Henry WuDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 20212020003625 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/595,695 01/13/2015 Henry Wu 036687.00007 1075 38485 7590 03/02/2021 ARENT FOX LLP - New York 1717 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-5344 EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2021 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): patentdocket@arentfox.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HENRY WU Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 Technology Center 1600 Before RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, DEVON ZASTROW NEWMAN, and MICHAEL A. VALEK, Administrative Patent Judges. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, and 21–30. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE According to the Specification, omega-3 poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are “an essential nutrient critical for the maintenance of human 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is the inventor, Dr. Henry Wu. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 2 health.” (Spec. ¶ 4.) A few of “[the] positive effects [of omega-3 PUFAs] include anti-inflammatory, anti-cancerous, immunomodulatory, anti- diabetic, anti-thrombotic and anti-arrhythmic properties.” (Id.) On the other hand, omega-6 PUFAs “possess antagonistic properties to omega-3 PUFA.” (Id. ¶ 5.) Also according to Appellant’s Specification, “the dietary practices of modern industrial society over the last century have been moving towards a diet that is severely deficient in omega-3 PUFA[s],” while there has been a “rise in the consumption of ‘processed’ foods containing hydrogenated trans-fatty acids and omega-6 PUFA[s].” (Id. ¶ 5.) As a result of this and other factors, the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acids has “risen dramatically” and “entire populations are now at risk of developing a wide spectrum of inflammatory, autoimmune and degenerative diseases.” (Id.) Appellant’s Specification indicates that “the therapeutic use of omega- 3 PUFA is currently limited by the lack of a rapid and effective means of delivery.” (Id. ¶ 6.) Ultrasound “microbubbles have been modified for therapeutic use as vehicles for drug delivery and for gene therapy.” (Id. ¶ 8.) These microbubbles “are gas-filled vesicles having diameters on the order of less than 10 microns enclosed in a biocompatible shell composed of a lipid, protein or polymer.” (Id. ¶ 7.) Appellant’s invention relates to “formulations of phospholipid microbubbles comprising a plurality of phospholipids” to deliver PUFAs for therapeutic purposes. (Id. ¶ 3.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 3 1. A liposomal phospholipid microbubble comprising: a shell which comprises: (a) a plurality of first phospholipids, each having a phosphatidylserine (“PS”) headgroup and a first polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) esterified to the sn-2 position of the first phospholipid, wherein the first PUFA is either eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA); and (b) a plurality of second phospholipids, each having a phosphatidylcholine (PC) headgroup and a second PUFA esterified to the sn-2 position of the second phospholipid, wherein the second PUFA is either EPA or DHA; and a core of paramagnetic gas surrounded by the shell. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Schneider et al. US 5,380,519 Jan. 10, 1995 Larsson-Backstrom US 5,434,183 July 18, 1995 Unger et al. (Unger ’575) US 5,580,575 Dec. 3, 1996 Gross et al. US 5,643,601 July 1, 1997 Unger et al. (Unger ’583) US 2001/0044583 A1 Nov. 22, 2001 Xiong et al. US 2005/0042271 A1 Feb. 24, 2005 REJECTIONS The following grounds of rejections by the Examiner are before us on review: Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 21–24, and 26–29 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Unger ’583, Unger ’575, and Larsson- Backstrom. Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 21–24, and 26–29 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gross or Schneider and Unger ’583 and Larsson-Backstrom. Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 4 Claims 25 and 30 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Unger ’583, Unger ’575, Larsson-Backstrom, and Xiong. Claims 25 and 30 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gross, Schneider, Unger ’583, Larsson-Backstrom, and Xiong. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 21–24, 26–29 103(a) Unger ’583, Unger ’575, Larsson- Backstrom 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 21–24, 26–29 103(a) Gross, Schneider, Unger ’583, Larsson- Backstrom 25, 30 103(a) Unger ’583, Unger ’575, Larsson- Backstrom, Xiong 25, 30 103(a) Gross, Schneider, Unger ’583, Larsson- Backstrom, Xiong DISCUSSION I. Obviousness: Unger ’583, Unger ’575, Larsson- Backstrom The Examiner finds that Unger ’583 teaches liposomes that include both natural and synthetic lipids such as phosphatidylcholine (PC) and phosphatidylserine (PS), where the liposome is gas filled and is used as an ultrasonic contrast agent in patients suspected of myocardial ischemia. (Final Action 2.) The Examiner further finds that Unger ’583 teaches including anti-oxidants in the liposome. (Id. at 3.) The Examiner finds that Unger ’575 also teaches gas filled liposomes that include both natural and synthetic lipids such as PC and PS, where the Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 5 liposome is used both to monitor its position using ultrasound, and to release a therapeutic compound therefrom using ultrasound. (Final Action 3.) The Examiner further finds that although both Unger references teach natural or synthetic phospholipids, neither specifically teaches polyunsaturated fatty acid containing phospholipids. (Id.) However, the Examiner notes that natural sources of PC (also known as lecithin) include sources such as egg, which sources of PC contain DHA, i.e., one of the PUFAs recited in Appellant’s claims. (Id.) The Examiner finds that Larsson-Backstrom teaches that fish phospholipids contain high amounts of omega 3- PUFAs such as DHA and EPA, which are useful in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases and rheumatoid arthritis, and that such phospholipids may be used as components of liposomes. (Id.) The Examiner concludes from the foregoing that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use phospholipids with high amounts of omega-3 PUFAs as taught in Larsson-Backstrom as the natural phospholipids for liposome formation for use in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease, “since Unger teaches that gas filled liposomes made from either natural or synthetic phospholipids can be used for the delivery of active agents and rupturing the liposomes by ultrasound to release the therapeutic agent in the region to achieve the therapeutic effect.” (Id. at 4.) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such phospholipids “since these phospholipids are not only capable of forming liposomes, but are also effective against these diseases as taught by Larsson-Backstrom.” (Id.) We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 6 Appellant’s primary argument that the rejection is in error is that the modification of Unger’s liposome microbubbles with omega-3 PUFAs would render them unsuitable for the purposes intended by the references. (See, e.g., Appeal Br. 9–10.) Appellant concedes that “Unger ’575 teaches embedding lipophilic therapeutic compounds within the membrane bilayer by covalent means” but asserts that “it only teaches the possible inclusion of monounsaturated lipids such as oleic acid-not polyunsaturated compounds. [Unger ’575] at 8:1–35, 9:1–9).” (Appeal Br. 9.) Appellant relies on the Second Declaration of the inventor, Dr. Wu,2 in support of that conclusion. (Appeal Br. 11.) Appellant further contends that Unger ’583 “does not mention polyunsaturated fatty acids in its long list of potential lipids for use in constructing gas-filled liposomes as ultrasound contrast agents.” (Appeal Br. 9.) Appellant argues further that the “failure” of the Unger references to even “suggest the use of PUFA[s]” is consistent with the fact that PUFAs are known to be highly susceptible to oxidation, “increase the shell fluidity,” and have lower phase transition temperatures, which together “limit the shelf-life stability of liposomes, making it difficult for large-scale production and commercialization.” (Appeal Br. 9.) We do not find these arguments persuasive. A reference is available for all that it teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. 2 Second Declaration of Dr. Henry Wu under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, dated November 16, 2018. Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 7 Cir. 1989) (“[T]the fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.”). We disagree with Appellant’s reading of Unger ’575. In particular, Unger nowhere states that only monounsaturated lipids are useful fatty acids in making a gas-filled liposomes. Unger ’575 states that “both saturated and unsaturated lipids” may be used and provides examples of fatty acids that may “preferably” be included to make a gas-filled microsphere. The list of examples that are preferred are monounsaturated. However, Unger ’575 clearly states that the invention is “not limited to” those examples. (Unger ’575 9:4–6.) Furthermore, like Unger ’575, Unger ’583 does not teach that only monounsaturated fatty acids are able to be used. Moreover, both Unger references teach that the liposomes may include antioxidants “to prevent oxidation of the lipid.” (Unger ’575 16:12– 15; Unger ’583 ¶ 38.) Use of antioxidants for this purpose is even noted in the prior art when DHA specifically is selected for use in making a lipid vesicle. In particular, Vikbjerg3, a reference relied on by Dr. Wu that he asserts “teach[es] that PUFAs are unsuitable in phospholipid formulations due to stability issues (e.g., resulting from oxidation)” (Wu Second Declaration ¶ 13), suggests “using antioxidants for the prevention of 3 Anders Falk Vikbjerg et al., Oxidative Stability of Liposomes Composed of Docosahexaenoic Acid-Containing Phospholipids, 84 J. Amer. Oil Chem. Soc. 631–637 (2007). Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 8 oxidation during preparation and storage” if making a multilamellar vesicle. (Vikbjerg 636.) Vikbjerg also states that although DHA-containing PCs were oxidized when used to make multilamellar vesicles in the study (though hardly oxidized when used in large unilamellar vesicles), such oxidation could be avoided in other ways. In particular, Vikbjerg states: Lyberg et al. [14] reported that formation of hydroperoxides in DHA was almost completely prevented by incorporating DHA into either the sn-1 or sn-2 position of PC in bulk and in chloroform solution. In contrast, PC containing DHA on both positions should be avoided. (Id. at 635.) Antioxidant use, among other things, to prevent oxidative degradation of PUFAs in liposomes is also suggested in Grit,4 the other article Dr. Wu asserts “teach[es] that PUFAs are unsuitable in phospholipid formulations due to stability issues (e.g., resulting from oxidation).” (Wu Second Declaration ¶ 13.) In particular, Grit states: “Oxidative degradation can be reduced by the use of high quality raw materials, by addition of antioxidants and by preparation of liposomes under an oxygen-free atmosphere. Storage at low temperatures reduces the rate of oxidation as well.” (Grit 16.) Grit also teaches that hydrolysis can be prohibited by freeze drying the preparation, or where storage as an aqueous dispersion is preferred, Grit states: for long-term stability, storage at low temperatures (4–6°C, in a refrigerator) and adjustment of the pH of the dispersions to pH values close to neutral — where phospholipids have their 4 Mustafa Grit & Daan J.A. Crommelin, Chemical stability of liposomes: implications for their physical stability, 64 Chemistry and Physics of Lipids, 3–18 (1993). Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 9 maximum stability (pH 6.5) — is recommended. Moreover, the lowest possible buffer concentrations that ensure constant pH should be chosen as buffer species tend to accelerate the hydrolysis process. (Id. at 17.) That Grit indicates that partially saturated phospholipids could be a better choice (Grit at 16, Appeal Br. 13) does not require a finding of non- obviousness. “[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In light of the foregoing, we do not find persuasive Dr. Wu’s conclusion in his second Declaration that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found the claimed invention obvious from a combination of the cited references. Nor do we find Appellant’s suggestion that the modification of Unger’s microbubbles with the claimed PC-DHA or EPA and PS-DHA or EPA would render those microbubbles unsuited for use as intended or change the principle of operation. (Id. at 10.) Unger teaches including an antioxidant, and the prior art relied on by Dr. Wu in his declaration suggests that an antioxidant can prevent oxidation of PUFAs used in making liposomes. Furthermore, Appellant’s assertion that large-scale production and commercialization would have been difficult (Appeal Br. 9) does not suggest that using DHA or EPA with PC and PS to make the claimed composition would not have been obvious, particularly given that the prior art teaches Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 10 that antioxidants can be included to prevent oxidation and overcome these alleged difficulties. The claimed composition does not exclude antioxidants being encapsulated by the liposomes. “That a given combination would not be made by businessmen for economic reasons does not mean that persons skilled in the art would not make the combination because of some technological incompatibility. Only the latter fact would be relevant.” In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Moreover, Appellant has not even provided any factual evidence to support the assertion of difficulty in making the modification. We also do not find persuasive Appellant’s assertion that the claimed compositions provide unexpected therapeutic benefits. (Appeal Br. 14.) In support of that assertion, Appellant relies on another declaration by the inventor, Dr. Wu.5 That Declaration compares the results of experimental tests reported in paragraphs 47–50 of the Specification with results of tests reported in the literature that employed omega-3 fatty acids mixed with egg yolk lecithin or triacylglycerols (Wu Declaration ¶ 4), individual fatty acids bound to albumin (id. ¶ 5), and omega-3 fatty acids in the form of 100 mL of marine triglycerides (id. ¶ 6). The literature referred to by Dr. Wu is not the prior art cited by the Examiner, nor do the authors of the literature overlap with the Examiner’s cited prior art. “[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 5 Declaration of Dr. Henry Wu pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 1.132, dated December 11, 2013. Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 11 Larsson-Backstrom teaches that using emulsions of PUFAs containing the omega 3-fatty acids DHA and EPA is more potent than using them as triglycerides for therapeutic purposes. See, e.g., Larsson-Backstrom 5:42– 47, 9:59–10:10. Dr. Wu’s evidence, therefore, is not persuasive, at least because it does not compare the claimed composition against the closest prior art. Appellant argues claims 26 and 29 separately asserting that the “shell consisting of” language in these claims renders them non-obvious because they “exclude microbubble compositions with a shell containing more than trace amounts of other non-listed phospholipids.” (Appeal Br. 8.) Unger ’583 provides the recited phospholipids in its lists of materials that may be utilized in combination with fatty acids in preparing liposomes (Unger ’583 ¶ 29), and Unger ’575 provides the recited phospholipids in its lists of materials that may be utilized in combination with unsaturated lipids (Unger ’575 col. 8). And Unger ’575 teaches that combinations of phospholipids may be used and that “[t]he particular lipids are chosen to optimize the desired properties.” (Unger ’575 7:59–61, 8:35.) Unger ’583 also teaches that combinations of phospholipids may be used. (Unger ’583 ¶ 29.) Apart from the foregoing, the prior art teaches that phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylserine, and phosphatidylethanolamine are preferred phospholipids that can be laminarized to make stable microbubbles. (Schneider 6:50–65.) The Unger references teach that phosphatidylserine has advantages because it is negatively charged, which, when combined with other phospholipids, is “beneficial to providing liposomes that do not have a propensity to rupture by fusing together.” (Unger ’575 7:66–7:7; Unger ’583 ¶ 29.) “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 12 requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put into the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. It is not invention.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 335 (1945); see also Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In light of the foregoing, we do not find Appellant’s assertion that the specific phospholipids that the liposomes must “consist of” render claims 26 and 29 non-obvious. Moreover, Appellant has not provided evidence that the claimed phospholipid combination provides an unexpected result as discussed above. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 21–24, and 26–29 as being obvious from Unger ’583, Unger ’575, and Larsson-Backstrom. II. Obviousness: Gross, Schneider, Unger ’583, Larsson-Backstrom The Examiner finds that Gross teaches liposomes containing soy or egg lecithin and perfluorocarbon gas. (Final Action 7.) The Examiner finds that Schneider discloses gas-filled liposomes containing soy lecithin. (Id.) The Examiner finds that “soy lecithin taught by Gross and Schneider contains polyunsaturated phospholipids and egg lecithin contains DHA.” (Id.) The Examiner relies on Unger ’583 and Larsson-Backstrom for the teachings discussed above. Just as in the other obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to use the phospholipids described in Larsson- Backstrom “as the natural phospholipids for the formation of liposomes of Gross or Schneider because of their advantages in diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular diseases as taught by Larsson-Backstrom.” (Id. at 8.) The Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 13 Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to include an antioxidant as well given Unger’s teaching that such compound prevent oxidation. (Id.) We agree with the Examiner’s rejection though we do not rely on Gross. We do not agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Gross along with the remaining references about microbubbles that can be introduced in vivo and that can be visually observed and used in therapeutic treatments after being administered into the body. We note that we may affirm a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, on fewer than all of the references relied on by the Examiner, and we may do so without designating the affirmance as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961). Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding that soy lecithin taught by Schneider contains polyunsaturated phospholipids and egg lecithin contains DHA. However, Appellant argues that because Schneider fails to teach liposomal phospholipid microbubbles that contain DHA and EPA, and the prior art teaches omega-3 PUFAs are susceptible to degradation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified the phospholipids of Schneider with omega-3 PUFAs. (Appeal Br. 14–15.) Appellant also relies on Dr. Wu’s Second Declaration for the same reasons as discussed above, as well as asserting that soy lecithin only contains, as “a minor component,” at most 5% of “polyunsaturated phospholipids.” (Wu Second Declaration ¶ 12; Appeal Br. 14–15.) Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 14 We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. First, we disagree with Dr. Wu’s conclusion based on Scholfield6 that soy lecithin contains at most 5% polyunsaturated fatty acids. Scholfield teaches that linoleic acid (18:2) can be 55% and that unsaturated C20-22 fatty acids can be 5.5%. Consequently, Scholfield teaches that polyunsaturated fatty acids of soy lecithin can be above 60%. We also note that, like DHA and EPA, linoleic acid is an omega-3 PUFA. Thus, although Schneider may not teach liposomal phospholipid microbubbles that contain DHA and EPA, it does teach such microbubbles that contain phospholipids with a significant amount of omega-3 PUFAs. Schneider also teaches that one may include substances known to have antioxidant properties to “improve the chemical stability of the components.” (Schneider 7:42–45.) And, as the Examiner noted, Unger teaches that it was known to use antioxidants with microbubbles that include phospholipids. Furthermore, as we have discussed above, the prior art relied on by Dr. Wu also teaches that it was known to include antioxidants to stabilize omega-3 fatty acids, such as DHA, used in liposomes. (Vikbjerg 636.) And, in fact, a number of ways to prevent oxidative degradation of components of liposomes made with natural egg lecithin have been suggested in the prior art. (See Grit 16–17.) Consequently, as discussed above, we also disagree with Dr. Wu that the prior art teaches that omega-3 PUFAs were not suited for microbubble formulations. In view of the foregoing, we do not find persuasive Appellant’s argument that it “is unreasonable to expect that a person of ordinary skill in 6 C. R. Scholfield, Composition of Soybean Lecithin, 58(10) J. Am. Oil Chemists Society 889–92 (1981). Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 15 the art would have arbitrarily selected phospholipids [of Schneider] within this minor fraction for substitution with EPA or DHA.” (Appeal Br. 15.) And, we also do not find persuasive Appellant’s argument “that one of skill in the art would have found any benefits associated with the proposed substitution to be far outweighed by the stability issues noted by Dr. Wu.” (Id.) Moreover, we disagree that the substitution rationale “ignores” any “serious stability” issues (id.), in light of the teachings to use antioxidants in Schneider, Unger, Vikbjerg, and Grit. Furthermore, regarding Appellant’s assertion that production issues have also been ignored (id.), as we explained above, “[t]hat a given combination would not be made by businessmen for economic reasons does not mean that persons skilled in the art would not make the combination because of some technological incompatibility. Only the latter fact would be relevant.” In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d at 718. Moreover, Appellant has not even provided any factual evidence to support the assertion of difficulty in making the modification of the prior art. And, to the extent that Appellant asserts there are unexpected results of the claimed composition, we refer to the deficiencies of the evidence discussed in Section I, above. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 21–24, and 26–29 as being obvious from Gross, Schneider, Unger ’583, and Larsson-Backstrom. III. Obviousness: Claims 25 and 30 Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 30 is in error is premised on a conclusion that the rejections discussed in Sections I and II above are in error. (Appeal Br. 16.) Because we do not Appeal 2020-003625 Application 14/595,695 16 find any such error as discussed above in Sections I and II, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, with the inclusion of the teachings of Xiong as described in the Final Office Action, albeit without reliance on the teachings of Gross. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 21-24, 26-29 103(a) Unger ’583, Unger ’575, Larsson- Backstrom 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 21-24, 26-29 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 21-24, 26-29 103(a) Gross, Schneider, Unger ’583, Larsson-Backstrom 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 21-24, 26-29 25, 30 103(a) Unger ’583, Unger ’575, Larsson- Backstrom, Xiong 25, 30 25, 30 103(a) Gross, Schneider, Unger ’583, Larsson- Backstrom, Xiong 25, 30 Overall Outcome 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 21-30 RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation