null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 18, 2019

15819690 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2019)

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.
15/819,690 11/21/2017 Paul Jeran 84845328 1566
22879 7590 10/18/2019
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
THIES, BRADLEY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2853
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2019 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):
barbl@hp.com
ipa.mail@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL JERAN

Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MARK NAGUMO, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8.2, 3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Nov. 21, 2017
(“Spec.”), the Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 3, 2018 (“Non-Final
Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Sept. 14, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s
Answer dated Dec. 12, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 16,
2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP is the
applicant and also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
3 Appellant elects not to pursue in this Appeal the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the Examiner’s provisional rejection
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE4
The invention relates to a printer cartridge for toner, ink, and other
materials that also includes a memory enabling an information exchange
between the cartridge and the printer controller. Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification
describes using the memory on a printing material cartridge to ensure that a
printer or group of printers will not print with an unauthorized cartridge. Id.
¶ 13.
Claims 1, 4, and 7, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphasis added).
1. An article for a printing material cartridge, comprising
a memory to enable an exchange of information between the
cartridge and a printer controller when a cartridge with the
article is installed in a printer, the memory including:
a first write once then read only memory with a first
memory address;
a second write once then read only memory with a
second memory address, the first memory address having
information to prompt the printer controller to write a printer
identifier to the second memory address; and
a memory controller to control data storage and retrieval
to and from the write once then read only memories and to
control the exchange of information with the printer controller.

4. The article of Claim 1, where the printer identifier
includes a single identifier identifying a group of printers

of claims 1, 2, and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the same invention
as that of claims 8, 9, and 12 of copending Application No. 15/458,460.
Non-Final Act. 4; Appeal Br. 1–9. Therefore, we summarily affirm these
rejections.
4 This appeal is related to Appeal Nos. 2018–005676, 2018–005677, and
2019–002174. See Appeal Br. 1 (identifying Appeal No. 2018–005677 and
the Notice of Appeal filed in Appeal No. 2019–002174).
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

3
owned or operated by a single entity or identified as being
subject to an obligation to limit printing to the group.
7. An article for a printing cartridge, comprising a write
once then read only memory with a single bit first address for a
printer identification prompt and a second address for a printer
identifier:
the single bit first address having:
a logic 1 state representing a prompt value to, during an
authorization process when a cartridge with the memory is
installed in a printer, prompt a printer controller to read the
second address; or
a logic 0 state representing a no prompt value to, during
an authorization process when a cartridge with the memory is
installed in a printer, end the authorization process;
and the second address having:
an identification value with a printer identifier; or
a no identification value to, during the authorization
process, prompt a printer controller reading the second memory
address to write a printer identifier to the second memory
address.
Appeal Br. 10, 11 (Claims Appendix).
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims in light of the case law presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections.
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

4
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Kondo,5 in view of Johnson,6 for the reasons provided on pages
5–14 of the Non-Final Action. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Kondo and Johnson in further view of
Asauchi7 for the reasons provided on pages 14–15 of the Non-Final Action.
The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination
of Kondo and Johnson in further view of Ganesan8 for the reasons provided
on pages 15–16 of the Non-Final Action.
Appellant separately argues independent claims 1 and 7 and
dependent claim 4. Appeal Br. 3–9. Therefore, in view of the lack of
arguments directed to the remaining appealed claims, claims 2, 3, 5, and 6
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We consider the
arguments advanced by Appellant in support of patentability of claim 7 to
the extent applicable to the separate rejection of claim 8. We separately
address claims 1, 4, and 7 below.
Claim 1
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Kondo and Johnson discloses a cartridge memory with a
prompt at one memory address for a printer to write a printer identifier to a
second, different memory address when the cartridge is installed in the
printer as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 3. According to Appellant, Kondo
does not disclose a printer prompt because Kondo’s process for writing
cartridge identification information to ROM region 322 in cartridge memory

