Paul Picot et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 13, 2020

13321386 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 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.
13/321,386 03/12/2012 Paul A. Picot SMB-027198 US PCT 3365
26294 7590 10/13/2020
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
IP, JASON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2020 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):
docketing@tarolli.com
rkline@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL A. PICOT, MICHAEL M. THORNTON, and
DAVID A. STEINBERG
____________

Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,836
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 5–7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, 25, 37, 41, 43–51, 53, 54,
59–63, 65, 67, 68, 70, and 71, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A telephonic oral
hearing was held September 15, 2020.2

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies ENDRA LIFE SCIENCES INC., as
the real party in interests. Appeal Br. 2.
2 The record includes a transcript of the oral hearing (hereinafter “Tr.”).
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

2
We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 37 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for analyzing soft tissue or vasculature of a
subject, comprising:
(a) coupling an ultrasound transducer to the subject;
(b) delivering to the subject a contrast agent having one
of (i) an increased dielectric absorption that is 1.5-fold to 100-
fold greater than the dielectric absorption of the soft tissue or
vasculature, (ii) a decreased dielectric absorption that is 1.5-fold
to 100-fold less than the dielectric absorption of the soft tissue
or vasculature, (iii) an increased ionic conductivity that is 1.5-
fold to 100-fold greater than the ionic conductivity of the soft
tissue or vasculature, and (iv) a decreased ionic conductivity
that is 1.5-fold to 100-fold less than the ionic conductivity of
the soft tissue or vasculature, the delivered contrast agent
changing the conductivity or permittivity of the soft tissue or
vasculature and as a result changing the radiofrequency or
microwave energy absorption rate of the soft tissue or
vasculature, and the delivered contrast agent being selected
from the group consisting of: a hyperionic solution; a hypo-
ionic solution; an isotonic solution; a hypertonic solution; a
non-ionic solution; an isotonic solution; de-ionized osmolarity-
balanced water; a solution containing safflower oil; an aqueous
solution containing mannitol, dextrose, or glycerol; isotonic
saline; hypertonic saline; hypotonic saline; physiologic saline; a
suspension or colloids that comprise enzyme-modified fats,
maltoextran, malt extract, com sugar, corn syrup, safflower oil,
glycerol, lipids, oils and/or blood substitutes;
(c) irradiating the soft tissue or vasculature with
modulated radiofrequency or microwave electromagnetic
energy pulses to cause the soft tissue or vasculature to generate
a thermoacoustic signal, the pulses having a pulse width in the
range of 1 nanosecond to 10 microseconds;
(d) detecting the thermoacoustic signal using the
ultrasound transducer; and
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

3
(e) processing the detected thermoacoustic signal to
generate a series of images based on the concentration of the
contrast agent in the soft tissue or vasculature over time.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
MacKenzie US 6,403,944 B1 June 11, 2002
Cerofolini US 6,572,548 B2 June 3, 2003
Van Zijl et al. US 2004/0030239 A1 Feb. 12, 2004
Beard US 2005/0150309 A1 July 14, 2005
Filkins US 2007/0015992 A1 Jan. 18, 2007
Kalafut US 2007/0276327 A1 Nov. 29, 2007

Kruger, Robert A. et al., Breast Cancer in Vivo: Contrast
Enhancement with Thermoacoustic CT at 434 MHz—Feasibility
Study, Radiology Vol. 216, No. 1, 279–83 (2000) (hereinafter
“Kruger”)
Jin, Xing et al., Iron-oxide nanoparticles as a contrast agent in
thermoacoustic tomography, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6437, Photons
Plus Ultrasound: Imaging and Sensing 2007, (2007) (hereinafter
“Jin”)
REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 1, 5–7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, 25, 37, 41, 43–51, 53, 54, 59–
63, 65, 67, 68, and 70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, and Jin. Final Act. 10–14.

3 A rejection of claims 1, 4–7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, 25, 37, 41, 43–51, 53, 54,
59–63, 65, 67, 68, 70, and 71 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first
paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement
(Final Act. 10) is withdrawn and is not before us on appeal (Ans. 10–11).
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

4
II. Claims 11, 12, 16, 17, and 46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, Jin,
and Beard. Id. at 14–15.
III. Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, Jin, and Cerofolini. Id. at 15–16.
IV. Claim 47 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, Jin, and Kruger. Id. at 16.
V. Claims 48 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, Jin, and MacKenzie. Id. at
16–17.
VI. Claim 71 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, Jin, and Van Zijl. Id. at 17.

