Johnson, Lanny Leo.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 22, 2020

2019005344 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2020)

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.
15/839,491 12/12/2017 Lanny Leo Johnson 81835-304302 2902
23643 7590 06/22/2020
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
MAIER, LEIGH C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2020 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):
INDocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LANNY LEO JOHNSON
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
Technology Center 1600
Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, ELIZABETH A. LAVIER, and
MICHAEL A. VALEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
LAVIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–18, and 20. An oral hearing
took place on June 2, 2020.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor of
record, Lanny Leo Johnson, M.D. Appeal Br. 1.
2 A transcript (Tr.) of the oral hearing is of record.
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to methods for treating osteoarthritis. Claim 1
is illustrative:
1. A method of modifying the disease of osteoarthritis in a patient
having an osteoarthritic joint, comprising:
orally administering a daily dose of 0.100 to 0.200 mmoles of
PCA[3] per kg of body weight of the patient for at least 4
weeks;
wherein the therapeutically effective amount elicits an
osteoarthritis disease modifying response comprising:
decreased inflammation and an altered catabolic to
anabolic state of the osteoarthritic joint;
improved chondronutrition and chondro-protection of the
integrity of articular cartilage of the osteoarthritic joint;
and
an increase in one or more synovial joint histological
visual scale scores comprising:
i) an increase in a histological visual scale score
for the surface of the cartilage;
ii) an increase in a histological visual scale score
for subchondral bone; or
iii) an increase in a histological visual scale score
for mineralization of the joint.
Appeal Br. 58 (Claims Appendix).

3 PCA = protocatechuic acid. See Spec. ¶ 92.
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Kimura et al. U.S. 4,997,850 March 5, 1991
Sung-Won Min et al., Anti-inflammatory effects of black rice, cyanidin-3-
O-β-D-glycoside, and its metabolites, cyanidin and protocatechuic acid, 10
INT’L IMMUNOPHARM. 959 (2010).
ARC Jones et al., Bioregulation of Lubricin Expression by Growth Factors
and Cytokines, 13 EUROPEAN CELLS & MATERIALS 40 (2007).
Mukundan Attur et al., Prostaglandin E2 Exerts Catabolic Effects in
Osteoarthritis Cartilage: Evidence for Signaling via the EP4 Receptor, 183
J. IMMUNOL. 5082 (2008).
Donald D. Anderson et al., Post-Traumatic Osteoarthritis: Improved
Understanding and Opportunities for Early Intervention, 29 J.
ORTHOPAEDIC RES. 802 (2011).
Chia-Yu Lin et al., Antiglycative Effects of Protocatechuic Acid in the
Kidneys of Diabetic Mice, 29 J. AG. & FOOD CHEM. (2011).
Maxime Dougados et al., Evaluation of the Structure-Modifying Effects of
Diacerein in Hip Osteoarthritis, 44 ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATISM 2539
(2001).
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 10–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Kimura, Min, Jones, and Attur. Non-Final
Action 3.4
2. Claims 1–5 and 7–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kimura, Min, Jones, Attur, and Anderson. Non-
Final Action 12.
3. Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kimura, Min, Jones, Attur, and Lin.
Non-Final Action 13.

4 Non-Final Office Action dated January 16, 2019.
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
4
OPINION
Although there are three rejections on appeal, Appellant does not
expressly distinguish among them in its arguments. Instead, Appellant
begins by arguing claim 1, and then certain dependent claims. As Kimura,
Min, Jones, and Attur are common to all three rejections, and claim 1 is
subject to all three rejections, we follow suit and consider the rejections
together, focusing largely on claim 1. We address Appellant’s major
arguments rather than recapitulating the Examiner’s rejections in detail. The
Non-Final Action and Answer provide a thorough rejection-by-rejection
analysis of the claims; we adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own.
A. Claim 1
With respect to illustrative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kimura
teaches treatment of osteoarthritis by orally administering PCA5 in a dosage
range of 0.1 to 500 mg/kg/day (0.0006 to 3.2 mmol/kg/day), at 1–4
doses/day, with a disclosed therapeutic mechanism of suppression of
production and/or release of IL-1. Non-Final Action 3 (discussing Kimura
abstract, 2:23–45, 10:58–60, 11:1–9, claim 9). Kimura provides in vitro data
showing IL-1α inhibition by PCA. Id. (citing Kimura 8:6–11). The dosage
range of claim 1 is thus “fully encompassed within that taught by Kimura”
(id. at 4), such that the Examiner finds that, in the absence of unexpected
results, it would have been obvious for the ordinarily skilled artisan to
optimize the dosage through routine experimentation (id. at 4–5). Further,
the Examiner finds that “[i]t would be further within the scope of the artisan
to administer the compound for such time to provide adequate treatment to

