R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2020

2019004466 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/878,561 10/08/2015 Anthony Richard Gerardi R60999
10280US.D1 (1116.4
4795
26158 7590 05/13/2020
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
HOLLAND, PAUL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
BostonPatents@wbd-us.com
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANTHONY RICHARD GERARDI,
CRYSTAL DAWN HEGE BYRD, THADDEUS JUDE JACKSON,
CHELSEA ALLISON COOKE, JOHN-PAUL MUA, and KYLE FORD 1
____________

Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as the
real party-in-interest. App. Br. 1.

Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

2

SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 40, 53–59, and 62–66 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Zimmerman (US
2008/0178894 A1, July 31, 2008) (“Zimmerman”) as evidenced by Garger
et al. (US 6,033,895, March 7, 2000) (“Garger”), and Curello et al. (US
2007/0077480 A1, April 5, 2007) (“Curello”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM, but designate our affirmance as a new ground of
rejection.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to methods of purifying
protein-enriched plant extracts. Abstract. The methods include removing
metals from the plant extracts using commercially available functionalized
resins. Spec. 15, ll. 1–21.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 40 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites:
40. A method for modifying the content of a plant-derived,
protein-enriched material, the method comprising

receiving a plant-derived, protein-enriched material
comprising RuBisCO, F2 fraction proteins, or a combination
thereof, wherein the plant-derived, protein-enriched material
further comprises one or more heavy metals;

Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

3

dissolving at least a portion of the plant-derived, protein-
enriched material in a solvent to form a solution,

contacting the plant-derived, protein-enriched material
solution with a functionalized resin to afford a treated solution
comprising a protein concentrate or isolate having a reduced
amount of one or more of copper, cadmium, lead, and nickel as
compared with the plant-derived, protein-enriched material,

wherein the functionalized resin comprises a resin
functionalized with a chelating group selected from the group
consisting of triaminetetraacetic acid groups, salts thereof, and
combinations thereof; and

separating the treated solution from the functionalized
resin.

App. Br. 12.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We agree with, and expressly adopt, the Examiner’s findings,
reasoning, and conclusion that the claims are obvious over the combined
cited prior art. We address below the arguments raised by Appellant.

Issue 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in combining Zimmerman
and Curello because Curello is non-analogous art. App. Br. 4.

Analysis
The Examiner finds that Zimmerman teaches methods of selectively
removing specific constituents from tobacco plant extracts. Final Act. 5
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

4

(citing Zimmerman Abstract). The Examiner finds that Zimmerman teaches
forming an aqueous plant extract by contacting chopped tobacco plants with
an aqueous solvent. Id. (citing Zimmerman ¶¶ 4–10; 28–41). The Examiner
finds that Garger teaches that Zimmerman’s aqueous plant extract contains
soluble proteins in two fractions: Fraction 1 (“F1”) which is “predominantly
a photosynthetic protein, ribulose 1,5-diphosphate carboxylase (or
RuBisCO), whose subunit molecular weight is about 550 kD,” and Fraction
2 (“F2”) which “contains a mixture of proteins and peptides whose subunit
molecular weights typically range from about 3 kD to 100 kD.” Id. (citing
Garger, col. 2, ll. 48–64). The Examiner finds that Zimmerman teaches
contacting the aqueous plant extract with a functionalized resin to remove
metals, including cadmium, lead, and nickel. Id. (citing Zimmerman ¶¶ 4,
36). The Examiner finds that Zimmerman teaches the functionalized resins
may include “a chelating resin, such as iminodiacetate.” Id. (citing
Zimmerman ¶ 4).
The Examiner acknowledges that Zimmerman does not teach “a resin
functionalized with a chelating group selected from the group consisting of
triaminetetraacetic acid groups, salts thereof, and combinations thereof.”
Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds that Curello teaches removing transition
metal ions from fuel using “functionalized silica containing compounds
commercially available from Silicycle, such as Si-Triaminetetracetic acid
that removes metals such as palladium, nickel, and copper.” Id. (citing
Curello Abstract, ¶ 49 (Table 1)).
Examiner finds that “[Curello] is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the appellant is concerned because Curello identifies
functionalized resins that are commercially available for the removal of
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