5 US 2008/0219692 A1, published Sept. 11, 2008.
6 US 2004/0212651 A1, published Oct. 28, 2004.
7 US 2010/0253718 A1, published Oct. 7, 2010.
8 US 2014/0177007 A1, published June 26, 2014.
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

5
32 is from an “external apparatus” rather than from Kondo’s printer. Id. at
4–5 (citing Kondo ¶¶ 33, 34, 38–42, and Figs. 1 (S1–S5), 4).
Appellant concurs that Johnson’s memory 21 includes a memory
address at which printer identifier 14 is stored. Id. at 6. Appellant argues,
however, that “there is no other address in Johnson’s memory 21 with a
prompt to prompt the printer controller to write an identifier 14 to memory
21.” Id. Appellant notes that Johnson discloses that printer 12 queries the
component to determine whether printer identifier 14 stored in component
memory 21 matches the ID for printer 12. If the answer is no, the printer
queries the component a second time to determine whether the component is
new. If the answer to the second query is yes, then the printer writes its own
ID to memory 21 if the answer to the second query is yes. Id. at 6–7 (citing
Johnson ¶¶ 48–50, Fig. 6 (steps 304, 306, 308, 310)). Appellant contends “it
seems likely the printer writes this ID to the same address queried in step
304 –– the address of printer identifier 14 in memory 21”— rather than
another different memory address. Id. at 6.
The Examiner responds that both Kondo and Johnson disclose a
cartridge memory with a prompt at one memory address for a printer to write
a printer identifier to a second different memory address when the cartridge
is installed in the printer. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Kondo discloses
cartridge memory 32 with multiple memory addresses in Figure 3 and a
prompt in S1 of Figure 4 to prompt the controller to write identification
information to a second memory address in S2. Id. (citing Kondo Figs. 3, 4).
The Examiner finds that Kondo’s “external apparatus” is external to the
cartridge and, thus, includes the printer, and that the main CPU of the
printer, which is the only other CPU disclosed in Kondo, communicates with
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

6
the cartridge. Id. (citing Kondo ¶¶ 33, 42, Fig. 2). Kondo’s Figures 3(A) and
4 are shown below:

Figure 3(A) shows the cartridge’s chip 30 with flash memory 32 having
multiple regions including read only memory (ROM) region 322 and Figure
4 is a flow chart showing the steps of writing cartridge identification
information to a ROM region of a flash memory. Kondo ¶¶ 16, 17.
The Examiner finds that Johnson discloses a memory with multiple
memory addresses. Id. at 4 (citing Johnson ¶ 27, Fig. 2 (memory 21)).
Johnson’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

7

Figure 2 is a block diagram of replaceable printer component system 10.
Johnson ¶¶ 7, 18. As shown in Figure 2, printer component 20 comprises
memory 21 which includes at least one printer unique identifier (PUI) 14
and component unique identifier 22. Id. ¶ 27. According to Johnson, PUI
index 84 stores a list of printers for which use with printer component 20 is
authorized. Id.
The Examiner finds that Johnson queries (step 304 prompt) whether
the printer has a unique identifier and discloses a further query in step 308 at
a second memory address. Ans. 5 (citing Johnson ¶ 48, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 (steps
304, 308)). Johnson’s Figure 6 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

8

Figure 6 is a flow diagram of a method of managing a replaceable printer
component tool. Johnson ¶ 11. According to Johnson, step 304 queries
whether a printer unique identifier 14 stored in memory 21 matches the
printer unique identifier of the printer into which printer component 20 is
installed. Id. ¶ 48. Johnson discloses that an affirmative response results in
permitting print jobs and other functions (step 306). Id. ¶ 49. Johnson
describes a negative response resulting in a further query (step 308) as to
whether printer component 20 is a new component that has not been
installed previously on any printer. Id. As shown in Figure 6, regardless of
whether the response to the query of step 308 is affirmative or negative, the
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

9
controller is prompted to write to memory (shown as separate boxes 310 or
322).
The Examiner further finds that Johnson discloses writing a serial
number (S/N) onto the memory of the cartridge in step 322 of Figure 6 if the
step 304 and step 308 queries are negative. Thus the Examiner finds Johnson
discloses an address for a printer identification “prompt” and a separate
address for a printer “identifier” as required by claim 1. Ans. 5.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that Kondo’s “external
apparatus” writes the cartridge identification information to the cartridge
memory chip before the cartridge is installed in an “image forming
apparatus,” therefore, “[i]t makes no sense” for the printer and the “external
apparatus” to be one and the same because if the printer already knows what
it will write and what it will read, it already knows whether or not the
cartridge is suitable for use without writing to or reading from the cartridge.
Reply Br. 1. According to Appellant, what makes sense is that the external
apparatus writes the information and the printer reads the information. Id. at
2 (citing Kondo ¶¶ 33, 42, Figs. 1, 4). Appellant maintains that Johnson’s
printer identifier 14 exists at a single memory address and, therefore, cannot
be both a prompt or a no prompt value at one address and an identification
value at another address. Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting the claims as obvious over the teachings of
Kondo and Johnson. Specifically, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that Kondo discloses a cartridge memory with a prompt at
one memory address for a printer to write identification information to a
second memory address and that Johnson’s replaceable printer component
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

10
comprises a memory address that prompts a printer controller to write a fleet
identifier to a memory address separate from the memory address storing a
prompt, as claim 1 requires. The preponderance of the evidence in this
appeal record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious in view of Johnson. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in
the Answer, including the Response to Argument section, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (noting that 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the
prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art). If the Examiner’s burden is met,
the burden then shifts to the Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with
argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 4) that both
Kondo and Johnson disclose a printer cartridge comprising a memory with
multiple memory addresses. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
findings (id.) that Kondo discloses the main CPU of the printer
communicates with Kondo’s printer cartridge and that S1 in Kondo’s Figure
4 is a prompt to the controller. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

11
finding (id. at 5) that Johnson’s printer controller queries the memory of the
cartridge and is prompted to write a printer identifier to the memory when a
cartridge with the memory is installed in a printer. Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner’s finding (id.) that Johnson discloses multiple queries
are made by Johnson’s controller.
The record supports the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 4) that Kondo
discloses a prompt to write identification information to a second memory
address when the printer cartridge is installed. Kondo ¶ 39, Fig. 4 (S1, S2).
Appellant acknowledges that Kondo discloses a process for writing cartridge
identification information to ROM region 322 in cartridge memory 32 at
paragraphs 33 and 34 and again at paragraphs 38–41. Appeal Br. 4–5.
Kondo further discloses that this command is through disclosed “serial
communications.” Kondo ¶ 33. The record supports the Examiner’s finding
(Non-Final Act. 6) that Kondo’s cartridge and printer controller exchange
information “via three signal lines 5A to 5C so that serial communications
may be carried out there between.” Kondo ¶ 26. Appellant’s assertion
(Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 1–2) that the write to ROM prompt to write the
identification information to the cartridge’s ROM region 322 comes from an
“external apparatus” that is not only external to the cartridge, but excludes
the printer specifically is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence
in this appeal record. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Kondo
uses the term “external apparatus” in one instance as an example for the
function, and therefore is not limiting as to the apparatus itself. Kondo ¶ 33
(“An external apparatus, for example, may send a write-to-ROM command
to the CPU 31 by way of the serial communications.” (emphasis omitted)).
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

