Satoshi Yanagisawa et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2019

14647683 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/647,683 05/27/2015 Satoshi YANAGISAWA 2114-0190PUS1 2423
2292 7590 12/23/2019
BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
DESAI, RITA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SATOSHI YANAGISAWA, SHOHEI FUJITA,
TAKUYA MINAMISHIMA, and KOICHI SHIGENO
____________

Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, and
MICHAEL A. VALEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 12.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 “ADEKA
CORPORATION” (Appellant’s August 29, 2017 Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.)
1).
2 Pending claims 5–7, 10, and 11 stand withdrawn from consideration (see
Examiner’s March 29, 2017 Final Action (Final Act.) 2).
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure “relates to a novel sulfonic acid derivative
compound. More particularly, the present invention relates to a sulfonic acid
derivative compound that is useful as a photoacid generator and as a cationic
polymerization initiator” (Spec.3 1). Appellant’s independent claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below:
1. A sulfonic acid derivative compound, which is represented
by the following Formula (I):

wherein, X is a linear or branched alkyl group having 1 to 14
carbon atoms; and R is selected from the group consisting of an
aliphatic hydrocarbon group having 1 to 18 carbon atoms, an
aryl group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, an arylalkyl group
having 7 to 20 carbon atoms, an aryl group having 7 to 20
carbon atoms which is substituted with an acyl group, an
alicyclic hydrocarbon group having 3 to 12 carbon atoms, 10-
camphoryl group and a group represented by the following
Formula (II), which aliphatic hydrocarbon group, aryl group,
arylalkyl group or alicyclic hydrocarbon group is unsubstituted
or substituted with one or more selected from the group
consisting of a halogen atom, a halogenated alkyl group having
1 to 4 carbon atoms, an alkoxy group having 1 to 18 carbon
atoms and an alkylthio group having 1 to 18 carbon atoms

wherein, Y1 is a single bond or an alkanediyl group
having 1 to 4 carbon atoms; R1 and R2 each is independently
selected from the group consisting of an alkanediyl group

3 Appellant’s May 27, 2015 Specification.
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

3
having 2 to 6 carbon atoms, a halogenated alkanediyl group
having 2 to 6 carbon atoms, an arylene group having 6 to 20
carbon atoms and a halogenated arylene group having 6 to 20
carbon atoms; R3 is selected from the group consisting of a
linear or branched alkyl group having 1 to 18 carbon atoms, a
halogenated linear or branched alkyl group having 1 to 18
carbon atoms, an alicyclic hydrocarbon group having 3 to 12
carbon atoms, an aryl group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, a
halogenated aryl group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, an
arylalkyl group having 7 to 20 carbon atoms and a halogenated
arylalkyl group having 7 to 20 carbon atoms; a and b each
represent 0 or 1; and at least one of a and b is 1.
(Claims App.4 1–2 (emphasis added).)5

Grounds of rejection before this Panel for review:
Claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Dautel,6 Kim,7 Kazuki,8 and Murai
’011.9
Claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 12 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
the claims of Murai ’268,10 in view of Dautel, Kim, and Kazuki.

4 Claims Appendix of Appellant’s August 29, 2017 Appeal Brief.
5 In response to Examiner’s August 12, 2016 Requirement for Restriction
and Species Election, Appellant elected compounds of formula I, wherein X
is an alkyl chain and R is an alkyl (see Appellant’s October 12, 2016 Reply
to Restriction Requirement, Election of Species Requirement and
Preliminary Amendment 5–6).
6 Dautel et al., US 2011/0229821 A1, published Sept. 22, 2011.
7 Kim et al., US 8,748,894 B2, issued June 10, 2014.
8 Kazuki et al., JP 2010053121 (A), issued Mar. 11, 2010.
9 Murai et al., WO 2011/087011 A1, published July 21, 2011.
10 Murai et al., US 8,680,268 B2, issued Mar. 25, 2014.
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

4
Obviousness:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Dautel “relates to a process for the hydrolysis-polycondensation of a
sterically hindered crosslinkable chromophore, characterized in that the
hydrolysis-polycondensation is catalyzed with an acid released by a
photoacid generator (PAG)” (Dautel, Abstract).
FF 2. Dautel discloses that a NIOTf derivative of the following formula
may be used as the PAG:

with R5 to R10, independently of each other, possibly being chosen
from, inter alia, H, CH3, C5 to C20 alkyl, linear C1 to C4 alkyl, and

(see Dautel ¶¶ 55–59 and 63–66; see Ans. 4).

Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

5
FF 3. Dautel discloses that a PAG within the scope of its formula (A)
includes TIPSA-NIOTf, which has the following formula:

(see Dautel ¶ 67; see also ¶ 68 (Dautel discloses that TIPSA-NIOTf is a
particularly preferred PAG)).
FF 4. Examiner finds that Dautel does not exemplify a composition
comprising an alkyl in the R7 position (i.e., the X position of Appellant’s
formula (I)) (see Ans. 8).
FF 5. Kim discloses a PAG having the following formula:

wherein
R1 is one selected from the group consisting of ester group,
ether group, thioether group, amide group and carbonate group,
wherein the carbon number of each group is not more than 20.
Especially, R1 may be monovalent hydrocarbon with an
aromatic hydrocarbon structure. R1 may be monovalent
hydrocarbon with a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon structure whose
carbon number is not less than 5.
(Kim 4:50–67; see Ans. 5.)

Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

6
A1 N
O
O
O
FF 6. Kazuki discloses a PAG of the following formulae:

(I)

(I-1)

wherein, R1 is a 1–20 C aliphatic hydrocarbon group, a 5–10 C aryl
group or the like; W1 is -CO-O-, -O-CO-, -CH2-O, -O-CH2- or the like; Q1
and Q2 are each H, F, 1–6 C alkyl or the like; A is a group of formula (I-1);
and A1 is -CH2-CH2-, -CH2-CH2-CH2-, -CH=CH- or -CH=CH-CH2-
(Kazuki, Abstract; see Ans. 5–6).
FF 7. Examiner finds that Kazuki discloses that the A substituent of its
formula I may also have a tricyclic core or “a group similar to [a] camphoric
group,” including those of the following formulae:

,

Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

7

, and

(see Ans. 6–7 (citing Kazuki ¶¶ 32, 33, and 46).)
FF 8. Murai ’011 discloses a photoacid generator having the formula:

Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

8

wherein R01, R04, R05 and R06 represent a hydrogen atom, one of
R02 and R03 represent a carbon number 4-18 alkoxy group
which may be substituted with an alicyclic hydrocarbon group,
a heterocyclic group or a halogen atom and which may have a
branch, and R07 is a carbon number l-18 aliphatic hydrocarbon
group which may be substituted by a halogen atom and/or an
alkylthio group carbon atoms.
(Murai ’011, Abstract.)
FF 9. Examiner finds that Murai ’011 discloses that the R07 substituent
may also have the formula:

or

(see Ans. 8 (citing Murai ’011 4).)

ANALYSIS
Examiner finds that Dautel discloses a PAG having formula (A),
wherein R5 to R10 can be H or a linear or branched alkyl (Ans. 9; see FF 2).
Examiner further finds that although Dautel does not exemplify a PAG
having an alkyl at position R7 (i.e., the X position of Appellant’s formula
(I)), the prior art relied upon by Examiner, including Dautel, discloses
“several compounds that do [exemplify] a substituent at exactly that
position” (Ans. 9; see FF 2–9).
Based on the combination of Dautel, Kim, Kazuki, and Murai ’011,
Examiner concludes that, at the time Appellant’s invention was made, it
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

9
would have been prima facie obvious to prepare a compound within the
scope of Dautel’s formula (A), wherein R5, R6, and R8–R10 are H and R7 is
an alkyl group (see Ans. 9).
We find no error in Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. On this
record, Dautel discloses a PAG having the generic formula set forth in
formula A and expressly directs those of ordinary skill in the art to modify
formula A with a hydrogen at positions R5, R6, and R8–R10 and alkyl at R7
(see FF 2; see also Ans. 9). To the extent that a person of ordinary skill in
this art would question whether a non-hydrogen modification could be made
to the R7 position of Dautel’s formula (A), we note that Dautel expressly
discloses a compound with a specific modification at the R7 position of its
formula (A) (see FF 3; see also FF 2).
We are mindful that our reviewing court has articulated a two-part
inquiry into whether a claimed chemical compound would have been
obvious over particular prior art compounds. Under this “lead compound
analysis,” we must first “determine[] whether a chemist of ordinary skill
would have selected the asserted prior art compounds as lead compounds, or
starting points, for further development efforts.” Otsuka Pharm. Co. v.
Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The second inquiry in
the analysis is whether the prior art would have supplied one of ordinary
skill in the art with a reason or motivation to modify a lead compound to
make the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.” Id.
at 1292.
“It should be noted[, however,] that the lead compound cases do not
stand for the proposition that identification of a single lead compound is
necessary in every obviousness rejection of a chemical compound.” See
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

10
MPEP § 2143; see generally Ex Parte Cao, Appeal No. 2010-004081, 2011
WL 4434514, at *5 (PTAB Sept. 19, 2011) (“A ‘lead compound’ analysis is
not the exclusive test for compound obviousness.”) (Non-precedential). See
also In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Normally a prima
facie case of obviousness is based upon structural similarity, i.e., an
established structural relationship between a prior art compound and the
claimed compound. Structural relationships may provide the requisite
motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new
compounds.”).
Although we find that a lead compound analysis is not necessary on
this record, we nonetheless find that such an analysis leads to the same
conclusion––Appellant’s claimed invention is obvious in view of the
combination of Dautel, Kim, Kazuki, and Murai ’011.
Applying the first step of the lead compound analysis, there can be no
doubt that Dautel discloses a specific PAG compound, TIPSA-NIOTf, which
falls within the scope of Dautel’s formula (A), wherein the substituent at the
R7 position of formula (A) is

(see FF 3; see also FF 2). Thus, “a chemist of ordinary skill would have
selected TIPSA-NIOTf as a lead compound, or starting point, for further
development efforts.” Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d at 1291.
Dautel itself goes further to suggest alternative substituents for the R7
position of formula (A) that include: H, C5 to C20 alkyl, or linear C1 to C4
alkyl (see FF 2). In addition, Kazuki discloses PAG compounds having
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

11
similar alkyl modifications to the same position of a similar ring structure
(see FF 7). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
prima facie obvious to modify the R7 position of Dautel’s formula (A) with
any one of the substituents Dautel discloses as appropriate for this position,
e.g., C5 to C20 alkyl, or linear C1 to C4 alkyl (see FF 2). See Sinclair &
Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 335 (1945) (“Reading a
list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no
more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put into the last opening in a
jig-saw puzzle. It is not invention.”). For these reasons, the prior art relied
upon by Examiner satisfies the second step of the lead compound analysis,
wherein “the prior art . . . supplied one of ordinary skill in the art with a
reason or motivation to modify a lead compound to make the claimed
compound with a reasonable expectation of success.” Otsuka Pharm. Co. v.
Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d at 1292.

Claim 1:
Appellant’s independent claim 1 is reproduced above.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that “[i]t would not be obvious to try substituting only R7 or R8,
and only with one of the substituents of X from the presently claimed
invention” (Appeal Br. 7). For the same reasons, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contention that “one of ordinary skill in the art does not even
have motivation to select the specific ‘core’ the Examiner delineated from
the present invention” (Reply Br. 4).
For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions regarding lead compound analysis (Reply Br. 4–6).
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

12
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
intimation that a person of ordinary skill in this art would not have modified
the R7 position of Dautel’s formula (A) with an aryl group because Dautel
discloses that TIPSA-NIOTf, a compound with an R7 position modification
that does not fall within the scope of Appellant’s claimed invention, is a
particularly preferred PAG (see Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3–4; see also FF 3).
See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) (A reference disclosure
is not limited only to its preferred embodiments, but is available for all that it
discloses and suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.). In addition,
notwithstanding Appellant’s contention to the contrary, the R7 position
substituent of Dautel’s TIPSA-NIOTf compound was selected from the
specific substituents Dautel discloses as being useful for such a modification
(see FF 2–3). This group of substituents also includes alkyl substituents and,
thus, suggests to a person of ordinary skill in this art the modification of the
R7 position of Dautel’s formula (A) with an alkyl, within the scope of
Appellant’s claim 1.
Examiner relied upon Kim, Kazuki, and Murai ’011 to illustrate that
those of ordinary skill in this art recognized that structurally similar PAGs
may be extensively modified, including modifications in similar positions to
Appellant’s claimed invention (see generally FF 5–9). Nonetheless, because
Dautel suggests a compound within the scope of Appellant’s claimed
invention, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Kim, Kazuki,
and Murai ’011 fail to make up for Appellant’s alleged deficiency in Dautel
(see Appeal Br. 8–9; cf. FF 1–3).
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

13
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on improper
hindsight (see Appeal Br. 6 and 9; see also Reply Br. 5).
In addition, we note that Appellant’s claimed invention does not
require the compound to exhibit a particular degree of activity. Therefore,
we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that “[t]he references
themselves teach that different compounds have different levels of activity”
(Reply Br. 3).

Claim 2:
Appellant’s claim 2 depends from and further limits the X substituent
of Appellant’s claim 1 to “an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms” (Claims
App. 2).
For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that “[t]here is no motivation to select a lead compound of
Formula (A) of Dautel” (Appeal Br. 9).
Dautel expressly suggests modifying any of positions R5–R7 of its
formula (A) with a linear C1 to C4 alkyl, and more specifically suggests a
modification to position R7 of its formula (A) (i.e., position X of Appellant’s
claimed invention) (see FF 2–3). Therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contention that “there is no motivation to select X as an alkyl
group having 4 carbon atoms” (Appeal Br. 9).
Having found no deficiency in Dautel, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contention that Kim, Kazuki, and Murai ’011 fail to make up for
Appellant’s alleged deficiency in Dautel (id. at 10).

Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

14
Claim 3:
Appellant’s claim 3 depends from and further limits the R substituent
of Appellant’s claim 1 to “a perfluoroalkyl group having 1 to 8 carbon
atoms” (Claims App. 2).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that “[t]here is no motivation to select a lead compound with
fluoroalkylsulfonyloxy derivatives as in Formula (A) of Dautel” or “make
the molecular modifications asserted by the Examiner to Formula (A) of
Dautel” (Appeal Br. 10).

Claim 12:
Appellant’s claim 12 depends from and further limits the X
substituent of Appellant’s claim 1 to “a linear or branched alkyl group
having 3 to 8 carbon atoms” (Claims App. 2).
Dautel expressly suggests modifying any of positions R5–R7 of its
formula (A) with a linear C1 to C4 alkyl, and more specifically suggests a
modification to position R7 of its formula (A) (i.e., position X of Appellant’s
claimed invention) (see FF 2–3). Therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contention that “there is no motivation to select X as a
linear . . . alkyl group having 3 to 8 carbon atoms” (Appeal Br. 10).
Having found no deficiency in Dautel, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contention that Kim, Kazuki, and Murai ’011 fail to make up for
Appellant’s alleged deficiency in Dautel (id. at 10).
CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner supports a
conclusion of obviousness. The rejection of claims 1–3 and 12 under 35
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

15
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Dautel, Kim,
Kazuki, and Murai ’011 is affirmed. Claim 4 is not separately argued and
fall with claim 1. Claim 8 is not separately argued and falls with claim 2.
Claim 9 is not separately argued and falls with claim 3.

Non-statutory Double Patenting:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness-type double patenting?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 10. FF 1–7 are incorporated herein by reference.
FF 11. Murai ’268 claims a sulfonic acid derivative compound having
formula:

wherein R01, R02, and R04–R06 may be hydrogen, R03 may be an
optionally substituted alkoxy group having a carbon number of 4–18, and
R07 is a perfluoroalkyl group having a carbon number of 1 to 8 (see Murai
’268 49:17–52 and 50:41–43).
ANALYSIS
Initially, we note that Murai ’268 claims a compound having the same
generic structure as is set forth in Dautel’s formula (A) (see FF 11; cf. FF 2).
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

16
Although Murai ’268 discloses an alkoxy group at the R03 position (which
corresponds to Dautel’s R7 position and position X of Appellant’s claimed
invention), for the reasons discussed above, Dautel makes clear that this
position may be C5 to C20 alkyl or linear C1 to C4 alkyl (see also FF 2–3).
Therefore, we find no error in Examiner’s conclusion that Appellant’s
claimed invention is obvious in view of the claims of Murai ’268, in view of
Dautel, Kim, and Kazuki (see Ans. 10–11).

