover, Appellant's arguments about rendering Sanderson unfit
for its intended purpose are essentially based entirely on asserted impossible
modifications to the device shown in Sanderson's Figure 1, or a complete
redesign of that specific device (App. Br. 22-26; Reply Br. 19-23), whereas,
as discussed above, the Examiner's position was not that it would have been
obvious to modify the device shown in Sanderson's Figure 1. Accordingly,
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner's posited
combination of references would have rendered Sanderson's process
unsuitable for its intended purpose.
In addition, given that the Examiner, as discussed above, repeatedly
stated in the Final Action that the rejection was not positing a modification
of Sanderson's exemplified device, Appellant's arguments (Reply Br.
23-24) do not persuade us that the Examiner was insufficiently clear in the
Final Action, or that a substantially different position from that advanced in
the Final Action was adopted in the Answer. Also, as to the prior decisions
by this Board cited by Appellant, for the reasons discussed above, we find
that the facts before us dictate that the Examiner's rejection is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
In sum, for the reasons discussed, Appellant's arguments do not
persuade us that a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the
Examiner's prima facie case as to claim 11. Because Appellant does not
advance objective evidence of nonobviousness to rebut the Examiner's
prima case, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 over the cited
references.
15
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
OBVIOUSNESS-CLAIM 12
Claim 12 recites a process similar to that recited in claim 11,
discussed above, except that claim 12 does not recite the presence of sugar,
molasses, muriatic, and yeast in the oil shale-treating biomedium, nor does
claim 12 specify that the rotary tumbling is performed for about 12 hours.
See App. Br. 28.
In rejecting claim 12 as obvious over Sanderson, McDaniel, Simpson,
Cuypers, and Vrvic, the Examiner relied on the teachings of those references
essentially for the same reasons discussed above. See Final Action 16-21.
As to this rejection, Appellant argues only that "[i]ndependent claims
12-14 recite similar subject matter and are rejected for the same reasons.
Hence, rejections of claims 12-14 must be reversed as well." App. Br. 26;
see also Reply Br. 21, 23. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find
Appellant's arguments persuasive and, accordingly, affirm the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 12.
OBVIOUSNESS-CLAIM 13
Claim 13 recites a process similar to that recited in claim 11,
discussed above, except that claim 13 does not specify that the rotary
tumbling is performed for about 12 hours. See App. Br. 28-29.
In rejecting claim 13 as obvious over Sanderson, McDaniel, Simpson,
Ritzman '930, Goklen, and Vrvic, the Examiner relied on the teachings of
those references essentially for the same reasons discussed above. See Final
Action 21-28.
As to this rejection, Appellant argues only that "[i]ndependent claims
12-14 recite similar subject matter and are rejected for the same reasons.
Hence, rejections of claims 12-14 must be reversed as well." App. Br. 26;
16
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
see also Reply Br. 21, 23. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find
Appellant's arguments persuasive and, accordingly, affirm the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 13.
OBVIOUSNESS-CLAIMS 13 AND 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 13, discussed above, and specifies that
the rotary tumbling is performed for about 12 hours. See App. Br. 29.
In rejecting claims 13 and 14 as obvious over Sanderson, McDaniel,
Simpson, Ritzman '930, Goklen, Vrvic, Cuypers, and Ritzman '389, the
Examiner relied on the teachings of those references essentially for the same
reasons discussed above. See Final Action 29--30.
As to this rejection, Appellant argues only that "[i]ndependent claims
12-14 recite similar subject matter and are rejected for the same reasons.
Hence, rejections of claims 12-14 must be reversed as well." App. Br. 26;
see also Reply Br. 21, 23. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find
Appellant's arguments persuasive and, accordingly, affirm the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 13 and 14.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 11, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness over Sanderson, McDaniel, Simpson, Ritzman
'930, Ritzman '389, Goklen, Cuypers, and Vrvic.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 12, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness over Sanderson, McDaniel, Simpson, Cuypers, and
Vrvic.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 13, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness over Sanderson, McDaniel, Simpson, Ritzman
'930, Goklen, and Vrvic.
17
Appeal2016-005232
Application 13/338,883
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 14, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Sanderson, McDaniel, Simpson,
Ritzman '930, Goklen, Vrvic, Cuypers, and Ritzman '389.
TIME PERIOD
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
18