MARLINSPIKE GROUP, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2020

2020001498 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 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.
15/709,029 09/19/2017 Pratik SHAH MAR0001-201-US 3029
94164 7590 08/27/2020
GLOBAL PATENT GROUP - GENERAL
c/o MISSOURI PATENT SERVICES
2275 Cassens Drive
SUITE 118
St. Louis, MO 63026
EXAMINER
SHOMER, ISAAC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2020 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):
admin@globalpatentgroup.com
jstthomas@globalpatentgroup.com
lwilson@globalpatentgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte PRATIK SHAH and
JOHN CHRISTOPHER CARTER1
________________

Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
Technology Center 1600
________________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.142. Appellant identifies MarlinSpike LLC as the real party-
in-interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
2
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–25. Specifically, claims 1–9, 11–12,
14, 16–18, 21, and 23–25 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Rau et al. (US 2010/0034889 A1, February 11,
2010) (“Rau”).2
Claims 10 and 13 also stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Rau and Ramji et al. (US
2013/0344011 A1, December 26, 2013) (“Ramji”).
Claim 15 also stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Rau and Simon et al. (US
2015/0196469 A1, July 16, 2015) (“Simon”).
Claims 19 and 20 also stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Rau and Queiroz et al.
(US 2014/0242004 A1, August 28, 2014) (“Queiroz”).
Claims 22 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Rau and Katayama et al.
(US 5,700,449, December 23, 1997) (“Katayama”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

2 The Examiner also rejected claim 25 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to meet the written description requirement. See Final
Act. 2. The Examiner has withdrawn this rejection. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
3
NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a dry mouthwash
comprising granules that reconstitute in an aqueous solution, such as water,
to produce a solution that tastes and functions as a typical liquid mouthwash.
Abstr.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites:
1. A dry mouthwash granule for reconstitution in an aqueous
medium, comprising:

an active component, an organic acid component and a
carbonate salt component wherein said granule causes
an effervescent reaction to occur upon being combined
with said aqueous medium;

wherein said granule has a particle size between 53
microns and 1190 microns, and has a density of from
about 0.5–1.2 g/cc; and

wherein said dry mouthwash granule is not a tablet.

App. Br. 18.
ISSUES AND ANALYSES
We adopt the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and conclusion that the
claims on appeal are prima facie obvious over the combined cited prior art.
We address the arguments raised by Appellant below.
Issue 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because the combined
citedprior art neither teaches nor suggests the limitation of claim reciting
“wherein said granule has a particle size between 53 microns and 1190
microns.” App. Br. 6.

Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
4

Analysis
The Examiner finds that Rau teaches a solid effervescent dosage form.
Final Act. 5 (citing Rau Abstr.). The Examiner finds that Rau teaches: (1)
sodium benzoate, which is known to have antimicrobial properties, as an
active agent; (2) citric and malic acids corresponding to the organic acid
recited in the claim; and (3) sodium and potassium bicarbonate, which are
carbonate salts. Id. (citing Rau ¶ 36 Table). The Examiner acknowledges
that, although Rau teaches that the table of paragraph [0036] refers to a
formulation in the form of a tablet, Rau also teach that its composition can
be in the form of granules. Id. at 6 (citing Rau Abstr., ¶ 42).
The Examiner further finds that Rau teaches a composition with a
minimum size of approximately 14 mesh, corresponding to a particle size of
about 1680 microns, which, the Examiner finds, is slightly larger than the
maximum diameter of 1190 microns recited by the claims on appeal. Final
Act. 6. However, the Examiner reasons, when 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. Id. (citing MPEP
§ 2144.05(11)(A).
With respect to the density requirement recited by claim 1, the
Examiner finds that Rau teaches a density of 1.1 to 1.6 g/cc, which overlaps
with the density range of 0.5 to 1.2 g/cc recited by the claims. Final Act. 7
(citing Rau ¶ 11, claim 1).
Appellant points out that the minimum granule diameter taught by
Rau is 41% larger than the maximum claimed diameter and is, Appellant
argues, more than a small difference. App. Br. 6. Appellant notes that the
ranges taught by Rau and those recited in the claims do no overlap nor,
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
5
Appellant asserts, are they close enough that one skilled in the art would
have expected them to have the same properties. Id. at 6–7.
Furthermore, contends Appellant, the inventor has shown that a
meaningful difference exists between the sizes of the claimed granules and
the sizes of granules taught in Rau. App. Br. 7. Appellant asserts that the
claimed granule sizes, together with the density, gives rise to several
advantages in the claimed compositions, including improved powder
dispersion and reduced clumping and segregation of the claimed dry
mouthwash granules. Id. Appellant contends that simply swirling a
suspension of granules in water effectively dispersed and dissolved the
mouthwash formulation to form a clear solution in a few seconds. Id.
In support of this contention, Appellant argues that, within the
claimed ranges, the mouthwash granules had several unexpectedly excellent
properties. App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellant points to the Declaration of
Dr. Pratik Shah, the inventor of the claimed composition, filed November
19, 2018 (the “Shah Declaration”) as demonstrating unexpected results. Id.
Appellant asserts that, in contrast to tablet formulation, it was discovered
that roller compaction and milling improved powder dispersion, reduced
clumping, and reduced segregation of the claimed dry mouthwash granules.
Id. (citing Shah Decl. ¶ 8). According to Appellant, the Shah Declaration
states that simply swirling a suspension of granules in water effectively
dispersed and dissolved the mouthwash formulation to form a clear solution
in a few seconds. Id. Appellant argues that the process stabilized
hygroscopic components of the mouthwash formulation with non-
hygroscopic components (i.e., mannitol), reducing their hygroscopicity and
keeping the dry mouthwash granules from clumping. Id. at 12–13.
Appellant contends that the process also homogenized the dry mouthwash
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
6
formulation into granules that resisted segregation compared to ungranulated
powders of various particle sizes and densities. Id. at 13. Appellant also
argues that the claimed compositions, dissolved rapidly in water, with no
clumping or floating material in the solution. Id. (citing Shah Decl. ¶ 10,
Figs. 1, 2B).
Appellant compares these results to those of SuperSmile™, a fine
white powder mixed with encapsulated white and yellow beads containing
calcium peroxide. App. Br. 13. Appellant asserts that SuperSmile™ has a
density outside the claimed density range and was hygroscopic, which
caused it to clump in its package. Id. (citing Shah Decl. ¶ 9 Fig. 1).
Appellant argues that the hygroscopicity of the powder composition led to
clumping, requiring pulverization to reduce the particle size enough for
dissolution. Id. (citing Smigel et al. (US 4,925,655, May 15, 1990
(“Smigel”) cols. 3–4, ll. 66–1). Appellant contends that this clumping likely
contributed to its poor dissolution; large lumps of undissolved power floated
on the surface of the water, and the SuperSmileTM composition did not fully
dissolve. Id. (citing Shah Decl. ¶ 9, Fig. 2A).
Appellant reasons that, based upon the teachings of the prior art, a
skilled artisan would have expected that optimizing the particle size and
density to the claimed range would result in something undesired by the
prior art, viz., an undesirable dissolution time. App. Br. 13. Consequently,
argues Appellant, there would have been no motivation for a person of skill
in the art to attempt to optimize the powder to the requirements recited in the
claims. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We acknowledge
that there is a gap between the particle size range recited in the claims (53–
1190 μm) and that taught by Rau (14 mesh, which the Examiner stipulates
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
7
corresponds to approximately 1680 μm). However, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have altered the particle size taught by Rau so as to improve the dissolution
properties of the composition. See Final Act. 6.
Rau supports this conclusion, teaching that: “The time an effervescent
product takes to dissolve is affected by several factors. In addition to the
environment in which it is used, key among these factors are: its form
(tablet, granule or powder); its size and its density; its hardness and the
formulation itself.” Rau ¶ 23. Rau further teaches that:
The needs of the marketplace to provide an effervescent
composition that effervesces for a desired amount of time,
depending on the temperature of the water in which it is placed,
is met by … grinding of tablets prepared to the indicated density,
and then selecting for a given size range through a sieving
process.

