RESMED PTY LTD

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2021003741 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 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.
16/346,329 04/30/2019 Christian BAYER PTB-4398-1975 9278
23117 7590 07/01/2021
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
SIPPEL, RACHEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN BAYER,
BERND CHRISTOPH LANG, MARK BERTINETTI,
JOHANN SERBASTIAN BURZ, ROBERT EIBL,
MARTIN KASPARBAUER, ANDREAS KIRCHBERGER,
JOHANNES NICKOL, and JENS ROTHFUSS

Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, 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 1–17 and 20–30, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1 (Office Action
Summary). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

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 “ResMed
Pty Ltd.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to one or more of the detection,
diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of respiratory-related
disorders.” Spec. ¶ 2. Apparatus claims 1, 15, and 17 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A water reservoir for an apparatus for humidifying a flow
of breathable gas, the water reservoir constructed and arranged
to removably engage with a heater plate of the apparatus when
in an operative position to provide heat to a volume of liquid in
the water reservoir, the water reservoir comprising:
a reservoir base including a cavity structured to hold the
volume of liquid; and
a thin film provided to the reservoir base,
wherein the thin film comprises a direct, non-removable
and sealed connection with the reservoir base so as to form at
least a portion of the reservoir base for holding the volume of
liquid,
wherein the thin film is adapted to removably and
thermally engage with the heater plate when the water reservoir
is in the operative position to allow thermal transfer of heat
from the heater plate to the volume of liquid in use,
wherein the thin film includes a first side adapted to form
a bottom interior surface of the water reservoir exposed to the
volume of liquid and a second side, opposite to the first side,
wherein the second side of the thin film is adapted to
form a bottom, exposed exterior surface of the water reservoir
exposable to the heater plate to allow removable and thermal
engagement with the heater plate when the water reservoir is in
the operative position,
wherein the thin film comprises a non-metallic material,
and
wherein the thin film includes a wall thickness less than 1
mm.
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

3
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Carden US 4,201,737 May 6, 1980
Thudor et al. (“Thudor”) US 2003/0066526 A1 Apr. 10, 2003
Mayer et al. (“Mayer”) US 7,096,864 B1 Aug. 29, 2006
Row et al. (“Row”) US 2010/0147299 A1 June 17, 2010
Bayer et al. (“Bayer”) US 2015/0030317 A1 Jan. 29, 2015
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–16, 23–25, and 27–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Carden and Bayer.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Carden, Bayer, and Mayer.
Claims 17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Thudor and Bayer.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Thudor, Bayer, and Row.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–16, 23–25, and 27–30
as unpatentable over Carden and Bayer
Appellant separately addresses independent claims 1 and 15, but
Appellant’s statements regarding claim 15 note previous sections pertaining
to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–16. Appellant also addresses dependent claims
2, 5, 12, 16, and 27. See Appeal Br. 21–22. However, regarding claims 5
and 16, Appellant simply references previous sections pertaining to claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 21, 22. Accordingly, we select claims 1, 2, 12, and 27 for
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

4
review, with claims 3–11, 13–16, 23–25, and 28–30 standing or falling with
claim 1 or claim 27. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Claim 1
The Examiner relies primarily on Carden for disclosing many of the
recited limitations of claim 1, including “water reservoir 12,” “heater plate
42,” and “thin film 20.” Final Act. 3 (citing Carden 4:37–40). However, the
Examiner acknowledges that Carden “is silent” regarding the thin film
comprising “a non-metallic material in direct, non-removable connection
with the reservoir base having a wall thickness less than 1 mm.” Final Act.
4. The Examiner relies on Bayer for such teachings and references Bayer’s
“thin film (lining 7),” “heater 6,” “reservoir base 4 [0007],” and “non-
metallic material (silicone [0040]).” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 16.
Regarding the recited thickness, the Examiner references paragraph 13 of
Bayer, which states “[t]he lining preferably has a thickness between 0.5 mm
and 5 mm.” See Final Act. 4. The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious “to modify Carden’s film material with a non-metallic material . . .
as taught by Bayer, for the purpose of providing an alternate conducting
material, connection and thickness.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner states that
doing so would “hav[e] the predictable results of allowing for heat transfer.”
Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 18.
Appellant initially contends, “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion to
modify Carden in view of Bayer,” and especially “to include a thin film
comprising a direct, non-removable and sealed connection with the
reservoir base.” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 1. Appellant’s premise for this
argument is that “Carden lacks any express teaching or suggestion . . . and
lacks any reason or motivation to include a thin film . . . as suggested by the
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