5

metal compounds from solutions through chelation.” Ans. 8 (citing In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The Examiner finds that Curello’s
functionalized silica resins are analogous to Zimmerman’s functional resins,
“that also chelate metal compounds from solutions.” Id. The Examiner
finds that:
Given that [Curello] acknowledges that triaminetetracetic acid
resins are commercially available and are effective in removing
copper and nickel from solutions one of ordinary skill in the art
desiring to remove these metal compounds from a solution would
have a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the
analogous functionalized resin of Zimmerman with the
triaminetetracetic acid resin of [Curello], and one of ordinary
skill in the art would be motivated to do so because the
triaminetetracetic acid resin of [Curello] is effective at removing
the desired metals, copper and nickel.

Id. at 9.
Appellant argues that Curello is non-analogous art because it is not:
“(1) directed to the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention; or (2)
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventors [are]
concerned.” App. Br. 4 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir.
1986)). Appellant argues that the invention’s field of endeavor is treating “a
protein-enriched material derived from a plant to ‘clean’ the material (e.g.,
rendering it more suitable as an edible material).” Id. at 5 (emphasis
omitted). Appellant argues, in contrast, Curello’s “fuel cell/cartridge which
can scavenge metals from fuel in contact therewith (as taught in the Curello
reference) is in a completely different field of endeavor.” Id. Appellant
argues Curello is not “reasonably pertinent” because Curello uses a resin to
remove components from fuel thereby minimizing internal pressure inside
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

6

fuel liners and cartridges, not to provide a purer protein-based material. Id.
at 5–6.
We are not persuaded. We focus our discussion on the Examiner’s
finding that Curello is “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved.” See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Our reviewing court has held that:
A reference is reasonably pertinent if … it is one which,
because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have
commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his
problem. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the
claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and
that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness
rejection.

Sci. Plastic Prod., Inc. v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(internal citations omitted). “[W]hen the problem an invention is designed
to solve is not unique to the specific field of the invention, it is not improper
for the trier of fact to consider whether a person of ordinary skill would
consult a different art in order to solve the problem.” Id. at 1360. In
Scientific Plastic Products, the invention at issue claimed “[a] low pressure
liquid chromatographic cartridge,” which was in a different field of endeavor
from the cited prior art directed to “‘soda-pop’ bottle caps.” Id. Our
reviewing court found that the prior art bottle cap references “address[ed]
the problem of providing a fluid tight seal at elevated pressures, between a
container and a resealable cap. This is sufficiently close to the problem
addressed by the claimed invention.” Id.
Appellant’s invention solves the problem of removing metal
contaminants from a solution. This problem is not unique to the specific
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

7

field of the invention, viz., plant proteins. Zimmerman and Curello teach
functionalized resins for removing contaminants from solutions applicable
across a wide-range of technology. For example, Zimmerman teaches
“[a]ny adsorbent material possessing a combination of characteristics
illustrated by these examples, i.e., a porous material comprising a metal
selective chelating functionality, can be a metal selective adsorption agent
within the scope of the methods described herein provided it has an
appropriate adsorptivity and selectivity.” Zimmerman ¶ 33. Curello teaches
removing contaminants from fuel with: “(a) suitable scavengers of oxygen,
(b) suitable scavengers of carbon dioxide, (c) suitable scavengers of
transition metals, (d) suitable desiccants of water, or (e) combinations
thereof.” Curello ¶ 29. Curello teaches “[s]cavengers of oxygen have been
used as additives to the water used to make steam in the food processing
industry.” Id. ¶ 30. Accordingly, Curello suggests consulting other fields of
technology to solve the problem of removing contaminants from a fuel
solution.
With respect to the claimed “resin functionalized with a chelating
group selected from the group consisting of triaminetetraacetic acid groups,
salts thereof, and combinations thereof,” Curello specifically teaches
“[s]cavengers of transition metals can include, but are not limited to,
functionalized silicon-containing compounds, such as those commercially
available from Silicycle.” Curello ¶ 49. Curello lists the claimed
compounds specifically, and incorporates the SiliCycle “Metal Scavenger
Selection Guide” website in its entirety. Id.
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