Id. at ¶ 11. Rau also teaches that small granules dissolve more quickly in
warm water than do large granules (6–10 mesh) or tablets. Id. at ¶ 42, table.
Rau thus expressly contemplates experimentation and optimization of its
composition’s properties to obtain optimal results.
Appellant relies upon the Shah Declaration as demonstrating that the
particle size range recited in the claims is critical to the allegedly unexpected
properties of the claimed composition. The Shah Declaration states that:
Contrary to tableting, it was discovered that roller compaction
and milling improved dispersion, reduced clumping, and reduced
segregation of the claimed dry mouthwash granules. Simply
swirling a suspension of granules in water effectively dispersed
and substantially dissolved the mouthwash formulation to form
a clear solution in less than 30 seconds. The process stabilized
hygroscopic components of the mouthwash formulation with
non-hygroscopic components (i.e. mannitol), reducing their
hygroscopicity and keeping the dry mouthwash granules from
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
8
clumping. No sticking was encountered during the process. Free-
flowing mouthwash granules resulted. The process also
homogenized the dry mouthwash formulation into granules that
resisted segregation compared to ungranulated powders of
various particle sizes and densities.

Shah Decl. ¶ 8. The Shah Declaration thus states that granulated forms of its
compositions have more desirable properties than tableted forms of the same
compositions. However, we fail to see the relevance of this statement,
because Rau teaches not only tablets, but granule forms that, as explained
supra, dissolve more quickly than tablets. See Rau ¶ 42.
The Shah Declaration next compares the claimed composition to
SuperSmileTM, which it describes as “a fine white powder mixed with
encapsulated white and yellow beads containing calcium peroxide.” Shah
Decl. ¶ 9. The Shah Declaration attests that “[SuperSmileTM] is a fine power
which caused it to clump in its package. This clumping likely contributed to
its poor dissolution, where large lumps of undissolved power floated on the
surface of the water. Thus, [SuperSmileTM] did not fully dissolve.” Id.
(internal reference omitted).
We are not persuaded of the relevance of this argument either.
“[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). The prior
art reference closest in its teachings to the claimed composition is Rau, upon
which the Examiner relies. The Examiner finds that Rau teaches
compositions similar to that claimed by Appellant, comprising “an active
component, an organic acid component and a carbonate salt component,” as
recited in the claims. See Final Act. 5. Moreover, and as we have
explained, Rau invites experimentation with granule size as a defining factor
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
9
in the dissolution rate of its compositions. See Rau ¶¶ 11, 23. The question
before us, then, is whether the difference in particle size range between those
taught by Rau and those recited in the claims is sufficient to render the
properties of the compositions recited in the claims patentably distinct over
those taught by Rau.
We conclude that it does not. “[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.” In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). However, this rule is limited to cases in
which the optimized variable is a “result-effective variable.” In re Applied
Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Antonie,
559 F.2d 618, 620 (C.C.P.A. 1977); see also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,
276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (holding that “discovery of an optimum value of a
result effective variable ... is ordinarily within the skill of the art”).
There is little question, as we have explained, that granule size is a
result effective variable: Rau teaches that smaller granules dissolve more
quickly than larger granules. See Rau ¶ 42. Given the relatively small
difference between the upper range of the particles recited in the claims and
the lower limit of those taught by Rau (1.2 mm versus 1.7 mm, respectively),
we conclude that it would be within the ordinary skill of an artisan to
optimize the granule size of Rau to within the claimed range.
This conclusion could be overcome by Appellant if the claimed
particle size range exhibited properties that would be unexpected or
surprising to a skilled artisan. “To be particularly probative, evidence of
unexpected results must establish that there is a difference between the
results obtained and those of the closest prior art, and that the difference
would not have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
10
of the invention.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 752
F.3d 967, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). However, Appellant fails to adduce any
relevant evidence to support their contention that there is a criticality to the
claimed particle size range that produces unexpected results. Appellant does
not demonstrate any unexpected differences between the properties of its
claimed range of particle sizes and those recited by the closest prior art
(Rau). Rather, Appellant relies upon the Shah Declaration, which makes
comparisons between the claimed composition and: (1) tableted forms of the
claimed composition; and (2) SuperSmileTM, a “fine white powder mixed
with encapsulated white and yellow beads containing calcium peroxide.”
See Shah Decl. ¶¶ 8–9. Neither of these is directly comparable to the
compositions taught by Rau, which constitute the closest prior art.
Because Appellant has not met the burden of demonstrating that the
claimed particle size range imparts properties that would be unexpected or
surprising to a person of ordinary skill in the art, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.