5 Kimura refers to 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid, and uses the acronym “PAC.”
Kimura 1:37–38. PCA and PAC are the same compound. See Non-Final
Action 3. For simplicity, we use “PCA” throughout this Decision.
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
5
the patient,” and that “[t]here does not appear to be any criticality with any
recited dosing protocol.” Id. at 5.
The Examiner notes that Kimura “is silent regarding the various
limitations regarding observed physical outcomes” (id. at 3), that is, the
“wherein” clause in claim 1 and all its sub-clauses, through the end of the
claim. For these, the Examiner cites Min, Jones, and Attur (see id. at 3–4),
and explains:
Min, Jones and Attur provide additional information about the
anti-inflammatory and anti-catabolic properties of PCA and
expected downstream effects, such as enhanced lubricin
synthesis. This would lead one of ordinary skill to select this
compound in particular for further experimentation and
optimization regarding dosage and treatment protocol. Given the
known effects of inhibiting inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-
1β and TNF-α, one of ordinary skill would further expect a
disease modifying effect with beneficial effects to bone and/or
cartilage.
Non-Final Action 5.
We have considered all of Appellant’s extensive arguments (see
Appeal Br. 13–45; Reply Br. 2–16), and are not persuaded of any reversible
error by the Examiner in rejecting claim 1. As introduced above, Kimura
teaches or suggests using PCA, in a dosage range encompassing claim 1, to
treat osteoarthritis. Appellant’s assertions that Kimura does not disclose the
recited dosage emphasize Kimura’s lack of exemplary dosage data and in
vivo testing. See Appeal Br. 16–17. But the teachings of a reference are not
limited to working examples; rather, a reference is prior art for all that it
teaches or suggests. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972) (“All
the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated, including nonpreferred
embodiments.”) (citations omitted); see also In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
6
1009 (CCPA 1968) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what
the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which
they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all
they contain.”). Furthermore, “[o]bviousness does not require absolute
predictability,” but rather “[o]nly a reasonable expectation that the beneficial
result will be achieved,” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Thus, in analyzing whether a method of treatment claim is non-
obvious, the issue is not whether the cited art provides in vivo or in vitro
data, but what the art, taken as a whole, would have taught or suggested to
the ordinarily skilled artisan. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (“[T]he test is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); cf. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). In addition, the Examiner
relies not only on Kimura, but also on Min, which “establishe[s] that oral
administration of PCA suppresses production of IL-1β, as well as COX-2,
TNF-α and PGE2.” Ans. 4 (citing Min Abstract, § 3.4, Figs. 6 & 7).
To the extent Appellant argues that Kimura is non-analogous art, or
otherwise irrelevant, insofar as “Kimura also used substrates that are not
analogous to articular cartilage” (Appeal Br. 18), we are not persuaded. As
Kimura is directed to the treatment of osteoarthritis, Kimura is within the
same field of endeavor as the present application. Indeed, Kimura treats the
same disease with the same medicament as the claims. See Non-Final
Action 6; see also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Two
separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and,
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
7
the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved.”). Further, Kimura indisputably discloses a
method of treating osteoarthritis by administering PCA. See, e.g., Kimura
claim 9. Kimura’s in vitro data, as discussed above, demonstrate an
inhibitory effect on IL-1α inhibition by PCA. See Kimura 8:6–11, Fig. 1A.
As Kimura’s choice of substrate is concerned, Kimura chose human synovial
cells for the IL-1 assay for good reason: “[t]he synovial cells produce IL-1
but release only a little amount and accordingly are appropriate cells to study
an inhibition or an acceleration of IL-1 intracellular production.” Id. at
7:42–46. While Kimura’s data may not be exhaustive, they need not be for
purposes of a § 103 rejection. The pertinent issue is what Kimura would
have taught or suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Viewed through
that lens, Kimura is sufficient.
While Kimura’s PCA dosage range is broad, both in absolute terms
and relative to Appellant’s claimed range, we do not agree with Appellant’s
assertion that Kimura is “so broad that it gives no meaningful insight”
(Appeal Br. 18) regarding dosage. Kimura explains that selecting an
appropriate dosage depends on various factors: species, age, individual
difference, and stage of the disorder. Kimura 10:64–67. Kimura also notes
that due to these considerations, a “dose exceeding the following dose range
may sometimes be needed.” Id. at 10:67–68. Given that variability, Kimura
teaches that “generally speaking,” a range of 0.1–500 mg/kg body
weight/day, and preferably 0.5–200 mg/kg body weight/day can be used in
humans. Id. at 11:1–4. These considerations are well-reasoned and explain
the variability in dosage range to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover,
as Kimura’s dosage range encompasses that of claim 1, the claimed dosage
range is prima facie obvious over Kimura. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
8
1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In cases involving overlapping ranges, we and
our predecessor court have consistently held that even a slight overlap in
range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.”). As to the duration of
treatment, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been reasonably
within the skill of the ordinary artisan “to administer the compound for such
time to provide adequate treatment to the patient.” Non-Final Action 5.
Moreover, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect this to be an extended
period of time, given the degenerative, persistent nature of osteoarthritis,
particularly given Appellant’s argument that Kimura was focused on using
PCA to treat “the symptoms, not the cause” of osteoarthritis. See Tr. 8:1–22.
Appellant’s other arguments regarding the individual elements of
claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 20–27; see also Reply Br. 4–9); all pertain to what
the Examiner calls “the various limitations regarding observed physical
outcomes” (Non-Final Action 3), i.e., the sub-clauses of the “wherein”
clause, reciting: decreased inflammation, altered catabolic to anabolic state,
improved chondronutrition and protection, and an increase in certain
histological visual scale scores (see Appeal Br. 58 (Claims Appendix)). We
find that these outcomes are inherent results of administering PCA as recited
in the claim. “Using the same composition claimed . . . in the same manner
claimed . . . naturally results in the same claimed . . . benefits.” Perricone v.
Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This
application of inherency is reasonable because a chemical composition
cannot be separated from its properties. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Products of identical chemical composition can not have
mutually exclusive properties.”); see also In re Prindle, 297 F.2d 251, 254
(CCPA 1962) (“Mere recognition of those latent properties does not render
the otherwise obvious [claimed subject matter] unobvious and thereby
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
9
patentable.”). Accordingly, the Examiner need not have gone through the
analysis of identifying teachings in the prior art corresponding to these
outcomes (see Non-Final Action 3–5), and combining them with the other
references, in order to reject claim 1.6
With respect to the motivation to combine the references, Appellant
again urges that Kimura’s in vitro data are insufficient, and that Kimura’s
dosage teachings would not have provided the ordinarily skilled artisan with
relevant information. See Appeal Br. 29–30. For the reasons discussed
above, we are not persuaded. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument (see Appeal Br. 31–32) that Kimura’s teachings of
other compounds in addition to PCA for treating osteoarthritis amount to a
teaching away with respect to PCA. But teaching another way or additional
embodiments is not the same as teaching away from the invention claimed.
See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314,
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it
merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the
invention claimed.” (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2004)). This is particularly so here where Appellant’s claim 1 does not
preclude administration of other compounds in addition to PCA and
therefore would seem to encompass the same treatments (i.e., PCA + other
compounds) that Appellant characterizes as a teaching away. Moreover, as
noted above, Kimura does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage”