OPINION
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 1, 5–7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, 25, 37, 41, 43–51,
53, 54, 59–63, 65, 67, 68, and 70 as a group. Appeal Br. 11–22. We select
claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 5–7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, 25, 37,
41, 43–51, 53, 54, 59–63, 65, 67, 68, and 70 stand or fall therewith.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Filkins teaches most of the limitations of
independent claim 1, including, among other things, the steps of:
(1) delivering to the subject a contrast agent; (2) irradiating the soft tissue or
vasculature of a subject with energy to cause the soft tissue or vasculature to
generate a thermoacoustic signal; (3) detecting the thermoacoustic signal
using an ultrasound transducer coupled to the subject; and (4) processing the
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

5
detected thermoacoustic signal to generate a series of images based on a
concentration of the contrast agent in the soft tissue or vasculature over time.
Final Act. 11 (citing Filkins ¶¶ 28, 48, and Abstract).
More specifically, the Examiner points to the disclosure in Filkins that
“metal nano-particles may . . . be used as contrast agents.” Ans. 15 (citing
Filkins ¶ 49). The Examiner also points to the disclosure in Filkins that “the
source of stimulation may be radiofrequency or microwaves.” Id. (citing
Filkins ¶ 28). Although the Examiner acknowledges that the disclosure
relating to RF and microwave radiation in Filkins is brief, the Examiner
takes the position that “Filkins is explicitly teaching that the imaging may
also be thermoacoustic, not just optoacoustic.” Id. at 15–16; see also
Tr. 4:9–13 (“As understood by persons having ordinary skill in the art, when
the application source uses RF or microwave excitation, this is referred to as
‘thermoacoustic imaging.’ When the excitation source uses light, such as
infrared, near-infrared, visible, and ultraviolet, this is referred to as
‘photoacoustic imaging’ or ‘optoacoustic imaging.’”). The Examiner further
finds that “[t]he metal nano-particles mentioned by Filkins would clearly
draw contrast to a microwave-based stimulation of the tissue.” Ans. 16; see
also Tr. 7:20–8:25 (Appellant explaining that metal nano-particles would
“absolutely” change the electromagnetic energy absorption of tissue, albeit
via changes in permeability, not necessarily via changes in permittivity or
conductivity) and Filkins ¶ 50 (“[C]ontrast agents may be used to create or
enhance selective absorption of radiation in biological specimens such as
healthy or diseased organs and facilitate acoustic wave generation.”).
The Examiner acknowledges that “Filkins does not explicitly disclose
that the contrast agent changes the permittivity of the soft tissue and as a
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

6
result changes the radiofrequency or microwave energy absorption rate of
the soft tissue.” Final Act. 11 (emphasis added). The Examiner instead
finds that “Kalafut teaches that contrast agents can have an appreciable
complex permittivity difference from tissue and that permittivity can govern
how an electromagnetic wave will propagate through a substance such as
subcutaneous tissue.” Id. (citing Kalafut ¶ 36). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious “to apply the radiation as taught by Filkins,
as to provide a wide range of electromagnetic frequencies, and the contrast
agent of Kalafut to the system of Filkins, [so] as to provide agents which
alter tissue in known ways.” Id.
The Examiner further explains that “Kalafut provides information on
how contrast agents work when used in tissue, and specifically, how the
property of permittivity of a contrast agent compares to the tissue in which it
resides and how propagation of an electromagnetic wave would be affected.”
Final Act. 9. The Examiner additionally explains that “[t]he claim limitation
in question recites a relationship between permittivity and energy
absorption,” and “[a] contrast agent which bears an ‘appreciable complex
permittivity difference from tissue’ as taught by Kalafut, is a contrast agent
which may be used in the system of Filkins.” Id.
The Examiner acknowledges that neither Filkins nor Kalafut explicitly
discloses a contrast agent specifically having one of: (i) an increased
dielectric absorption that is 1.5-fold to 100-fold greater than the dielectric
absorption of the soft tissue or vasculature; (ii) a decreased dielectric
absorption that is 1.5-fold to 100-fold less than the dielectric absorption of
the soft tissue or vasculature; (iii) an increased ionic conductivity that is 1.5-
fold to 100-fold greater than the ionic conductivity of the soft tissue or
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

7
vasculature; and (iv) a decreased ionic conductivity that is 1.5-fold to 100-
fold less than the ionic conductivity of the soft tissue or vasculature, and
being selected from the group consisting of: a hyperionic solution; a hypo-
ionic solution; an isotonic solution; a hypertonic solution; a non-ionic
solution; an isotonic solution; de-ionized osmolarity-balanced water; a
solution containing safflower oil; an aqueous solution containing mannitol,
dextrose, or glycerol; isotonic saline; hypertonic saline; hypotonic saline;
physiologic saline; a suspension or colloids that comprise enzyme-modified
fats, maltoextran, malt extract, com sugar, corn syrup, safflower oil,
glycerol, lipids, oils and/or blood substitutes. Final Act. 11–12. The
Examiner instead finds that “Jin teaches a contrast agent with dielectric
properties which would produce contrast in a thermoacoustic image . . . and
that a contrast agent is diluted with water.” Id. at 12 (citing Jin, 4–6, Fig. 3).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to apply the
contrast agent of Jin to the systems of Filkins and Kalafut, as to provide
exogenous contrast to a thermoacoustic image.” Id.
Appellant argues that “Filkins does NOT relate to thermoacoustic
imaging.” Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that “Filkins
actually describes photoacoustic imaging.” Id. at 16; see also id. at 17
(“Filkins simply does not enable thermoacoustic imaging and this is
highlighted by the fact that Filkins does not mention or hint at conductivity
or permittivity as parameters for gauging image effectiveness or contrast.
The imaging modalities of photoacoustics/optoacoustics as taught by Filkins
and thermoacoustics as described and claimed in the subject patent
application are substantially different.”). Appellant argues that the “reliance
upon Filkins to reject independent claim 1 (and similarly independent claim
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

8
37) is improper as Filkins in no way relates to thermoacoustic imaging.” Id.
at 18.
Appellant’s Specification describes that “[t]hermoacoustic imaging
uses short pulses of electromagnetic energy to heat absorbing features within
an object rapidly, which in turn induces an acoustic pressure wave that can
be detected using acoustic receivers. These acoustic waves are analyzed
through signal processing, and further processed for presentation and
interpretation by an operator.” Spec. 1:19–23. Appellant’s Specification
further states that “[t]hermoacoustic imaging, a general term encompassing
photoacoustic, optoacoustic, and photothermoacoustic imaging, is a field of
technology used in characterizing and imaging materials based on their
electromagnetic absorption and thermal properties.” Spec. 9:1–4.
Filkins similarly describes that “[o]ptoacoustic imaging techniques
typically use electromagnetic signals to generate acoustic waves from an
object of interest, which is then measured and processed to retrieve
information about the object imaged.” Filkins ¶ 2; see also id. ¶ 23
(“Optoacoustic imaging techniques typically uses an electromagnetic
excitation signal, which is directed at an object. Absorption of radiation by
the object results in heat output, leading to a rise in temperature locally,
causing thermal expansion. The thermal expansion leads to the generation
of pressure waves or acoustic waves, which propagate outward from the
source of the heating. The acoustic wave generated is both a function of the
material properties of the object, as well as the wavelength optical signal
used to generate the acoustic wave. A receiver detects the time, magnitude
and shape of the received acoustic waves, which are then measured and
processed to retrieve information on the structural and compositional
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

9
features of the object.”). Filkins explicitly references “electromagnetic
radiation wavelengths [that] may fall in the radio frequency region,
microwave region . . . of the electromagnetic spectrum.” Id. ¶ 28. The
Examiner states that “both thermoacoustic and photoacoustic measurements
stem from the same principle of detecting acoustic pressure waves that are
generated by stimulating an object with an electromagnetic wave” and “[t]he
electromagnetic wave may be in the microwave region or other visible/non-
visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and this is known in the art.”
Final Act. 5. In light of the foregoing Appellant has not persuaded us that
“Filkins in no way relates to thermoacoustic imaging.” Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant argues that “Filkins relies on a contrast mechanism that
does NOT involve changing the conductivity or permittivity of the soft
tissue or vasculature, and as a result, changes the radiofrequency or
microwave energy absorption rate of the soft tissue or vasculature.” Appeal
Br. 16 (emphasis omitted). In particular, Appellant argues that all of the
specific contrast agents of Filkins are “optical absorbing dyes [that] are
active in the infrared, near infrared and visible wavelengths” and “are not
active in the radiofrequency and microwave wavelengths.” Id. Appellant
argues that these “optical absorbing dyes . . . would NOT yield the desired
image contrast in the radiofrequency/microwave wavelengths referenced by
Filkins in paragraph [0028].” Id. (emphasis omitted).
Although Appellant may be correct that Filkins does not disclose
specifically a contrast agent that changes conductivity or permittivity of the
soft tissue or vasculature, the Examiner does not rely on Filkins for such a
teaching. Appeal Br. 16. Rather, the Examiner acknowledges that Filkins
“does not explicitly disclose that the contrast agent changes the permittivity
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