Issue 2
Appellant argued that the Examiner erred in finding that Rau teaches
the limitation reciting “wherein said granule … has a density of from about
0.5–1.2 g/cc.” App. Br. 7–8.

Analysis
Appellant contends that, although the range of granule densities taught
by Rau overlaps with the required density range of 0.5 to 1.2 g/cc recited in
the claims, Rau, when taken as a whole, is directed away from the claimed
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
11
“low density” granules and is instead directed toward “high density”
granules to achieve the desired dissolution time frame. App. Br. 8.
Appellant contends that Rau teaches a different manufacturing process
that creates granules that are denser, more compressed granules than those
claimed. App. Br. 8. By way of example, Appellant points to dependent
claim 25, which further distinguishes density range, requiring 0.5 to 0.8 g/cc.
Appellant therefore argues that not all of the claimed ranges overlap and, in
those instances in which they do, there would have been no motivation for a
person of skill in the art to modify the ranges. Id.
Appellant argues further that the granule density alone is not the
salient issue in the present appeal. App. Br. 8. Rather, argues Appellant, it
is the granule size and density that together give rise to the claimed
dissolution time, which differs significantly from that taught by Rau. Id.
Appellant contends that Rau teaches compositions that are intended to
create long dissolution times. App. Br. 8. According to Appellant, there
would have been no motivation for a skilled artisan to modify the particle
sizes and densities of Rau, because doing so would render its compositions
inoperable for their intended purpose. Id. Appellant argues that the granules
recited in the claims “substantially dissolve when placed in water of 60–
150°F [15–65.5°C] in less than 30 seconds.” Id. at 8–9 (quoting dependent
claim 6). By contrast, Appellant asserts, Rau teaches that “less than half a
minute is too little” for dissolution in warm liquids. Id. (quoting Rau ¶ 14).
Appellant argues that Rau intentionally designed denser and larger
granules to have a longer dissolution time. App. Br. 9 (citing Rau ¶ 5).
According to Appellant, Rau teaches “granules of a density of about 1.1–1.6
g/cc, and preferably 1.3–1.6 g/cc, either by direct formation, or by grinding
of tablets prepared to the indicated density, and then selecting for a given
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
12
size range through a sieving process.” Id. (quoting Rau ¶ 1). To accomplish
this, argues Appellant, Rau teaches a different manufacturing process that
creates denser, more compressed particles that are distinct from the claimed
particles. Id. Appellant asserts that Rau teaches that:
[A]n optimum dissolution time frame is achieved by providing
an effervescent combination of acid and carbonate ... that is then
compounded into mini-tablets or high density granules
exhibiting a density of about 1.3–1.6 g/cc and exhibit a sustained
dissolution time frame within the “consumer interest” window of
about 30–120 seconds, give or take 10%.
Id. (quoting Rau ¶ 43). Appellant asserts that the claims on appeal do not
recite “mini-tablets” or “high density granules.” Id.
Appellant argues further that, although Rau teaches the duration of
effervescence at paragraph [0005], in this context, effervescence is a
function of dissolution. App. Br. 10. Appellant asserts that the acid-base
pair in the compositions of Rau (or in the claimed invention) does not
effervesce until dissolved and, in both cases, remains storage-stable while
dry. Id. Appellant asserts that, as the components dissolve, they react with
each other to generate carbon dioxide in solution, i.e., to effervesce, and the
faster they dissolve, the more quickly they effervesce. Id. Conversely,
Appellant argues, the slower they dissolve, the more slowly they effervesce.
Id. Appellant also asserts that dissolution is faster for smaller particles, for
lower densities, and at higher temperatures. Id.
Therefore, Appellant reasons, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that the time periods for dissolution and
effervescence are the same, because effervescence occurs during dissolution
and ceases when dissolution completes. App. Br. 10. As such, argues
Appellant a skilled artisan would also have understood that Rau’s
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
13
requirement that effervescence be greater than 30 seconds teaches away
from the requirement that the claimed composition dissolve in less than 30
seconds. Id. Appellant asserts that the reason that the difference between
the claimed range and the prior art range is critical is because the different
ranges lead to different dissolution times, which coincide with the duration
of effervescence. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. With respect to the
limitation reciting the required granule density, independent claim 1 recites
that the “granule … has a density of from about 0.5–1.2 g/cc.” Dependent
claim 25, the only other claim with a density requirement, recites: “The dry
mouthwash granule of claim 1, having a density from 0.5 g/cc to 0.8 g/cc.”
App. Br. 20. Rau teaches:
The needs of the marketplace to provide an effervescent
composition that effervesces for a desired amount of time,
depending on the temperature of the water in which it is placed,
is met by providing “mini-tablets” or granules of a density of
about 1.1-1.6 g/cc, more preferably 1.3–1.6, either by direct
formation, or by grinding of tablets prepared to the indicated
density, and then selecting for a given size range through a
sieving process. Preferably, the products of the invention exhibit
effervescence over 30–120 seconds when placed in warm
liquids.