6 In the alternative, however, we concur with the Examiner’s analysis with
respect to these properties, for the reasons already of record. See Non-Final
Action 3–5; Ans. 9.
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
10
(id.) the administration of PCA to treat osteoarthritis, Kimura claims it (see
Kimura claim 9).
To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, a patent applicant
may provide evidence of secondary considerations. Here, Appellant argues
that unexpected results, a long felt need in the art, and public policy
considerations all weigh in favor of patentability. See Appeal Br. 32–45.
We address each of these in turn.
For a range that overlaps or is within a prior art range, “the applicant
must ‘show that the [claimed] range is critical, generally by showing that the
claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’” In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469–70 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). We cannot conclude that
Appellant has carried this burden. Appellant attempts to do so by pointing
to “the difference in results of the prophylactic and therapeutic groups
support[ing] the importance of dosage, interval, and common to drug
prescriptions” in the Specification. Appeal Br. 38. In support, Appellant
cites data from Figures 5A and 5B[7] of the Specification. See id. Figures
5A and 5B of the Specification are bar graphs showing synovial fluid
cytokine levels (TNF-α in Figure 5A, and IGF-1 in Figure 5B) as detected
by ELISA. With respect to PCA, data are provided in each figure for an
untreated control, a “prophylactic” group that received 26.5 mg PCA/kg
body weight administered orally 7 times per week for six weeks,8 and a

7 Page 38 of the Appeal Brief refers to “Figure 58,” rather than Figure 5B.
This appears to be a typographical error, as there is no Figure 58, and
because the supporting paragraph of the Specification (¶ 53) cited in the
Appeal Brief refers to Figure 5B.
8 The Specification says “42 days” rather than “6 weeks” in paragraph 45.
We have converted (6 x 7 = 42) for ease of reference.
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
11
“therapeutic” group that received the same dosage at the same frequency,
but for four weeks.9 Spec. ¶¶ 45–46. The Specification (but not the Appeal
Brief) acknowledges that for Figure 5A, “the differences seen are not
statistically significant.” Spec. ¶ 52. And for Figure 5B, the Specification
explains that “that IFG-1 levels in the synovial fluid was not significantly
changed in all groups.” Id. at ¶ 53. For both Figures 5A and 5B, the
Specification notes that the slight changes that were observed occurred in the
prophylactic groups, which received six weeks of treatment, but not the
therapeutic groups, which received four weeks of treatment. See id. at ¶¶ 52,
53. With respect to Figure 5B, the Specification states that “[t]his may hint
that the timing of the treatment may be important.” Id. at ¶ 53.
At best, the data presented in Figures 5A and 5B of the Specification
suggest possible (but not statistically significant, as the Specification
acknowledges), minor effects from treating patients for six weeks rather than
four weeks, all at a single dosage level of PCA (26.5 mg PCA/kg body
weight). These data are insufficient to support Appellant’s assertion of
criticality of the claimed ranges, for at least three reasons. First, as
described above, the improvements shown are minor to the point of being
statistically insignificant. The evidence does not clearly “represent a
‘difference in kind’ that is required to show unexpected results.” In re
Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Second, whatever
improvement (if any) can be discerned from administering PCA daily for six
weeks rather than four weeks is not a distinction reflected in claim 1, which,
in reciting a treatment period of “at least 4 weeks,” encompasses both of the

9 The therapeutic group appears to have been so named because the subjects
in that group were administered PCA from days 42–70 after surgery. Spec.
¶ 45.
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
12
tested regimens. Unexpected results must be “commensurate in scope with
the degree of protection sought by the claimed subject matter.” Id. Third,
because the Specification tests only a single daily dosage level of PCA, no
conclusions can be drawn regarding what dosage range is effective.10 For
similar reasons, the data from Figures 5A and 5B of the Specification do not
support Appellant’s assertion of unexpected results, for want of a nexus with
the claimed invention.
Appellant also cites to the declaration of the inventor, Dr. Johnson,11
in support of the alleged unexpected results. See Appeal Br. 18–19
(discussing Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 40–41). Dr. Johnson’s declaration provides
further explanation and discussion of the Specification data, not additional
data. His analysis in support of his conclusion that the results in the
Specification are unexpected focuses on the properties or mechanisms of
action of PCA in treating osteoarthritis (see Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 39–42),
emphasizing the “substantial disease modifying effects of PCA” (id. ¶ 41) as
opposed to prior art teachings regarding symptom management. As
discussed above, we are not persuaded by this line of reasoning, because the
disease modifying effects are inherent to practicing the method of
administering PCA to a patient with osteoarthritis as claimed, and the prior

