PLIETH, Waldfried et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2019

13277510 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
13/277,510 10/20/2011 Waldfried PLIETH 27843-1113
OZ-04080-US-1
3743
76656 7590 12/17/2019
Patent Docket Department
Armstrong Teasdale LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
EMPIE, NATHAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2019 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):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WALDFRIED PLIETH, URSULA RAMMELT,
NILS HEBESTREIT, MARTIN STRATMANN,
MICHAEL ROHWERDER, HANS-JURGEN ADLER,
KARIN POTJE-KAMLOTH, EVELIN JAHNE, ANDRIJ PICH,
HERIBERT DOMES, JULIA SCHNEIDER, and
GRAZYNA PALIWODA-PROBESKA
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, 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 31, 33, 34, 38, 40–49, 55, 56, 63, 66–

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as BASF,
Gmbh. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
2
71, 97, 100, 103, 112, and 113. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a process for coating metallic surfaces with
an anti-corrosive composition and drying the composition. See, e.g., claims
31, 97, 100, and 103. The composition includes conductive particles having
an inorganic core coated with a conductive polymer. The conductive
polymer (e.g., polyfuran, polypyrrole, polythiophene) is charged with at
least one anti-corrosive mobile anion (e.g., hexafluorotitanate or
hexafluorozirconate). Id. Claim 31, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
Claim 31. A process comprising:
coating a metallic surface with an anti-corrosive
composition that is a dispersion, wherein the anti-corrosive
composition forms a corrosion resistant coating on the metallic
surface, and
the anti-corrosive composition comprises
(A) at least one water-soluble or water dispersible
organic polymer;
(B) conductive particles comprising an inorganic core
particle coated with a conductive polymer,
wherein the conductive polymer contains at least one
member selected from the group consisting of
polyphenylene, polyfuran, polyphenanthrene,
polypyrrole, polythiophene and polythiophenylene,
wherein the conductive polymer is charged with at
least one anti-corrosive mobile anion selected from
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
3
the group consisting of benzoate, nitrosalicylate,
salicylate, tartrate, hexafluorotitanate,
hexafluorozirconate, an anion based on a vanadium-
containing acid, and tungstate;
(C) water;
(D) optionally at least one organic solvent; and
(E) optionally at least one additive; and
drying the coated metallic surface at a temperature in a
range from 30°C to 80°C.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections.
A. Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. Final Act. 2.
B. Claims 31, 33, 34, 38, 41, 45–49, 55, 66, 67, 69, 70, 97, 100, 103,
and 113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kinlen2 in view of Domes,3 Sinko,4 and
Hartwig,5 as evidenced by Harper.6 Final Act. 4.

2 Kinlen, WO 03/102034 A1, published Dec. 11, 2003.
3 Domes et al., WO 2004/076717 A1, published Sept. 10, 2004. The
Examiner relies on US 2006/0127681 A1, published June 15, 2006 as an
English equivalent without objection by Appellant. Thus, we will cite to the
U.S. document.
4 Sinko et al., US 2004/0149963 A1, published Aug. 5, 2004.
5 Hartwig et al., US 2004/0168748 A1, published Sept. 2, 2004.
6 Harper et al., Plastics Materials and Processes: A Concise Encyclopedia,
Wiley, (2003).
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
4
C. Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kinlen, Domes, Sinko, Hartwig, as evidenced by
Harper and Duc.7,8 Final Act. 4.
D. Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kinlen, Domes, Sinko, Hartwig, as evidenced by
Harper and Pal.9,10 Final Act. 4.
E. Claims 43, 44, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kinlen, Domes, Sinko, Hartwig, as
evidenced by Harper, and further in view of Oka11 and Gros.12
Final Act. 11.
F. Claim 112 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kinlen, Domes, Sinko, and Hartwig, as
evidenced by Harper, and further in view of Paar.13 Final Act. 12.