8

The SiliCycle website, dated October 2005,2 (“2005 SiliCycle”)
teaches “SiliCycle has a wide range of scavengers that can remove a variety
of transition metal.” 2005 SiliCycle 1. 2005 SiliCycle teaches Si-TAAcOH
scavenges Pd(0), and Ni(0) and Si-TAAcONa scavenges Pd(II), Ni(II), and
Cu(II). Id. at 1–2.
The 2012 SiliCycle website (“2012 SiliCycle”) teaches that silica
bound metal scavengers are available in “a wide range of formats for all
purification scales from laboratory to plant purifications.” 2012 SiliCycle 3.
2012 SiliCycle teaches “SiliaMetS® TAAcONa or (or SiliaMetS
Triaminetetraacetate, sodium salt) is a silica bound metal scavenger for
Pd(II), Ni(II) and Cu.” Id. at 2. 2012 SiliCycle teaches SiliaMetS®
TAAcOH (SiliaMetS Triaminetetraacetic Acid) is a silica bound metal
scavenger for Pd(0), Ni(0) and Cu. Id. at 4.
Furthermore, 2012 SiliCycle is not limited to any particular field of
purification, and teaches functionalized metal chelators having broad
applicability. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine porous materials comprising a metal-selective chelating

2 Curello was filed on October 5, 2005 as Application No. 11/243,766. The
application was submitted with a printout of the SiliCycle Website as of
October 5, 2005 (“2005 SiliCycle”). This version of the website is no longer
available. The 2012 SiliCycle website listed similar information and is
available as archived versions. See SiliCycle, SiliaMetS® - Metal
Scavengers, https://web.archive.org/web/20120721204350/
https://www.silicycle.com/products/metal-scavengers, and SiliCycle,
SiliaBond® - Functionalized Silica Gels, https://web.archive.org/web/
20120504162706/http://www.silicycle.com/products/functionalized-silica-
gels, both accessed May 5, 2020 (“2012 SiliCycle”).
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

9

functionality taught by Curello and 2012 SiliCycle with Zimmerman for the
reasons given by the Examiner. However, because 2012 SiliCycle was not
cited by the Examiner in the Final Office Action, we designate our decision
as a New Ground of affirmance.

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We here enter a new ground of rejection. Claim 40 is unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Zimmerman and 2012
SiliCycle.
As discussed supra, Zimmerman teaches receiving a plant-derived
protein-enriched material comprising one or more heavy metals, dissolving
the material to form a solution and contacting the solution with a
functionalized resin to reduce the amount of heavy metal. Zimmerman’s
process uses commercially available metal-chelating functionalized resins.
See Zimmerman ¶¶ 32–33, 67–69. 2012 SiliCycle teaches that Si-TAAcOH
and Si-TAAcONa functionalized resins were commercially available
products used for chelating one or more of nickel and copper. See 2012
SiliCycle 1–4. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify Zimmerman’s functionalized resins with the commercially
available SiliCycle functionalized resins. “If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation [of a known work], § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). We
have entered a new ground for only the independent claim and leave it to the
Examiner to evaluate the patentability of the other claims in view this
combination with other newly found or previously cited references by
identifying the claimed elements in the prior art.
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

10

Issue 2
Appellant argues one of skill in the art would have no reasonable
expectation of success in combining Zimmerman and Curello. App. Br. 7.

Analysis
Appellant argues that “one of skill in the art would … have no
reasonable expectation of success in employing a resin taught to be useful in
the construction of a polymer-based shell of a fuel cartridge to treat an edible
protein-based material to clean the material.” App. Br. 7. Appellant argues
that Zimmerman and Curello teach “two fundamentally different
environments [that] cannot be equated.” Id. Specifically, Appellant argues
Curello teaches metal scavenging in a fuel environment as opposed to
Zimmerman’s aqueous environment. Id.
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, Zimmerman teaches
removing soluble metal ions from aqueous tobacco extracts by incorporating
various metal chelating agents based on appropriate adsorptivity and
selectivity. Zimmerman ¶ 33. Curello and the SiliCycle website teach that
Si-TAAcOH and Si-TAAcONa have specific selectivity for palladium,
nickel, and copper. See Curello ¶ 49, Table 1; See 2005 SiliCycle; 2012
SiliCycle. The references do not limit the field of use of the metal chelating
agents, rather, the references teach broad applicability. Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
had a reasonable expectation of success combining Zimmerman and Curello
to obtain protein concentrate having a reduced amount of one or more of
copper, cadmium, lead, and nickel.

Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

11

Issue 3
Appellant argues that the Specification includes objective evidence of
nonobviousness in the form of surprising results. App. Br. 8.

Analysis
Appellant argues that Example 9 of the Specification discloses that
“[t]he particular resins specifically recited in the pending claims, which are
functionalized with triaminetetraacetic acid and triaminetetraacetate, sodium
salt groups were, as noted in the application as filed, found to be of
particular importance in reducing the metals to desirable levels.” App. Br. 8
(emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that:
[T]he Experimental data provided in the present application
demonstrates that a chelating resin with polyamine functionality,
a resin with porous styrene DVB polymer matrix with sulfonic
acid groups, and a silica gel resin functionalized with imidazole
group all led to no change in the total content of cadmium,
copper, lead, or nickel. Surprisingly, only the recited resin (a
resin functionalized with triaminetetraacetic acid and/or
triaminetetraacetate salts) led to a decrease in the content of these
metals.

Id.
The Examiner responds that the unexpected results are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds
“the claims only require one or more of copper, cadmium, lead, and nickel,
and requires no heating of the mixture.” Id. In contrast, the Examiner finds
that Table 1 of the Specification shows that the “unexpected result only
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

12

occurred with the removal of copper by triaminetetracetic acid groups after
heating the mixture at 60°C prior to metal removal.” Id.
Appellant responds that Table 1 of the Specification “explicitly
shows: a) a reduction of all four metals recited in the pending claims
(namely, copper, cadmium, lead, and nickel); and b) that such reductions
were obtained in the presence of heating and in the absence of heating.”
Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec. 31–32). Appellant argues that the results support
the entire claimed range and thus, the results are commensurate with the
scope of the claims. Id. at 2–3.
We are not persuaded. “If an applicant demonstrates that an
embodiment has an unexpected result and provides an adequate basis to
support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim will
behave in the same manner, this will generally establish that the evidence is
commensurate with [the] scope of the claims.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057,
1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We begin with the scope of Appellant’s claims. We agree with the
Examiner that the scope of the claims is broader than the allegedly
unexpected results shown in the Specification. First, claim 40 does not
require any heat or minimum contact time between the solution and the
resin. App. Br. 12. Second, claim 40 recites “the functionalized resin
comprises a resin functionalized with a chelating group selected from the
group consisting of triaminetetraacetic acid groups, salts thereof, and
combinations thereof.” Id. Accordingly, the claim allows for the use of a
single triaminetetraacetic acid resin.
We next consider Appellant’s evidence of unexpected results. The
Specification’s Example 9(a)–(c) provides comparative tests of mixing
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

13

protein concentrate with various resins and shaking the resultant mixture for
1 hour. See Spec. 30–31. The Specification discloses that treatment with
these resins “provided no change in the total content of cadmium, copper,
lead, or nickel.” Id.
Example 9(d) describes numerous tests using a combination of
TAAcOH and TAAcONa functionalized resins. Spec. 31–32. The
Specification explains that “[a]ccording to the manufacturer, higher
scavenging rates can sometimes be achieved at higher shake times and/or
increased temperature; therefore, these parameters were modified to evaluate
the effect of each.” Id. at 31, ll. 20–22. Notably, the tests included shaking
the protein-resin mixture for 3 or 6 hours rather than 1 hour, or heating the
mixture at 60° C without shaking for 3 or 6 hours. Id. at 31, ll. 23–30. “The
greatest reduction in metal content was achieved with the
TAAcOH/TAAcONa resins by heating the mixture at 60 °C or with the
TAAcOH/TAAcONa by shaking the mixture for 3 hours. These treatments
reduced the majority of the metals by greater than 50%.” Id. at 32, ll. 1–4.
Table 1 reports the results of these two tests only. See id. 32, ll. 6–10.
The results of Table 1 do not provide an adequate basis to support the
conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim will behave in
the same manner. Appellant’s own results indicate that both temperature
and contact time affect metal removal. For example, a contact time of 1
hour appears to cause no change in the total metal content. See Spec. 30–31.
However, the claims do not require any minimum temperature or contact
time between the protein concentrate and the resin. See App. Br. 12–14.
Likewise, Appellant does not report testing with only one of the
TAAcOH or TAAcONa resins. See Spec. 31–32. However, the scope of the
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