10
of the soft tissue and as a result changes the radiofrequency or microwave
energy absorption rate of the soft tissue,” and instead the Examiner’s
rejection is based on modifying the contrast agents of Filkins to that
disclosed by Kalafut. Final Act. 11. Appellant acknowledges that “Kalafut
describes injecting a less toxic fluid such as saline into the body having a
permittivity different from tissue” (albeit “during a pre-non-imaging
procedure solely to determine if extravasation of the fluid occurs”) and “two
antennas are employed to transmit and receive RF and a bulk measurement
is made based on RF transmission through the subject only.” Appeal Br. 19;
see also Kalafut ¶¶ 20–21, 35 (describing a first sensor including a
transmitting antenna to transmit electromagnetic energy (e.g., microwave
energy) and a receiving antenna to receive a resultant signal that is
proportional to permittivity changes in tissue in order to detect permittivity
changes in tissue). Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner’s
findings regarding the teachings of Filkins that are relied on in the
articulated rejection are erroneous.
Appellant also argues that “Kalafut is not analogous prior art and
cannot be properly combined with Filkins to form an obviousness rejection.”
Appeal Br. 18. More specifically, Appellant argues that Kalafut describes
injecting a less toxic fluid such as saline into the body during a pre-non-
imaging procedure (e.g., an injection) in order to determine if extravasation
of the fluid occurs before injecting a more toxic substance such as contrast
agent during CT and other imaging procedures. Id. at 19 (citing Kalafut
¶ 64). Appellant argues that “[a]n inventor, faced with the problem solved
by the claimed subject matter, would not look to Kalafut” for this reason. Id.
at 18.
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

11
The established precedent of our reviewing Court sets up a two-fold
test for determining whether art is analogous: “[‘](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 the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved.”’ In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Examiner
responds to Appellant’s argument by stating that “[b]oth Filkins and Kalafut
are directed to contrast enhanced imaging and thus belong within a similar
field of endeavor.” Ans. 17. Appellant has not persuasively presented
arguments and evidence to refute the Examiner’s position that Kalafut is in
Appellant’s field of endeavor.
Appellant further argues that “there is no teaching, suggestion, or
motivation in the prior art to combine Filkins with another reference to reject
independent claim 1 (and similarly independent claim 37).” Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant states that “[t]he Examiner is picking from Kalafut to support the
obviousness rejection while disregarding the teachings of Kalafut as a
whole.” Id. at 19. More specifically, Appellant argues that “Kalafut’s
discussion surrounding permittivity relates to determining if
permittivity/fluid level in the tissue has changed indicating extravasation,”
rather than suggesting “using a contrast agent during imaging that changes
the conductivity or permittivity of soft tissue or vasculature to change the
radiofrequency or microwave energy absorption rate of the soft tissue or
vasculature, for the purpose of thermoacoustic imaging.” Id. at 19, 20
Appellant suggests that “the Examiner’s combination of Filkins and Kalafut
is based on impermissible hindsight.” Id. at 19.
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

12
To the extent that Appellant is insisting on an explicit teaching,
suggestion, or motivation in Filkins or another reference for the Examiner’s
proposed modification, such an argument has been foreclosed by the
Supreme Court. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 419
(2007) (stating that a rigid insistence on teaching, suggestion, or motivation
is incompatible with its precedent concerning obviousness). Rather, the
Court requires that we look to whether the Examiner has provided “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
As to the argument that the Examiner is improperly disregarding the
teachings of Kalafut as a whole and impermissibly relying on hindsight in
formulating the rejection, we are not persuaded of error by the Examiner.
Filkins discloses that absorption of radiation by an object leads to a rise in
temperature, and ultimately leads to the generation of acoustic waves that
can be processed to determine the structural and compositional features of an
object and that “[c]ontrast agents . . . may be preferentially absorbed by
certain parts of the biological object and can be preferentially excited” or
that “contrast agents can be used to create or enhance selective absorption of
radiation.” Filkins ¶¶ 23, 50. Kalafut discloses that “permittivity . . .
govern[s] how an electromagnetic wave will propagate through a substance”
and “[s]ome fluids . . . such as . . . contrast agents can have an appreciable
complex permittivity difference from tissue.” Kalafut ¶ 36. When
considering these disclosures, the Examiner has explained adequately that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a
contrast agent like the metal nano-particles of Filkins that change absorption
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

13
of radiation of tissue for thermoacoustic imaging (in light of the disclosure
of Filkins of the emission of electromagnetic radiation in the radio frequency
and microwave regions) to the contrast agent of Kalafut because Kalafut’s
contrast agent would also have a known and detectable effect on tissue (i.e.,
a change in how the electromagnetic wave will propagate through the tissue)
including when subjected to microwave radiation. The fact that Kalafut
does not use contrast agents to generate thermoacoustic signals that may be
detected with an ultrasound transducer in order to generate images based on
the concentration of contrast agent in tissue (Appeal Br. 19) does not
necessarily identify a flaw in the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for
modifying the contrast agent of Filkins to that disclosed by Kalafut.
Moreover, Appellant does not point to any knowledge relied on by the
Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that was
not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any
judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based
upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only
from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).
We have also considered Appellant’s argument that there is “no
motivation for one having ordinary skill in the art to replace the optical
absorbing dyes of Filkins with the saline injection of Kalafut,” and that “[t]o
replace the optical absorbing dyes of Filkins, or to abandon the optics-based
approach of Filkins completely, would be a complete change in the principle
of operation of Filkins and/or would render it inoperable for its intended
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

14
purpose.” Appeal Br. 20. We do not find such argument persuasive
because, as explained above, the disclosure of Filkins is not limited only to
optical absorbing dyes, but contemplates, albeit briefly, the use of a contrast
agent including metal nano-particles and the utilization of electromagnetic
energy in the radiofrequency region and microwave region. In this way,
replacement of the contrast agent of Filkins with one that is not an optical
absorbing dye cannot be said to be a change in the principle of operation of
Filkins because Filkins already explicitly contemplates a contrast agent other
than optical absorbing dyes.
Appellant asserts that “[t]he addition of Jin to the combination of
Filkins, and Kalafut does not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of
Filkins and Kalafut” and “[a]s a result, the combination of Filkins, Kalafut,
and Jin does not disclose, teach or suggest the Appellant’s claimed invention
and . . . the combination remains improper.” Appeal Br. 21. This argument
solely relates to the perceived deficiencies in the combination of Filkins and
Kalafut. Because we have not been persuaded of such deficiency in the
combination of Filkins and Kalafut for the reasons discussed above, we are
not persuaded by this argument.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s determination that Filkins, Kalafut, and Jin render obvious
the subject matter of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and claims 5–7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, 25, 37, 41, 43–51, 53,
54, 59–63, 65, 67, 68, and 70 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, and Jin.
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

15
Rejections II–VI
In contesting the rejections of dependent claims 11, 12, 16, 17, 45–49,
and 71, Appellant relies on the same arguments and reasoning we found
unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1 as the basis for seeking
reversal of these rejections. Appeal Br. 22–30. Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 1, we also
sustain the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of (i) claims 11, 12, 16, 17,
and 46 as unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, Jin, and Beard; (ii) claim 45 as
unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, Jin, and Cerofolini; (iii) claim 47 as
unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, Jin, and Kruger; (iv) claims 48 and 49 as
unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, Jin, and MacKenzie; and (v) claim 71 as
unpatentable over Filkins, Kalafut, Jin, and Van Zijl.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–7, 9–12,
14, 16–19,
25, 37, 41,
43–51, 53,
54, 59–63,
65, 67, 68, 70
103(a) Filkins, Kalafut, Jin 1, 5–7, 9–12,
14, 16–19, 25,
37, 41, 43–51,
53, 54, 59–63,
65, 67, 68, 70

11, 12, 16,
17, 46
103(a) Filkins, Kalafut,
Jin, Beard
11, 12, 16, 17,
46

45 103(a) Filkins, Kalafut,
Jin, Cerofolini
45
47 103(a) Filkins, Kalafut,
Jin, Kruger
47
48, 49 103(a) Filkins, Kalafut,
Jin, MacKenzie
48, 49
Appeal 2019-007019
Application 13/321,386

16
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
71 103(a) Filkins, Kalafut,
Jin, Van Zijl
71
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–7, 9–12,
14, 16–19, 25,
37, 41, 43–51,
53, 54, 59–63,
65, 67, 68, 70,
71

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