7 Duc, “The Role of Anions in the Corrosion Protection of Iron and Zinc by
Polypyrrole” PhD Dissertation, Technical University of Dresden (September
4, 2005).
8 The Examiner includes claim 40 and the citation to Duc in the rejection we
list as Rejection B. Because the Examiner only relies on Duc to reject claim
40, we list the rejection separately.
9 Pal, Rheology of Particulate Dispersions and Composites, CRC Press,
(2006).
10 The Examiner includes claim 63 and the citation to Pal in Rejection B, but
because the Examiner only relies on Pal to reject claim 63, we list the
rejection separately.
11 Oka et al., US 6,451,433 B1, issued Sept. 17, 2002.
12 Gros et al., WO 2004/063294 A1, published July 29, 2004. The Examiner
relies on US 2006/0228481 A1, published Oct. 12, 2006 as an English
language equivalent without objection by Appellant. Thus, we cite to the
U.S. document.
13 Paar et al., US 2002/0091195 A1, published July 11, 2002.
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
5
G. Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kinlen, Domes, Sinko, Hartwig, as evidenced by
Harper, in view of Oka and Gros, and further in view of Paar. Final
Act. 13.
H. Claims 38 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kinlen, Domes, Sinko, and Hartwig, as evidenced by Harper,
and further in view of Assaf.14 Final Act. 13.
I. Claims 68 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kinlen, Domes, Sinko, and Hartwig, as
evidenced by Harper, and further in view of Tomono.15 Final Act.
15.

OPINION
Rejection A: Indefiniteness of Claim 46
The Examiner rejects claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 as
indefinite. Final Act. 2.
Claim 46 depends from claim 31 and requires a step of pretreating the
metallic surface prior to claim 31’s step of coating the metallic surface with
an anti-corrosive composition. Claim 46 recites several alternative
pretreating steps one of which is providing the metallic surface with a thin
coating that contains conductive polymer.

14 Assaf, “Inhibiting Effects of Group 6 Oxo-Anions on the Pitting
Corrosion of Tin in Citrate-Chloride Solution,” Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn, 73,
561–568 (2000).
15 Tomono et al., US 5,762,772, issued June 9, 1998.
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
6
The Examiner determines that “thin” is unclear and indefinite because
it is a relative term and the Specification provides no standard for
ascertaining the requisite degree. Final Act. 3.
Appellant relies on page 25, lines 22–29 of the Specification to
support a contention that “[a] person skilled in the art, after reading the
specification of the application would understand the meaning of the term
‘thin.’” Appeal Br. 7–8.
The Specification does not support Appellant’s contention.
The portion of the Specification cited by Appellant introduces four
thicknesses, “ultra-thin, thin, thick or very thick,” and then provides five
example thickness ranges of “from 0.5 to 10 nm, from > 1 to 100 nm, from >
10 to 1000 nm (1 μm), from > 100 nm to 10 μm, or from > 0.5 μm to 50
μm.” Appeal Br. 8, citing Spec. 25 ll. 25–29. The Specification does not
equate “thin” coatings with any of the five recited ranges and the five ranges
overlap each other and are termed example thicknesses.
The Specification does not support Appellant’s contention because the
ranges recited in the Specification do not provide any reasonably clear
boundary for “thin,” but instead indicate that “thin” might mean several
different things. It might be referring to the “from > 1 to 100 nm” range or
the “from > 10 to 1000 nm (1 μm)” range. Or “thin” might not correlate with
the ranges at all. Thus, the claim language is not as reasonably precise as the
circumstances permit. See In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (Affirming an indefiniteness rejection because Packard had been
given the opportunity to bring clarity to his claim language stating that “[i]n
some cases it is difficult enough for courts to construe claims when the
draftsperson has made every effort to be clear and concise, let alone when
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
7
the claims have readily observable ambiguities or incoherencies within
them.”).
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of indefiniteness.
Obviousness