10 At the oral hearing, in acknowledging that the Specification only tests a
single dosage level of PCA (albeit for different periods of time), counsel for
Appellant indicated that additional testing would have been cost-prohibitive.
See Tr. 6:13–19. While we appreciate this concern, it cannot override the
burden of proof, which is on Appellant, to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case.
11 Declaration of Dr. Lanny Johnson under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, dated May 7,
2018.
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
13
art already provides a sufficient rationale (i.e., reducing inflammation) for
doing so.
In sum, we agree with the Examiner that “[t]here does not appear to
be any criticality with any recited dosing protocol.” Non-Final Action 5; see
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–58 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”); see
also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The normal
desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally
known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of
percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). Nor has
Appellant proffered sufficient evidence of unexpected results in any other
respect. Appellant’s arguments regarding long-felt need in the art and public
policy (see Appeal Br. 32–36, 44–45) are similarly unpersuasive, insofar as
they focus on the mechanisms of action of PCA. Treating osteoarthritis with
PCA was obvious from the prior art; that Appellant may have discovered
additional reasons why PCA is an effective osteoarthritis treatment is
admirable, but not patentable.
For these reasons and those already of record, and after reviewing all
of Appellant’s arguments, we are unconvinced that Appellant has shown any
reversible error by the Examiner in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejections of claim 1. Claims 6, 13, and 18 are not argued
separately (see Appeal Br. 45), and fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
14
B. Claims 2–5, 7–12, 14–17, and 20
With respect to claims 2–5, 7–12, 14–17, and 20, the only additional
arguments Appellant presents pertain to the additional disease modifying
response-related limitations in these claims. See Appeal Br. 45–56. For the
same reasons as discussed above with respect to the disease modifying
response limitations recited in claim 1, we find that these additional
limitations in claims 2–5, 14, and 20 are inherent to the administration of
PCA to treat osteoarthritis.12 Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us
of any reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–5, 7–12, 14–
17, or 20, and we affirm the rejections thereof.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

12 The inherency of these limitations likewise subsumes Appellant’s new
assertion in the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejections of the dependent
claims are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of § 706 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), for alleged failure to specifically
identify the teachings in the cited references corresponding to the claimed
elements. See Reply Br. 17. Furthermore, the Examiner makes findings in
the Non-Final Action that support the rejection of the dependent claims,
even where those claims are not called out by their claim numbers. See
Non-Final Action 3–5, 13–14. The Examiner’s additional discussion of the
dependent claims in the Answer, while brief, is responsive to Appellant’s
arguments. See Ans. 14. We also note that the APA argument is new to the
Reply Brief (even though it criticizes the Non-Final Action, not only the
Answer), without a showing of good cause, and is thus improperly presented
as applied to the alleged deficiencies of the Non-Final Action. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015); see also Ex parte Borden, 2010 WL 191083 at *2
(BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Any bases for asserting error, whether factual
or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived.”); cf. Veterans
Contracting Group, Inc. v. United States, 920 F.3d 801, 806, 808 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (finding APA § 706 challenge to have been waived on appeal for
failure to present argument before lower tribunal).
Appeal 2019-005344
Application 15/839,491
15
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 8,
10–16
103 Kimura, Min, Jones,
Attur
1–5, 7, 8,
10–16

1–5, 7–17 103 Kimura, Min, Jones,
Attur, Anderson
1–5, 7–17
1–5, 7, 8,
10–16, 18,
20
103 Kimura, Min, Jones,
Attur, Lin
1–5, 7, 8,
10–16, 18,
20

Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–18,
20

TIME PERIOD FOR 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