Claim 1:
Appellant’s independent claim 1 is reproduced above.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that none of the R03 substituents set forth in Murai ’268’s claim 1
fall within Appellant’s claimed invention and, therefore, Murai ’268 teaches
away from the X group substituents of Appellant’s claim 1 (Appeal Br. 10–
11). Simply stated, Appellant’s contention fails to account for the
contributions of Dautel, Kim, and Kazuki in the rejection over the claims of
Murai ’268 in combination with Dautel, Kim, and Kazuki.
As discussed above, a reference disclosure is not limited only to its
preferred embodiments, but is available for all that it discloses and suggests
to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750
(CCPA 1976). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention
that “Dautel expresses a marked preference for alkenyl substitution” (Appeal
Br. 11).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions that “none of the reasons provided by the Examiner amount to
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

17
proper motivation for combining . . . [the claims of Murai ’268] with the
secondary prior art references of Dautel, Kim and [Kazuki]” or that “[t]he
secondary references have been identified by hindsight and combining them
with the claims . . . [of Murai ’268] would not result in . . . [Appellant’s
claimed] sulfonic acid derivative compound” (id.).

Claim 2:
Appellant’s claim 2 depends from and further limits the X substituent
of Appellant’s claim 1 to “an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms” (Claims
App. 2).
For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that “[t]here is no motivation to make the molecular
modifications asserted by the Examiner” (Appeal Br. 11).
As discussed above, the claims of Murai ’268 expressly suggest
modifying position X of Appellant’s claimed structure with an alkoxy (see
FF 11). In addition, Dautel suggests modifying position X of Appellant’s
claimed structure with a linear C1 to C4 alkyl (see FF 2–3). Therefore, we
are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that “there is no motivation to
select X as an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms” (Appeal Br. 11).
Having found no deficiency in the combination of the claims of Murai
’268 and Dautel, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Kim
and Kazuki fail to make up for Appellant’s alleged deficiency in the
combination of the claims of Murai ’268 and Dautel (id.).

Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

18
Claim 3:
Appellant’s claim 3 depends from and further limits the R substituent
of Appellant’s claim 1 to “a perfluoroalkyl group having 1 to 8 carbon
atoms” (Claims App. 2).
Murai ’268 expressly claims a modification of position R07 of its
formula with a perfluoroalkyl group having a carbon number of 1 to 8 (see
FF 11). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that
“there is no motivation to select R as a perfluoroalkyl group having 1 to 8
carbon atoms” (Appeal Br. 11).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that “[t]here is no motivation to make the molecular
modifications asserted by the Examiner” (id.).

Claim 12:
Appellant’s claim 12 depends from and further limits the X
substituent of Appellant’s claim 1 to “a linear or branched alkyl group
having 3 to 8 carbon atoms” (Claims App. 2).
As discussed above, the claims of Murai ’268 expressly suggest
modifying position X of Appellant’s claimed structure with an alkoxy (see
FF 11). In addition, Dautel suggests modifying position X of Appellant’s
claimed structure with a linear C1 to C4 alkyl (see FF 2–3).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that
“[t]here is no motivation to make the molecular modifications asserted by
the Examiner” or “to select X as a linear . . . alkyl group having 3 to 8
carbon atoms” (Appeal Br. 12).
Appeal 2018-003021
Application 14/647,683

19
Having found no deficiency in the combination of the claims of Murai
’268 with Dautel, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Kim
and Kazuki fail to make up for Appellant’s alleged deficiency in the
combination of the claims of Murai ’268 with Dautel (id.).
CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner supports a
conclusion of obviousness-type double patenting. The rejection of claims
1–3 and 12 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of Murai ’268, in view of
Dautel, Kim, and Kazuki is affirmed. Claim 4 is not separately argued and
fall with claim 1. Claim 8 is not separately argued and falls with claim 2.
Claim 9 is not separately argued and falls with claim 3.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8, 9, 12 103 Dautel, Kim, Kazuki,
Murai ’011
1–4, 8, 9, 12
1–4, 8, 9, 12 Non-statutory Double
Patenting
1–4, 8, 9, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 8, 9, 12

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