Rejections B–D: The obviousness of claims 31, 33, 34, 38, 40, 41, 45–
49, 55, 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 97, 100, 103, and 113 over Kinlen in view
of Domes, Sinko, and Hartwig, as evidenced by Harper, Pal (for claim
63), and Duc (for claim 40)
Turning to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31, 33, 34, 38, 40, 41,
45–49, 55, 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 97, 100, 103, and 113 as obvious over Kinlen
in view of Domes, Sinko, and Hartwig, as evidenced by Harper, Pal (for
claim 63), and Duc (for claim 40), we note that Appellant does not argue any
claim apart from the others. Appeal Br. 9–12. We select claim 31 as
representative to resolve the issues on appeal.
Appellant’s arguments are directed to the Examiner’s combination of
the teachings of Kinlen with those of Domes, Sinko, and Hartwig. Appeal
Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 1–5. Appellant contends the combinations are made
using impermissible hindsight and that they lack supporting evidence. Id.
After considering the evidence relied on by the Examiner and
Appellant, we determine a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s findings of suggestions within the prior art to make the
necessary modifications to arrive at the claimed invention.
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
8
The Combination with Domes
There is no dispute that, as found by the Examiner, Kinlen teaches a
method of coating a metallic surface with an anti-corrosive composition that
is a dispersion containing a solvent, a curable resin binder system, and a
corrosion responsive agent (CRA), i.e., the formulation of Kinlen is a
dispersive film-forming coating composition. Compare Final Act. 4, with
Appeal Br. 9–12, and Reply Br. 1–5. Domes, Sinko, and Hartwig also
evince that it was known in the art to incorporate anti-corrosive
compositions into various types of dispersive film-forming coatings. See
Domes ¶¶ 1, 128, 130–159, 163 (aqueous dispersion of resin such as
acrylate, epoxide along with anti-corrosion additives silane and chelate);
Sinko ¶¶ 4–5 (inherently conductive polymers (ICPs) used as additives in
paint formulations and known to interact with metal surfaces to inhibit
corrosion); Hartwig ¶¶ 4, 17–18, 34 (teaching adding hexafluorotitanate or
hexafluorozirconate anions as a corrosion inhibitor to paints).
Kinlen’s coating composition is radiation curable and is, for instance,
a UV curable coating composition. Kinlen ¶¶ 29, 59. Kinlen disperses the
corrosion-responsive agent in the radiation curable resin binder system (¶¶
29, 57). Although Kinlen does not particularly limit the radiation curable
binder system, Kinlen teaches a preference for UV curable systems such as
those including oligomers such as epoxy acrylates and diacrylates, urethane
acrylates, polyurethane diacrylates, bisphenol A epoxy acrylates, amine
modified polyether acrylates, aromatic urethane acrylates, polybutadiene
acrylates, polyester acrylates, and mixtures thereof. Kinlen ¶ 60. As a
specific example, Kinlen teaches a urethane acrylate oligomer/acrylate
monomer blend. Kinlen ¶¶ 64, 96.
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
9
Kinlen does not teach drying the coated metallic surface at elevated
temperature and, thus, the Examiner turns to Domes. Final Act. 5. Domes
teaches an aqueous-based coating composition containing silane and metal
chelate as anti-corrosion agents. Domes ¶ 1. Domes’s coating composition,
like Kinlen’s coating composition, may be acrylate-based. Domes ¶¶ 130–
159. Domes advises that the final drying of the films can take days or weeks,
but that curing can be accelerated or intensified by irradiating, e.g., with UV
irradiation, or by heating. Domes ¶ 164. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to heat the coating
composition of Kinlen because elevated temperature would facilitate or
quicken the curing and drying of the coating and the temperature the
ordinary artisan would use would be arrived at through routine optimization.
Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant contends that “there is no evidence that quickening the
curing or [drying] would be beneficial to the coatings disclosed in Kinlen.”
Appeal Br. 10. However, based on the similarities in chemistry between the
two coating formulations and the suggestion in both Kinlen and Domes of
using UV curable coating compositions, a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding. Domes teaches that either heat or UV
radiation will speed curing in particular types of coating compositions.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence that faster curing would not
have been desired when using such compositions.
Appellant contends that different curing methods are not necessarily
interchangeable. Appeal Br. 10–11. Although true, this does not negate the
evidence tending to show that heat would speed curing in the type coating
system used by the prior art.
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
10
The Combination with Sinko
There is no dispute that Kinlen’s coating composition includes a
conductive polymer, such as polyfuran, polypyrrole, or polythiophene, and
that the conductive polymer is doped with an anti-corrosive or corrosion-
inhibiting mobile anion. Compare Final Act. 5, with Appeal Br. 9–12, and
Reply Br. 1–5. The conductive polymers are termed intrinsically conductive
polymers (ICPs). Kinlen ¶ 8. Acknowledging that Kinlen does not teach
coating the ICP onto an inorganic core particle, the Examiner turns to Sinko.
Final Act. 6–7.
The references as a whole evince that it was known in the art to
include conductive particles comprising the salt form of a conductive
polymer, such as polyfuran, polypyrrole, or polythiophene (ICPs), in anti-
corrosive coating compositions. See Kinlen ¶¶ 40–41 (disclosing that the
corrosion-responsive agent (CRA) is the salt of an intrinsically conductive
polymer (ICP) and a corrosion-inhibiting anion); Sinko ¶¶ 4–5 (noting it was
known in the art to use ICPs as additives in paint formulations and
disclosing the salt forms as protective against corrosion in oxidative
environments). According to Sinko, “ICP’s, being reversibly oxidizable and
reducible, interact with metal surfaces to inhibit corrosion. Inherently
conductive forms of ICP’S, i.e. the salt forms, appear to be protective
against corrosion in oxidative environments.” Sinko ¶ 5.
Sinko notes that in reductive, and specifically alkaline environments,
conductive forms of ICPs are not as effective at inhibiting corrosion. Sinko
¶ 5. “Consequently, the inherently conductive state of ICP’s can not [sic] be
preserved in alkaline environments which are typically present in
atmospheric conditions thereby significantly limiting the use of ICP’s in
protective organic primers.” Id.
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
11
Sinko improves upon the ICP by coating the conductive polymer
(ICP) around an inorganic core. Sinko ¶¶ 7–9.
Appellant contends Domes’s organic film forming agent already
includes synthetic resins that are stable at pH values less than or equal to 9
or, in particular, less than or equal to 5, and there would be no motivation for
a person skilled in the art to add something else with the same effect. Appeal
Br. 11 (citing Domes ¶ 167). Appellant further contends that Kinlen is silent
as to pH and there is no suggestion in Kinlen that this would be a desirable
property. Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, the fact that a property
may be useful in some instances does not provide a motivation or suggestion
that it will be useful or desirable in other instances. Id.
Appellant’s arguments lack merit because Sinko articulates a need
“for a conducting ICP that resists conversion to an insulating form when in
the presence of alkaline environments” and teaches an inorganic core that
fulfills this need. Sinko ¶ 5. Sinko’s expressed desire is more than adequate
to provide a reason to make the modification to Kinlen’s conductive ICP
particles. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (“[A]ny
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed.”).
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
finding of a reason to use the inorganic core particles coated with ICP of
Sinko in anti-corrosion coating compositions, particularly those that are used
in alkaline environments.
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
12
The Combination with Hartwig
Although Kinlen does not disclose using an anti-corrosive mobile
anion of the type recited in claim 31, Hartwig teaches incorporating
hexafluorotitanate (TiF6 2-) or hexafluorozirconate (ZrF6 2-) anions into
polymers used in paints to inhibit corrosion. Hartwig ¶¶ 17–18. Given the
desire of Kinlen to produce an anti-corrosion coating composition, a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of a
suggestion to include Hartwig’s hexafluorotitanate (TiF6 2-) or
hexafluorozirconate (ZrF6 2-) anions in an anti-corrosion coating also
including the conductive particles taught by Sinko. Hartwig specifically
discloses that the combination with other known corrosion inhibitors offers
advantages because it results in a product with a broad range of application.
Hartwig ¶ 31.
Appellant contends that the ordinary artisan would only find a reason
to use TiF62- and ZrF62- based on Appellant’s disclosure. Appeal Br. 11. This
argument ignores the teachings of Hartwig and is, thus, not persuasive.