5
Final office action.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added); see also id. at 12
(“Carden is devoid of any reason or motivation to modify its current
arrangement”). Appellant’s argument appears to be holding the Examiner to
a standard not required. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
415 (2007). In other words, Carden is not required to provide the
Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Carden’s film material, in view of
Bayer. Rather, the Examiner must articulate reasoning with rational
underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring
an obviousness conclusion to be based on explicit articulated reasoning with
rational underpinning) cited with approval in KSR. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
418.
In the matter before us, and as expressed above, the Examiner stated
that the combination was obvious because it “provid[ed] an alternate
conducting material, connection and thickness” as taught by Bayer, and
further, that the combination would “hav[e] the predictable results of
allowing for heat transfer.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 18. Appellant does
not dispute that the proposed combination, indeed, provides “an alternate”
arrangement, nor does Appellant challenge that the implementation of this
alternate would fail to “allow[] for heat transfer.” Final Act. 4.
We further note that Carden’s transfer plate 20 and Bayer’s film 7 are
both the sole layer between the heater and the water in the reservoir. See,
e.g., Carden Fig. 5; Bayer Figs. 5–8. The Examiner references this stating
that the combination of Carden and Bayer is proper because “Bayer is
applied to teach a thin film comprising a direct, non-removable and sealed
connection with the reservoir base [0007].” Ans. 13. Appellant, however,
contends that “the removable closure assembly of Carden already includes a
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

6
seal (i.e., gasket 22), and that there is no teaching or suggestion that an
additional seal may be required.” Reply Br. 2. This contention does not
apprise us of error, because the Examiner has stated that “the modification
made by the examiner does not eliminate the use of cap ring 18 and gasket
22.” Ans. 15. Instead, as per the Examiner, “the cap ring 18 and gasket 22
remain” (Ans. 15) because the Examiner is only modifying Carden’s film 20
with an alternate material having predictable results. See Final Act. 4. As
such, Appellant’s focus on other components is not persuasive of Examiner
error on this point.
Appellant further challenges the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 7
of Bayer stating that this paragraph “fails to teach or suggest that an
adhesive could or would enhance sealing.” Reply Br. 2; see also id. at 3, 5.
We disagree. Paragraph 7 of Bayer discusses “perfect sealing” of the film to
the reservoir to avoid “any creep flow of liquid.” Paragraph 7 of Bayer
further states that such sealing can be accomplished “by means of adhesive
or any other fastening systems.” The Examiner further states that “the
addition of an adhesive . . . would appear to only enhance the desired seal
between Carden’s film and reservoir.” Ans. 14; see also id. at 15. In view
of this, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in relying on paragraph 7 of
Bayer for such teachings.
Appellant additionally addresses the recited requirement of a “direct”
connection comprised by the thin film with the reservoir base, stating “if an
adhesive is added between the thin film and the reservoir base . . . then the
alleged thin film 20 of Carden does not include a ‘direct’ connection to the
chamber 16.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s contention seems to contradict
Appellant’s Specification. For example, paragraph 178 of Appellant’s
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

