Reinhold Meconi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2020002858 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

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withdrawn from consideration.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