Rejection E: Obviousness of Claims 43, 44, and 63 adding Oka, and
Gros
We now turn to Rejection E, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 43,
44, and 63 as obvious over Kinlen, Domes, Sinko, Hartwig, as evidenced by
Harper, and further in view of Oka and Gros. Final Act. 11.
Claim 63 depends from claim 31 and further requires a step of
“applying to the metallic surface having the corrosion resistant coating
thereon a second composition that is a dispersion and contains a binder
system.”
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
13
In rejecting claim 63, the Examiner relies on Oka as teaching applying
a second composition that is a dispersion and contains a binder system. Final
Act. 11. Appellant contends that Oka’s binders are inorganic binders while
Appellant’s binders are organic. Appeal Br. 12. But it is the two-step coating
application that is relied on by the Examiner. Ans. 7. The Examiner is not
relying on the binder system of Oka.
Appellant contends that “Kinlen, Domes, Sinko or Hartwig are all
silent on the need for an additional binder, and the only motivation to
include a binder comes from the present application.” Appeal Br. 12. This is
incorrect. Kinlen teaches applying multiple coatings containing binder. See,
e.g., Kinlen ¶ 97 (three coating/curing cycles).
Appellant points out limitations recited in claim 43, but does not set
forth an argument that is specific enough to identify a reversible error in the
Examiner’s findings of fact or application of the law.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection.

Rejections F and G: Obviousness of Claims 42 and 112 further in
view of Paar.
We now turn to the Examiner’s Rejections F and G, which add Paar to
reject claims 42 and 112. Final Act. 12–13.
Claims 42 and claim 112 further require the binder system comprise
“at least one organic polymer that is or becomes anionically or cationically
stabilized.”
Appellant acknowledges that Paar discloses the use of a cationically
stabilized epoxy resin as a binder in aqueous coatings. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant contends that “[n]o evidence is provided to suggest that a binder
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
14
would be beneficial or desirable to the coating composition disclosed in
Kinlen, Domes, Sinko or Hartwig” and that “all four cited references are
completely silent on the need for an additional binder, and the only
motivation to include a binder comes from the present application.” Appeal
Br. 12. However, Examiner provides a reason to use the binder of Paar, i.e.,
to provide stability and anti-corrosive properties. Final Act. 13; Ans. 8.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in that finding.

Rejection H: Obviousness of Claims 38 and 56 adding Assaf
To reject claims 38 and 56, the Examiner adds Assaf.
Claim 38 limits the at least one mobile anti-corrosive anion to the
group consisting of TiF62-, ZrF62-, VO42-, WO42-, and WO44-. Claim 56 further
limits the group to VO42-, WO42-, and WO42-.
As the Examiner found in the rejection of claim 31, Kinlen teaches
using molybdate (MoO42-) as a corrosion-inhibiting anion. Final Act. 14;
Kinlen ¶¶ 24, 32. Hartwig provides evidence of the obviousness of using
TiF62- and ZrF62- as corrosion inhibitors and alternatives to chromates and
molybdates. Final Act. 7–8; see also Hartwig ¶¶ 28–29 (showing that TiF62-,
ZrF62-, and molybdates were among the known corrosion inhibitors).
Because Kinlen and Hartwig do not disclose the use of tungstate (WO42-),
the Examiner relies on Assaf as evidence that WO42- was known to function
as a corrosion inhibitor and to support the conclusion that it would have been
obvious to use this known corrosion inhibitor in the corrosion inhibiting
composition. Final Act. 14–15.
Appellant contends that there is no evidence to support the
Examiner’s conclusion. However, the evidence supports a finding that the
various anions were known for their anti-corrosion affects in anti-corrosion
Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
15
compositions including those recited in claims 38 and 56. “The combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at
416. Using the known anions for the known anti-corrosive properties would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a
showing of unexpected results.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection.

Rejection I: Obviousness of Claims 68 and 71 adding Tomono
Appellant does not argue against the Examiner’s Rejection I, i.e., the
rejection of claims 68 and 71 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kinlen, Domes, Sinko, and Hartwig, as evidenced by
Harper, and further in view of Tomono. Final Act. 15. Thus, Appellant has
not identified a reversible error in this rejection.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
46 112 ¶ 2 Indefiniteness 46
31, 33, 34,
38, 41, 45–
49, 55, 66,
67, 69, 70,
97, 100,
103, 113
103(a) Kinlen, Domes,
Sinko, Hartwig,
Harper
31, 33, 34,
38, 41, 45–
49, 55, 66,
67, 69, 70,
97, 100,
103, 113

Appeal 2019-000819
Application 13/277,510
16
40 103(a) Kinlen, Domes,
Sinko, Hartwig,
Harper, Duc
40
63 103(a) Kinlen, Domes,
Sinko, Hartwig,
Harper, Pal
63
43, 44, 63 103(a) Kinlen, Domes,
Sinko, Hartwig,
Harper, Oka, Gros
43, 44, 63
112 103(a) Kinlen, Domes,
Sinko, Hartwig,
Harper, Paar
112
42 103(a) Kinlen, Domes,
Sinko, Hartwig,
Harper, Oka, Gros,
Paar
42
38, 56 103(a) Kinlen, Domes,
Sinko, Hartwig,
Harper, Assaf
38, 56
68, 71 103(a) Kinlen, Domes,
Sinko, Hartwig,
Harper, Tomono
68, 71
Overall
Outcome
31, 33, 34,
38, 40–49,
55, 56, 63,
66–71, 97,
100, 103,
112, 113

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