7
Specification states, “the film 5152 may be pre-formed and then secured to
the base bottom plate 5148, e.g., by adhesives or welding.” It is not
explained how Appellant’s use of an adhesive for securement purposes still
provides the requisite “direct” connection, yet when a similar use of
adhesive is employed by others, there is no “direct” connection. The
Examiner further explains that “both Carden and Bayer teach reservoirs in
direct contact with a heater and that include thin films for heat transfer
between the heater and water.” Ans. 17. We are not persuaded of Examiner
error on these points.
Appellant further states that Bayer’s lining “is never removed from
the heating element” and thus is not “applicable to a reservoir that is
removably engageable with a heater plate such as Carden.” Reply Br. 2; see
also Reply Br. 3 (regarding Bayer, “there is no evidence on the record
supporting the Examiner’s conclusion that the lining 7 could or would
comprise a removable structure from the heating element”), 4. To be clear,
the Examiner relies on Carden for teaching removability or separation
between the thin film and the heater. See Final Act. 3 (“the water reservoir
constructed and arranged to removably engage with a heater plate 42 of the
apparatus”); see also Carden Fig. 4. As stated earlier, the Examiner is
modifying “Carden’s film material with” that of Bayer (Final Act. 4) and
there is no indication that Bayer’s replacement material is to operate any
differently. We are not persuaded of Examiner error on this point.
Appellant also alleges that “Carden’s apparatus includes specific
features” (i.e., “heat transfer place 20, cap ring 18, and gasket 22”) and that
the Examiner’s combination “would eliminate the use of cap ring 18 and
gasket 22.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends that
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

8
the elimination of these two items would render Carden’s “reservoir 12
inoperable for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner is silent
as to (i.e., does not require) the elimination of such items from the
combination, and addresses instead only the modification of Carden from
“Carden’s film material” to Bayer’s “non-metallic material.” Final Act. 4.
Hence, Appellant’s contention seeking to extend the Examiner’s
modification to additionally include structure not mentioned or alluded to by
the Examiner is not persuasive the Examiner erred when setting forth the
rejection of claim 1 based upon the combination of Carden and Bayer.
Appellant also contends that there is no teaching or suggestion “to
include a thin film comprising a non-metallic material.” Appeal Br. 12;
see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant relies on the same premise that “Carden
lacks any express teaching or suggestion . . . and lacks any reason or
motivation” for the combination identified by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 12;
see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant further contends that Carden “fails to teach
or suggest that its heat transfer plate 20 could or would comprise a non-
metallic material.” Appeal Br. 13. These contentions are not persuasive for
the same reasons expressed above, and further because Bayer teaches the use
of an alternative thin film made of silicone through which heat is transferred
between the heater and the reservoir’s water. See, e.g., Bayer ¶¶ 5, 7, 8–10;
Ans. 16. Appellant does not explain how this is not a suitable “alternate”
material. Final Act. 4.
Appellant further states that “Carden’s heat transfer plate 20
comprises a specific shape” which is lacking in Bayer. Appeal Br. 13; see
also Reply Br. 4. However, Appellant does not identify where a specific
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

9
shape is recited in claim 1 such that this limitation may be lacking in the
Examiner’s analysis involving the combination of Carden and Bayer.
Additionally, Appellant contends that Bayer fails to teach that “lining
7 could or would comprise a separate and removable structure from the
heating element 6.” Appeal Br. 13. As noted above, the Examiner is relying
on Carden’s teaching of the separateness or the removability vis-a-vis the
bottom of the reservoir and the heater, not Bayer. See Final Act. 3 (finding
that Carden teaches “the water reservoir constructed and arranged to
removably engage with a heater plate 42 of the apparatus”). As such,
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant further contends there is no teaching or suggestion “to
include a thin film including a wall thickness less than 1 mm.” Appeal
Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 4. After again (unpersuasively) contending that
“Carden lacks any express teaching or suggestion” as employed above,
Appellant states that in Bayer, “[s]uch ‘lining’ is never removed from the
heating element 6, and therefore never forms a bottom, exposed exterior
surface of the water reservoir as claimed.” Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply
Br. 4–5. Here, Appellant is relying on how Bayer employs lining 7, and
does not address how the Examiner is employing this liner in the manner
disclosed by Carden. Hence, Appellant’s focus on how Bayer employs this
liner and not how the Examiner is employing it, is not indicative the
Examiner erred when applying Bayer’s teachings to Carden.
Appellant also contends that “Bayer fails to teach any exemplary
thickness” for a film that is “adapted to removably and thermally engage
with a heater plate.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant is arguing the art
individually since the Examiner is relying on Bayer for teaching a heat
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

10
transfer material of the requisite thickness (see Bayer ¶ 13) and on Carden
for teaching the separation or removal of the heat transfer material from the
heater. See Final Act. 3, 4. As instructed by our reviewing court, non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant also contends that “[t]here is no reason or motivation to
combine Carden and Bayer.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant contends that
“Carden includes a different reservoir arrangement than Bayer” and that “[i]t
is impermissible to simply pick and choose missing aspects from Carden in
Bayer and exclude the remaining elements in Bayer.” Appeal Br. 15.
Regarding the contention addressing picking and choosing, the Supreme
Court has provided guidance on this point stating:
For over a half century, the Court has held that a “patent for a
combination which only unites old elements with no change in
their respective functions ... obviously withdraws what already
is known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the
resources available to skillful men.” Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152–
153, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950). This is a principal
reason for declining to allow patents for what is obvious. The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16; see also Ans. 18. In other words, the Examiner
has relied on relevant teachings in the references, and Appellant does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or reasoning.
Regarding Appellant’s contention addressing the exclusion of “the
remaining elements in Bayer” (see above), this contention is not persuasive
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

11
because “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, we are not apprised of error
in the Examiner’s reliance on Bayer for teaching an alternative film material.
Appellant further contends, “there is no evidence that modifying
Carden to include aspects of Bayer’s lining would even be operable for its
intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant alleges that such
modifications “may effect its durability, heating efficiency, cleanability,
etc.” Appeal Br. 16. Even assuming arguendo that the combination is less
durable, less efficient, and more difficult to clean, none of these
consequences would result in the failure of the combination to warm the
reservoir’s water, only that it may do so less proficiently. Obviousness
“does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a
suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.” Par Pharm.,
Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The
Examiner responds stating, “[t]his argument is not taken well since it is
unclear how the durability, heating efficiency and cleanability, etc. would be
affected since no details regarding this argument have been provided.” Ans.
22. In short, Appellant’s hypothetical attorney argument is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over Carden and
Bayer. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim along with claims
3–11, 13–16, and 23–25.
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

12
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites a wall thickness is
less than 0.5 mm. See Appeal Br. 24 (Claims Appendix). Appellant
contends that “Bayer lacks any express teaching or suggestion” on this point.
Appeal Br. 21. Indeed, paragraph 13 of Bayer teaches “a thickness between
0.5 mm and 5 mm,” but not “less than 0.5 mm” as recited. The Examiner
notes this distinction but states that it would have been obvious to modify
the thickness accordingly because “it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum
or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.” Final Act. 4–5;
see also Ans. 23. The Examiner then concludes that “it appears that a
thickness of less than 0.5 mm would perform equally as well at providing
heat conductance.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 23.
Appellant does not dispute this finding or conclusion by the
Examiner, only that “Bayer lacks any express teaching or suggestion.”
Appeal Br. 21; Reply Br. 7 (italics added). Appellant’s contention is not
persuasive of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
2 as being obvious over Carden and Bayer.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites “one or
more ribs structured and arranged to extend across the thin film.” The
Examiner relies on Carden for teaching such ribs identifying them as
“protrusions at the bottom of 16 that mate with 18.” Final Act. 6; Ans. 24.
Appellant contends that “the alleged ribs of Carden are screw threads” and
as such, the “ribs” identified by the Examiner “do not extend across the plate
20” as recited. Appeal Br. 22. We agree with Appellant’s contention that
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

13
the Examiner’s “ribs” are, in fact, screw threads that permit cap ring 18 and
reservoir base 16 to be interconnected outside reservoir 12. See Carden
Figs. 4, 5. The Examiner seeks to explain that Carden’s ribs “extend across
both the height of the vertically extending portion of film 20 in contact with
16 as well as across the thickness of the horizontally extending portion of
film 20.” Ans. 24. We are not persuaded that screw threads located on
components beyond the periphery of interior film 20 can be said to “extend
across the thin film” as recited, or how such threads can also be said to
disturb or disrupt the even surface of film 20. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
Claim 27
Claim 27 depends directly from claim 1 and further requires the thin
film to be arranged “to directly contact with surfaces of the reservoir base.”
The Examiner explains that “[a]dding an adhesive between the thin film and
the reservoir base of Carden, as taught by Bayer” would meet this limitation.
Ans. 13; see also Bayer ¶ 7 (the lining “may be attached to . . . the inner
surface of the sidewall of the container by means of adhesive or any other
fastening systems”). Appellant contends that “if molding or adhesive [is
employed] then the alleged modification clearly fails to teach a thin film . . .
structured and arranged to directly contact with surfaces of the reservoir
base.” Reply Br. 8. Appellant’s argument regarding direct contact is
contradicted by Appellant’s Specification discussed above. See Spec. ¶ 178.
In other words, Appellant does not explain how their use of an adhesive
provides the recited direct contact yet the use of adhesives as suggested by
Bayer above for the same purpose does not provide such contact.
Appellant’s contention is not persuasive. We sustain the Examiner’s
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