Rau ¶ 11. Rau thus teaches a range of granule densities that overlap the
ranges of all of the claims except dependent claim 25, to which it is closely
adjacent. “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.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed.
Cir. 2003). Moreover, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the
claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
14
such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same
properties.” Id. Because the density range of the granules taught by Rau
substantially overlaps the range recited by claim 1 and its dependent claims
except claim 25, the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claims over Rau. Furthermore, because Appellant has
provided no evidence that there is a critical or unexpected difference in the
properties of granule densities between the range of Rau and that of claim
25, we similarly conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to that claim.
Appellant attempts to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness by arguing that both particle size and density are critical to the
dissolution properties of its claimed invention. However, only dependent
claim 6 recites any dissolution properties, and so Appellant’s argument is
relevant only to dependent claim 6 and not to the remaining claims on
appeal.
Dependent claim 6 recites: “The mouthwash granule as recited in
claim 1, which substantially dissolves when placed in water of 60–150°F in
less than 30 seconds.” App. Br. 18. Rau teaches small granules (10–14
mesh) of its compositions that dissolve in 13 seconds in water at 45oC
(113oF). Rau ¶ 42. Rau also teaches that:
[A]n optimum dissolution time frame is achieved by providing an
effervescent combination of acid and carbonate, and then
functional additives (colloidal oatmeal, various extracts oils and
fragrances, together with aesthetic additives (fragrance,
colorants and the like) to arrive at a final composition that is then
compounded into mini-tablets or high density granules
exhibiting a density of about 1.3–1.6 g/cc and exhibit a sustained
dissolution time frame within the “consumer interest” window of
about 30–120 seconds, give or take 10%.

Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
15
Id. at ¶ 43 (emphases added). Rau also teaches that small, high-density
granules (10-14) can dissolve in 13 seconds in water at 45oC (113oF). Id. at
¶ 42. Again, Rau teaches values for dissolution times that substantially
overlap those recited in claim 6. Furthermore, although Rau teaches that
dissolution times of 30–120 seconds are the “optimum” and “within the
‘consumer interest’ window,” the fact remains that Rau also teaches shorter
dissolution times and, in performing our obviousness analysis, “all
disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804,
807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Finally, Appellant contends that Rau teaches away from Appellant’s
claimed invention in preferring longer dissolution times. The evidence we
have quoted supra do not support that contention. Although Rau expressly
teaches “optimum” dilution times, Rao also expressly teaches times that are
less than 30 seconds for small granule compositions.
A reference teaches away when “a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed.Cir.1994).
Appellant points to no passage of Rau which would expressly discourage or
divert a person of ordinary skill in the art from following the path taken by
the Appellant. See also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(holding that: “The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative
does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because
such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
solution claimed”). Consequently we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments.
Appeal 2020-001498
Application 15/709,029
16

Issue 3
Finally, Appellants argue that the teachings of Ramji, Simon, Queiroz,
and Katayama, alone or in combination, do not cure the alleged deficiencies
of Rau. App. Br. 14. We have explained supra why we are not persuaded
by Appellant’s arguments that Rau fails to teach or suggest the limitations
disputed by the Appellant. We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of the claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–12,
14, 16–18,
21, 23–25
103 Rau

1–9, 11–12,
14, 16–18,
21, 23–25

10, 13 103 Rau, Ramji 10, 13
15 103 Rau, Simon 15
19, 20 103 Rau, Queiroz 19, 20
22 103 Rau, Katayama 22
Overall
Outcome
1–25