12
Appellant’s argument is also not persuasive of error because the
rejection is over the combination of Kondo and Johnson and the Examiner
relies on Johnson for disclosing writing a printer identifier to the memory of
the cartridge. Non-Final Act. 6–7 (citing Johnson ¶¶ 48–53, Fig. 6). The
record supports the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5) that Johnson discloses a
query (prompt) for whether the printer has a unique identifier. Johnson ¶ 48,
Fig. 6 (304). The record also supports the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5) that a
further query in step 308 (Johnson Fig. 6, 308) indicates the query is
subsequent to the query in step 304 and, therefore, has its own memory
location. Appellant’s position (Reply Br. 3) that the Examiner’s finding is
insufficient to establish obviousness by the combination of Kondo and
Johnson is not persuasive of error because it does not adequately show that
Johnson’s printer controller is not set up to write a printer ID to another
memory address or that it would not have been obvious to do so, particularly
in view of Johnson’s memory having multiple memory addresses.
The record also supports the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5) that Johnson
discloses writing a serial number into the memory of the cartridge in
response to a negative prompt that is separate from the identifier located at a
unique address in the memory. Johnson ¶ 51. Appellant asserts that, because
Johnson does not say where in memory 21 the printer writes its own ID at
step 310 shown in Figure 6, the printer “likely” writes this ID to the same
address queried in step 304. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant’s position that the
memory address to which Johnson writes this ID is “likely” to be one of
Johnson’s multiple memory addresses indicates the obviousness of
Johnson’s printer writing to an alternative memory address instead.
Appellant’s argument, therefore, is not persuasive of Examiner error in
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

13
concluding that it would have been obvious from Johnson’s disclosure for
the printer to write to a different memory address.
Moreover, Johnson’s paragraph 51 discloses that printer 12 writes a
serial number into the memory of the printer component at a negative
response prompt (because the printer component had been previously
installed elsewhere) in order to save the information in printer 12 for
tracking the presence of printer component 20 (shown in box 324 of Fig. 6)
and a travel/use history of printer component 20 can be obtained from the
memory of printer component 20 as well (box 322 of Fig. 6). Appellant does
not adequately explain why the same memory location for printer identifier
14 would have been used for tracking the travel/use history of printer
component 20. Nor does Appellant adequately explain why a skilled artisan
would have understood the separate boxes in the Figure 6 flow diagram for
writing printer unique identifiers to be the same memory location rather than
separate memory locations, particularly in view of Johnson’s memory 21
having multiple addresses.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as well as
claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kondo and Johnson.
Claim 4
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 because
Johnson’s disclosure that printer identifier 14 may identify multiple printers
does not disclose that printer identifier 14 is used to identify “a group of
printers owned or operated by a single entity or identified as being subject to
an obligation to limit printing to the group.” Appeal Br. 8. According to
Appellant, “fleet” is “specially defined to cover the commercial situation in
which ‘the parties to a print services contract may wish to limit printing to
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

14
specific cartridges supplied under the contract.’” Id. (quoting Spec. ¶ 13).
Appellant also asserts that Kondo does not disclose a printer identifier
identifying a group of printers because “the only ‘identification information’
described in Kondo is ‘cartridge identification information’, not a printer
identifier.” Id.
The Examiner responds that claim 4 does not recite the term “fleet.”
Ans. 8–9. The Examiner finds that Johnson’s disclosure that a printer
unique identifier uniquely identifies one or more printers for association
with the printer component teaches this claim limitation. Id. at 8 (citing
Johnson ¶ 20). The Examiner further finds that Johnson’s disclosure of a
remote printer management system including one or more printers teaches a
group of printers owned or operated by a single entity or identified as being
subject to an obligation to limit printing to the group. Id. (citing Johnson
¶ 39). The Examiner also finds that Kondo’s identification information is
used to determine the suitability of a cartridge to be used with a specific
printer and ensures that this information is not overwritten. Id. (citing Kondo
¶¶ 6, 32).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 4. Appellant does not dispute the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 8) that Johnson discloses a unique identifier that
represents one or more printers for which use of the printer component is
associated or authorized. Appellant’s assertion that Johnson does not “say[]
anything at all about an ownership entity or an operating entity or an
obligation to limit printing to the group” is based on a “commercial
situation” or purpose. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner’s determination (Non-
Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 8) that Johnson’s disclosure of a unique identifier for a
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