14
rejection of claim 27 (and claims 28–30) as being obvious over Carden and
Bayer.
The rejection of claims 26
as unpatentable over Carden, Bayer, and Mayer
Claim 26 depends directly from claim 1. Appellant does not present
any argument regarding this claim. Accordingly, we sustain its rejection.
The rejection of claims 17, 20, and 22
as unpatentable over Thudor and Bayer
Appellant does not present arguments for dependent claims 20 and 22
separate from the arguments presented with respect to independent claim 17.
See Appeal Br. 17–21. We select claim 17 for review.
The Examiner relies on Thudor for many of the same reasons that
Carden was relied upon. See Final Act. 10–11. Also similar to the claim 1
analysis above is the Examiner’s acknowledgement that Thudor “is silent
regarding” (a) a non-metallic thin film; (b) a film thickness less than 1 mm;
and, (c) a direct connection between the film and the reservoir. Final Act.
11. Like the above, the Examiner relies on Bayer for such teachings. See
Final Act. 11. The Examiner also provides a similar reason for the
combination, i.e., “for the purpose of providing an alternate conducting
material, connection and thickness having the predictable results of allowing
for heat transfer.” Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 21.
Appellant replicates many of the same arguments previously
discussed (but substituting Thudor for Carden), including the assertion that
“Thudor lacks any express teaching or suggestion . . . and lacks any reason
or motivation” for the combination. Appeal Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 6.
For example, Appellant contends that Thudor “is devoid of any disclosure
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

15
regarding connection of the base 24 to the container.” Appeal Br. 18.
However, as noted above, the Examiner relies on the additional teachings of
Bayer for disclosing a “direct . . . connection with the reservoir base.” Final
Act. 11; see also Ans. 20. The Examiner further states, similar to the claim
1 analysis, that “both Thudor and Bayer teach reservoirs in direct contact
with a heater and that include thin films for heat transfer between the heater
and water.” Ans. 22. We are not apprised of Examiner error on these
points.
Concerning Appellant’s contentions regarding Thudor’s lack of a
teaching regarding a non-metallic material (see Appeal Br. 18–19), the
Examiner relied on Bayer for such teachings. See Final Act. 11. The matter
of Thudor’s lack of disclosing the requisite wall thickness follows the same
pattern, i.e., the Examiner relied on Bayer for such teachings. See Appeal
Br. 19, 20; Reply Br. 7; Final Act. 11; Ans. 21. Appellant also repeats the
contention that “[i]t is impermissible to simply pick and choose missing
aspects from Thudor in Bayer and exclude the remaining elements in
Bayer.” Appeal Br. 21. This contention by Appellant is not persuasive for
the reasons already provided.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17, 20, and 22 as being obvious over
Thudor and Bayer. We sustain their rejection.
The rejection of claim 21
as unpatentable over Thudor, Bayer, and Row
Claim 21 depends directly from claim 17. Appellant does not present
any argument regarding this claim. Accordingly, we sustain its rejection.
Appeal 2021-003741
Application 16/346,329

16
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–16, 23–25,
27–30
103 Carden,
Bayer
1–11, 13–16,
23–25, 27–30
12
26 103 Carden,
Bayer, Mayer
26
17, 20, 22 103 Thudor,
Bayer
17, 20, 22
21 103 Thudor,
Bayer, Row
21
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 13–17,
20–30
12
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 IN PART