Reinhold Meconi et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 20212020002858 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 11/885,716 04/11/2008 Reinhold Meconi 05/077 LTS 9020 38263 7590 03/02/2021 ProPat, LLC 1794 Deer Park Lake Road Spruce Pine, NC 28777 EXAMINER LAZARO, DOMINIC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1611 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REINHOLD MECONI and KLAUS SCHUMANN Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 Technology Center 1600 Before RICHARD J. SMITH, JOHN E. SCHNEIDER, and TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHNEIDER, 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 13, 19–21, 24, and 29–38.2 See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).3 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 25, and 26 are pending in the application but have been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 2. 3 This appeal is related to our prior decision in Appeal No. 2017-001994, mailed Aug. 30, 2017. Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 2 We Affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to transdermal therapeutic systems (“TTS”) for the administration of pharmaceutically active substances through the skin. Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 13. A three-layered transdermal therapeutic system (TTS) consisting of an active substance-impermeable backing layer, a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer onto which a flowable active substance-containing preparation has been applied, and a detachable protective layer, wherein said transdermal therapeutic system is free of fibrous constituents and is permeable to light, and the flowable active substance- containing preparation comprises a cationic polymer which is also a constituent of said pressure-sensitive adhesive layer; wherein said backing layer is free of fibers and is permeable to light; wherein said pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is free of fibers and is permeable to light; and, and said flowable active substance-containing preparation was applied by a printing method comprising the step of transferring the flowable active substance-containing preparation onto the fiber-free pressure-sensitive adhesive layer by a distributor plate of an application device, said distributor plate being provided with at least one passage. Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Anhauser US 5,110,599 May 5, 1992 Hoffmann (Hoffmann I) US 4,769,028 Sept. 6, 1988 Hoffmann (Hoffmann II) US 6,264,977 B1 July 24, 2001 Bracht (Bracht I) US 6,689,379 B1 Feb. 10, 2004 Bracht, (Bracht II) US 2004/0096490 A1 May 20, 2004 Gale WO 00/37058 June 29, 2000 REJECTIONS Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or, for pre-AIA, that applicant regards as the invention. Claims 13, 19–21, 24, 29–36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoffmann I in view of Bracht I, Hoffmann II, and Gale. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoffmann I in view of Bracht I , Hoffmann II, and Gale, as applied to Claim 13, 19–21, 24, 29–36, and 38, and further in view of Bracht II and Anhauser. OPINION Indefiniteness Issue The issue with respect to this rejection is whether the Examiner properly concluded that claim 37 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventors regard as their invention. Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 4 Claim 37 depends from claim 13 and includes the limitation that the active substance-containing preparation has a viscosity ranging from 10 to 100 dPa·s. Appeal Br. 49 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that this limitation is indefinite in that the claim does not recite the temperature at which the viscosity is measured. Final Act. 3. Appellant contends that the term is not indefinite when read in light of the Specification. Appeal Br. 36–37. Appellant contends that the Specification teaches that the “printing medium” has a viscosity of from 10 to 100 dPa·s and that the printing is preferably done at room temperature. Id. at 37 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 39–40). Appellant contends that one skilled in the art reading the Specification would understand that the viscosity should be measured at room temperature. Legal Principles “[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). Analysis We have considered the positons of both the Examiner and Appellant and conclude that Appellant has the better positon. Although claim 37 does not recite a specific temperature for measuring the viscosity of the active- substance preparation, the Specification makes it clear that the active- substance preparation is the same as the “printing medium” and that the printing medium is preferably used at room temperature. Spec. ¶¶ 39–40. We agree with Appellant that based on this disclosure, one skilled in the art would measure the viscosity of the preparation at room temperature. Appeal Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 5 Br. 37. We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 37 as indefinite. Obviousness Based on Hoffmann I, Bracht I, Hoffmann II, and Gale Issue The issue with respect to this rejection is whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claims 13, 19–21, 24, 29–36, and 38 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made over Hoffmann I, Bracht I, Hoffmann II, and Gale. The Examiner finds that Hoffmann I teaches a TTS comprising an impermeable backing layer, a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) layer, and a removable cover layer. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that while Hofmann I teaches the use of two reservoir layers, Hoffmann I teaches that they can comprise the same polymer matrix and are supersaturated with the active agent. Id. The Examiner finds that applying the two reservoir layers as taught by Hoffmann I meets the limitation calling for application of active substance preparation to the adhesive layer. Id. at 6–7. The Examiner finds that Hoffmann I teaches the use of cationic polymers in both the adhesive layer and in the active-substance containing preparation. Id. at 7–8. The Examiner finds that Hoffmann I does not expressly teach using a cationic polymer in both the adhesive and active substance layer but that the limitation is taught by implication. Id. at 8–9. The Examiner also finds that Hoffmann I does not teach the opacity or color of the patches nor does it specifically teach that the active agent is nicotine. Id. at 9. The Examiner finds that Bracht I teaches a TTS having an active substance containing composition that contains cationic polymer and is liquid at room temperature. Id. at 9–11. Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 6 The Examiner concludes it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to manufacture Hoffmann I’s transdermal therapeutic system with “reservoir layers (2) and (3)” (Hoffmann I, col. 2, ln. 57-58) and the adhesive layer (Hoffmann I, col. 2, ln. 66) of Hoffmann I’s transdermal therapeutic system (Hoffmann I, col. 2, ln. 47-67 and col. 4, ln. 52, describing Fig. 1) with: a polyacrylate with increased laterial [sic] chains for reduced crystallinity and increased flowability, as disclosed by Bracht I (Bracht I, col. 1, ln. 38-67), and nicotine active, as taught by Bracht I (Bracht I, abstract). One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success since both Hoffman and Bracht I are concerned with similar problems in the art, namely the manufacture of transdermal therapeutic systems (TTSs). Id. at 11 With respect to Hoffmann II, the Examiner finds that Hoffmann II teaches a TTS comprise a pressure sensitive adhesive layer containing a cationic polymer and a nicotine containing layer which contains a cationic polymer and is liquid at room temperature. Id. at 12–13. The Examiner concludes it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to manufacture Hoffmann I’s transdermal therapeutic system with the adhesive layer (Hoffmann, col. 2, ln. 66) of Hoffmann I’s transdermal therapeutic system (Hoffmann I, col. 2, ln. 47-67 and col. 4, ln. 52, describing Fig. 1) as Hoffmann II’s nicotine adhesive preparation (Hoffmann II, col. 7, ln. 7-43, Ex. 1). One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success since both Hoffman and Hoffmann II are concerned with similar problems in the art, namely the manufacture of transdermal therapeutic systems (TTSs). Id. at 14. Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 7 With respect to the limitation calling for the TTS to be permeable to light, The Examiner finds that Gale teaches this limitation. Id. at 15–16. Finally, the Examiner contends that the limitation calling for the TTS to be made using a distributor plate to apply the active-substance containing preparation is a product by process limitation and as such does not impart patentability on the claimed product. Id. at 16–17. Appellant contends that the subject matter of the claims taken as a whole is not taught or suggested by the references. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant contends that neither Hoffmann I nor Gale teaches the use of a flowable active-substance containing preparation. Id. at 13. Appellant also contends that Bracht I requires the use of neutralized polymers and Hoffmann II calls for the incorporation of a fibrous constituent. Id. Appellant contends that the teachings of the references would not lead one skilled in the art to the claimed invention. Id. at 13–14. Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s rejection is conclusory and unsupported. Id. at 15–16. Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly refers to a prior rejection that had been withdrawn. Id. Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to consider the invention as a whole. Id. at 16–26. Appellant contends that one skilled in the art would have followed the teachings of either Bracht I or Hoffmann II and either used neutralized polymers or a fibrous element in conjunction with a flowable active substance preparation. Id. at 17. Appellant contends that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in creating the claimed invention given the teachings of the references. Id. at 17–18. Appellant contends that while Hoffmann I teaches that the reservoir layers can comprise the same polymer system, Hoffmann teaches that the Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 8 active agent content of the layers differs. Id. at 18. Appellant argues that this should be interpreted as teaching two separate reservoirs not a single reservoir as recited in the instant claims. Id. at 19–20. Appellant also points out that in our prior decision, we held that Hoffmann I does not teach a flowable active-substance containing preparation. Id. at 19. Appellant contends that the remaining references do not make up for the deficiencies of Hoffmann. Id. at 20–24. Appellant contends that the Examiner has improperly picked and chosen different elements from the references without regard to the overall teachings of the references, which would have lead away from the claimed invention. Id. at 25–26. Appellant contends that the Examiner has improperly discounted the limitation calling for the application of the active-substance containing preparation using a distributor plate. Id. at 26–30. Appellant contends that the use of a distributor plate ensures adequate distribution of the preparation without resort to adding a fibrous component. Id. at 29. Appellant contends that none of the cited references teaches or suggests the use of a distributor plate. Id. at 27–28. Legal Principles “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 9 though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Analysis Claims 13, 19–21, 24, 29–34, and 36 We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, reasoning on scope and content of the prior art, and conclusions set out in the Final Action and Answer regarding this rejection. We find the Examiner has established a prima facie showing that the subject matter of the claims would have been obvious over Hoffmann I combined with Bracht I, Hoffmann II, and Gale to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made. Appellant has not produced evidence showing, or persuasively argued, that the Examiner’s determinations on obviousness are incorrect. Only those arguments made by Appellant in the Briefs have been considered in this Decision. Arguments not presented in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We have identified claim 13 as representative; therefore, with the exception of claims 35 and 38 which have been argued separately, claims 19–21, 24, 29–34, and 36 fall with claim 13. We address Appellant’s arguments below. Appellant contends that the combined references would not lead one skilled in the art to create a TTS where both the adhesive layer and the active-substance containing preparation contain a cationic polymer and where the active-substance containing preparation is flowable. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant contends that the teachings of Bracht I and Hoffmann II would lead one skilled in the art to use either a neutralized polymer or a fabric to counteract the plasticization that would occur from using a flowable composition. Id. at 14–15. Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 10 We have considered Appellant’s argument and are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in making the rejection. Bracht I teaches the use of polyacrylates in both the adhesive layer and in the active-substance containing preparation. Bracht I, col. 1, ll. 38–67; col. 8, Table 2. Bracht I also teaches that the active-substance containing preparation is solution that would be expected to flow. Id. col. 8, ll. 45–46. While we agree that Bracht I teaches neutralizing the cationic polymer in the adhesive layer, the present claims do not exclude the presence of a neutralizing agent as taught by Bracht I. Claim 13 recites that a pressure- sensitive adhesive layer has a flowable active substance-containing preparation applied thereto, and that “the flowable active substance- containing preparation comprises a cationic polymer which is also a constituent of said pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.” Appeal Br. 43 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). We find that the use of the term comprises is open ended and does not exclude the presence of other materials including a neutralizing agent such as taught by Bracht I. Similarly, Hoffmann II teaches the use of a cationic polymer in both the adhesive layer and in the active-substance containing preparation. Hoffmann II col. 7, ll. 11–39. While we agree with Appellant that Hoffmann II teaches the use of fibers as part of the adhesive layer, Hoffmann also teaches that the use of fabrics is optional. Id. col. 6, ll. 39–46. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection is conclusory and unsupported by the record. Appeal Br. 14–15. We are not persuaded by this argument. In the Final Action, the Examiner gives a detailed analysis of each of the elements in the claims and specific citations to the references. Final Act. 4–18. For example, the Examiner cites to and analyzes Bracht I’s Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 11 teachings with respect to the use of acrylic and methacrylic acid based polymers in TTSs. Id. at 10. Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to consider the invention as a whole in making the rejection. Appeal Br. 16. Specifically, Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to consider “the formation of a TTS containing a flowable active substance-containing preparation, cationic polymer in both the preparation and adhesive, but without fibrous constituents.” Id. at 17. Appellant contends that the Examiner simply picked and chose elements from the references without properly considering the teachings of the references, specifically Bracht I and Hoffmann II. Id. at 25. Appellant reiterates its argument that Bracht I would lead one skilled in the art to use a neutralized polymer and the Hoffmann II would lead one to use fibers in the TTS. Id. Appellant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. As discussed above, claim 13, as presently drafted does not exclude the presence of a neutralizing agent in the adhesive layer but only requires the presence of a cationic polymer. Bracht I teaches the use of cationic polymer in combination with a neutralizing agent in the adhesive layer. Bracht I, col. 1, ll. 38–67; col. 3, ll. 51–63. Bracht I also teaches that the active-substance containing preparation is a solution that is coated onto the TTS teaching a flowable composition. Id. at col. 8, ll. 45–52. Appellant contends that Bracht I teaches away from use of a cationic polymer in that it teaches the use of a neutral polymer. Appeal Br. 22. We are not persuaded by this argument. While Bracht I teaches the use of neutralized polymers, Bracht I achieves this by incorporating a cationic polymer and a neutralizing agent into the adhesive layer. See Bracht I col. 9, Table 3. As discussed above, the claims do not exclude such a composition. Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 12 Appellant also contends none of the reference teaches or suggests the use of a distributor plate to apply the active-substance containing preparation and that the Examiner improperly disregarded this limitation. Appeal Br. 20–26. Appellant contends that the use of the distributor plate ensures adequate distribution of the active ingredient. Id. at 29. We remain unpersuaded. The use of the distributor plate seeks to add a product by process limitation element to the claims in that it defined the TTS by the method used to make the TTS. See Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697. But the recitation of the use of a distributor plate does not impart patentabilty to the claims. See id. Appellant cites to In re Ganero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1969) for the proposition that “if a process limitation is capable of being construed as a structural limitation, then the limitation should be given patentable weight.” Appeal Br. 27. We are not persuaded by this argument. The claim at issue in Ganero recited an “insulation panel . . . consisting essentially of expanded perlite particles which are interbonded one to another by interfusion.” Ganero, 412 F.2d 276, 277 (emphasis added). In other words, Ganero'’s structural limitation recited a feature of the claimed insulation panel. In the present case, the limitation at issue relates to the use of a distributor plate to apply the active-substance containing preparation onto the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer. But the distributor plate is not a component or feature of the claimed TTS. Claims 35 and 38 Claims 35 and 38 have been argued separately. Appeal Br. 30–32. In addition to the arguments presented above, Appellant contends that none of the cited references teaches the incorporation of mixed-acidic triglyceride of Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 13 fractionated coconut fatty acids C8 – Cl0 into the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer. Id. at 30. Appellant contends that to the extent the references teach the use of such compounds, they teach its incorporation into different layers of the TTS. Id. at 31. Appellant also contends that one skilled in the art would know that incorporating a mixed-acidic triglyceride of fatty acids into the pressure-sensitive adhesive would soften the layer rendering it unfit for use. Id. The Examiner responds that Hoffmann II explicitly teaches the incorporation of a mixed-acidic triglyceride of fatty acids into the pressure- sensitive adhesive. Ans. 21–22. The Examiner notes that the composition disclosed in Hoffmann II is similar to that described in the present Specification and would be expected to have the same properties as recited in the Specification. Id. We have considered the position presented by the Examiner and Appellant’s arguments and find that the Examiner has the better position. Hoffmann II clearly teaches the use of a mixed-acidic triglyceride of fatty acids in the pressure-sensitive adhesive. Hoffmann II col. 7, ll. 20–22. As the Examiner points out, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in that the references concern similar products and address similar problems within that art. Ans. 21. Appellant contends that the addition of the fatty acids would render the adhesive layer unfit for use. Appeal Br. 31. Appellant however, has not offered support for this contention, only attorney argument, which is insufficient. Conclusion We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claims 13, 35, and 38 Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 14 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made over Hoffmann I combined with Bracht I, Hoffmann II, and Gale. Claims 19–21, 24, 29–34, and 36 have not been argued separately and therefore fall with claim 13. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Obviousness Based on Hoffmann I, Bracht I, Hoffmann II, Gale, Bracht II, and Anhauser Issue The issue with respect to this rejection is whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 37 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made over Hoffmann I combined with Bracht I, Hoffmann II, Gale, Bracht II, and Anhauser. In addition to the findings recited above, the Examiner finds that Hoffmann I, Hoffmann II, Bracht I, and Gale fail to teach or suggest that the active-substance containing preparation has a viscosity of from 10 to 100 dPa·s. Final Act. 18. The Examiner finds that it would have been within the skill of one in the art to develop such a preparation. Id. The Examiner also finds that Bracht II teaches that the polymer used in the preparation has only a modest thickening action and that Anhauser teaches an active-substance containing preparation having a viscosity of 44 dPa·s at 21°C in a TTS. Id. at 19. Appellant contends that neither of the additional references, Bracht II and Anhauser teaches the use of a distributor plate to apply an active agent to a TTS. Appeal Br. 34–35. Appellant also contends that Anhauser does not teach or suggest the recited viscosity range. Id. at 36. Appellant contends that the viscosity value recited in Anhauser is for the oil used in the active- substance containing preparation and not the preparation as whole. Id. Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 15 We have considered the position advanced by the Examiner and Appellant’s arguments and again find that the Examiner has the better position. As discussed above, the recited distributor plate does not impart patentability on claim 37. With respect to the range of viscosities, we agree with the Examiner that it is well within the skill of the ordinary artisan to make “adjustment[ s] of the amount of nicotine introduced into the system per unit area, or else to adjust to a suitable viscosity for coating with this solution” (Bracht II, par. [0028]) wherein the solution contains nicotine (Bracht I, col. 5, ln. 65 to col. 6, ln. 1 & 4; Bracht II, abstract; Hoffmann II, col. 7, ln. 7-43, Ex. 1) and polymers such as “Eudragit® E” (Bracht II, par. [0028]; Hoffmann II, col. 7, ln. 7-43, Ex. 1). Doing so amounts to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, namely the formulation of a nicotine plaster (Hoffmann II, col. 7, ln. 7-43, Ex. 1; Anhauser, col. 4, ln. 49-51) in producing a transdermal therapeutic system (Hoffmann I, abstract) with a viscosity of 44 dPa/s at 21° C (Anhauser, col. 4, ln. 49-51). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) regarding the obviousness of prior art overlapping claimed ranges. Ans. 24. With respect to the viscosity value recited in Anhauser, we agree with Appellant that it appears to relate to the viscosity of the oil used in the preparation. However, we agree with the Examiner that viscosity is clearly a result-effective variable for obtaining a suitable coating. Bracht II, par. [0028]. Therefore, it would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to adjust (Bracht II, par. [0028]) active-containing reservoir layers (2) and (3) (Hoffmann I, col. 2, ln. 57-58, Fig. 1) and adhesive layer (4) (Hoffmann I, col. 2, ln. 66, Fig. 1) to a suitable viscosity such as 44 dPa/s at 21° C (Anhauser, col. 4, ln. 49-51). Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 16 Ans. 24–25. “[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 (CCPA 1955). We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 37 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made over Hoffmann I combined with Bracht I, Hoffmann II, Gale, Bracht II and Anhauser. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13, 19–21, 24, and 29–38 is Affirmed. More specifically, The rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite is reversed. The rejection of claims 13, 19–21, 24, 29–36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoffmann I in view of Bracht I, Hoffmann II, and Gale is affirmed. The rejection of Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoffmann I in view of Bracht I , Hoffmann II, Gale, Bracht II, and Anhauser is affirmed. Appeal 2020-002858 Application 11/885,716 17 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 37 112 second paragraph Indefiniteness 37 13, 19–21, 24, 29–36, 38 103(a) Hoffmann I in view of Bracht I, Hoffmann II, Gale 13, 19–21, 24, 29–36, 38 37 103(a) Hoffmann I Bracht I , Hoffmann II, Gale, Bracht II, Anhauser 37 Overall Outcome 13, 19–21, 24, 29–38 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation