Henry Wu

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2020003625 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

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