14

claims encompass using the resins individually. See supra. The reported
results do not provide an adequate basis to support the conclusion that
embodiments using a single TAAcOH or TAAcONa resin, with shaking
times of 1 hour and no heat will behave in the same manner. Accordingly,
the results are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
The parameters of the comparative examples, i.e., 1 hour of shaking
with no heat, indicates that the experimental results are not compared to the
closest prior art. “[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of
nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with
the closest prior art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). For example, Zimmerman teaches that contacting protein
concentrates with absorbent resins for 24 hours at 60° C under gentle
agitation caused 78.91% and 33.46% reduction in cadmium for various
resins. See Zimmerman ¶¶ 68–70. Zimmerman’s increased contact time
and heating is a more relevant comparison than the comparative examples
lacking both. Additionally, none of the comparative examples in the
Specification applied combinations of resins, unlike Example 9(d). See
Spec. 30–32. However, Zimmerman teaches a combination of resins
reduces cadmium by 58.71% and lead by 22.41%. See Zimmerman ¶ 71.
Again, Zimmerman’s combination of resins is closer prior art, and,
unsurprisingly, successfully removes metals unlike Appellant’s comparative
examples. Because the allegedly unexpected results are not compared to the
closest prior art and are not commensurate with the scope of the claims, the
evidence as a whole supports the Examiner’s rejection.

Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

15

Issue 4
Appellant argues that claims 65 and 66 are separately patentable
because they claim significantly improved metal reduction. App. Br. 9.

Analysis
Claims 65 and 66 recite specific amounts of metal reduction, e.g., at
least 25% (claim 65) and at least 50% (claim 66). App. Br. 13–14. The
Examiner finds the claims recite optimized ranges discoverable by routine
experimentation. Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds Appellant has not
provided evidence showing that the claimed amounts are critical. Id. The
Examiner determines that the claims would have been obvious because “one
of ordinary skill in the art would desire to optimize the extraction process of
Zimmerman in order to maximize the amount of metals removed from the
tobacco extract.” Id.
Appellant argues that “one of skill in the art would have no reasonable
expectation of success in so significantly improving metal reduction to the
recited values” of claims 65 and 66. App. Br. 9. Although Appellant
acknowledges that Zimmerman teaches using functionalized resins to
remove up to 78.91% cadmium and up to 77.52% lead, Appellant argues that
“[t]his demonstrates that results for different metals and for different types
of resins can vary widely.” Id. at 9–10 (emphasis omitted). Appellant
argues “[o]ne of skill in the art is provided with no motivation to optimize a
particular type of resin (e.g., a chelating resin) based on these findings and is
provided with no means for arriving at the specific reductions recited in
claims 65 and 66.” Id.
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

16

We are not persuaded. The evidence directly contradicts Appellant’s
argument. Zimmerman, Curello, and the SiliCycle website all teach
choosing functionalized resins based on “appropriate adsorptivity and
selectivity.” See Zimmerman ¶ 33. Zimmerman teaches that “a soluble
metal selective adsorption agent … will preferably have an adsorptivity
index greater than about 60.” Id. ¶ 34. Curello and the SiliCycle website
teach that Si-TAAcOH and Si-TAAcONa functionalized resins have specific
selectivity for copper and nickel, two of the “one or more” metals recited by
claims 65 and 66. Curello ¶ 49. In sum, the prior art teaches that identifying
and removing specific metals is a result-effective variable that may be
optimized by choosing specific functionalized resins or combinations
thereof. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
determining claims 65 and 66 would have been obvious over the combined
prior art.
We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection of the claims.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 40, 53–59 and 62–66 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
We enter a NEW GROUND of rejection. Claim 40 stands rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Zimmerman and
2012 SiliCycle.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection …
shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
Appeal 2019-004466
Application 14/878,561

17

the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the
examiner ….

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
40, 53–
59, 62–66
103 Zimmerman,
Garger, Curello
40, 53–
59, 62–66

40 103 Zimmerman, 2012
SiliCycle
40
Overall
Outcome
40, 53–
59, 62–66
40