15
group of printers associated with the printer component as well as a remote
printer management system for a group of printers discloses a single
identifier identifying a group of printers owned or operated by a single entity
or identified as subject to a an obligation to limit printing to the group is
supported by the record. Johnson discloses an association of multiple
printers with its printer components and that the purpose of the printer
component comprising a memory that stores an identifier for one or more
printers is to ensure the “authorized” use of the printer component. Johnson
Abstract, ¶ 20. Similarly, Appellant’s printing material cartridge memory
“ensure[s] that a printer will not print with an unauthorized cartridge.” Spec.
¶ 13. Therefore, Johnson’s use of an identifier to associate multiple printers
for the purpose of ensuring “authorized” use with a printing material
cartridge serves the same commercial function as Appellant’s identifier that
“limit[s] printing to the group.” Compare Spec. ¶ 15, with Johnson Abstract.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Kondo and Johnson.
Claim 7
In addition to the arguments presented with respect to claim 1
distinguishing the disclosures of Johnson (Appeal Br. 3–7), which we do not
find persuasive of error as discussed above, Appellant contends that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 because Kondo does not disclose a
single bit one-time programmable region 323 in the cartridge memory that
meets the prompt/no prompt value limitation on the first memory address.
Id. at 7–8. According to Appellant, Kondo’s OTP region 323 is not involved
in writing or reading cartridge identification. Id. at 7. Appellant contends
that Kondo’s cartridge identification information is written to ROM region
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

16
322 and the control program used to write the cartridge information resides
in EEPROM region 324. Id. (citing Kondo ¶ 33). Appellant asserts that
Johnson also does not disclose this limitation because Johnson discloses
only one memory address related to the printer ID. Id. at 7–8.
The Examiner responds that Kondo discloses writing data to other
regions and specifically states that the OTP region 323 may be used to store
an information piece indicating an event occurring only once, such as using
bitwise data to set up a flag. Ans. 5–6 (citing Kondo ¶¶ 30, 31). The
Examiner responds that Johnson also discloses the value limitations of claim
7 because Johnson teaches that “memory 21 optionally comprises a one-time
writable memory so that only one printer unique identifier 14 can be written
to printer component 20 only a single time.” Id. at 6 (quoting Johnson ¶ 28).
The Examiner explains that Johnson’s printer controller queries the cartridge
memory and is prompted to write a printer identifier to the memory when a
cartridge with memory is installed in a printer. Id. at 6–7 (citing Johnson
¶¶ 48–53, Fig. 6).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates that Kondo does not describe a
printer prompt as recited in claim 1, that the same analysis applies to claim 7
which requires a single bit first memory address for a printer identification
prompt with a second address for a printer identifier, that Johnson does not
disclose the elements missing from Kondo, and that Johnson’s controller
does not prompt a memory address different from the address of the printer
identifier. Reply Br. 1–2.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting the claims over the cited prior art references. As
discussed above in connection with claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in
Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

17
the Examiner’s finding that Kondo and Johnson both disclose memory
information being used as a prompt and that Johnson discloses writing
identifier information in response to a prompt that is separate from the
identifier located at a unique address in the cartridge memory. The record
also supports the Examiner’s finding that Kondo discloses that OTP region
323 may be used to store information for a single event with a bitwise data
and that writing data can be to regions other than to ROM region 322.
Kondo ¶¶ 30–31. Therefore, Kondo’s disclosure is not limited to ROM
region 322 for writing Kondo’s cartridge identification information as
Appellant contends (Appeal Br. 7). In a determination of obviousness, a
reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested
to one having ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Labs.,
Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the [prior art] patent
discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any
particular formulation less obvious.”). Moreover, “a reference is not limited
to the disclosure of specific working examples.” In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649,
651 (CCPA 1972) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as well as
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

For these reasons and those the Examiner provides, we uphold the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the cited prior art references.
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).

Appeal 2019-002214
Application 15/819,690

18

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9, 10, 12, 13 103 Kondo, Johnson 1–7, 9, 10, 12, 13

8
103
Kondo, Johnson,
Asauchi
8
11 103 Kondo, Johnson, Ganesan
11
1, 2, 3 101 provisional double patenting
1, 2, 3
Overall Outcome 1–13

AFFIRMED