SWIMC LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 22, 2020

14453203 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 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.
14/453,203 08/06/2014 Jeffrey Niederst 4918.131US02 6594
145378 7590 05/22/2020
Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A.
80 South Eighth Street
4800 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
REDDY, KARUNA P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1764
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2020 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):
cleveland@ptslaw.com
efsuspto@ptslaw.com
rahmlow@ptslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY NIEDERST, RICHARD H. EVANS,
ROBERT M. O’BRIEN, KEVIN ROMAGNOLI, and
MARK S. VON MAIER

Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9–12, 14, 17, 21–27, 30–33,
and 42–47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Oral argument was held May 11, 2020.
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 Sherwin-
Williams Company. Appeal Brief dated Jan. 3, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 3.
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The present application generally relates to coatings for packaging
containers such as metal food and beverage cans. Specification filed Aug. 6,
2014 (“Spec.”) ¶ 2. Coatings are applied to the interior of such containers to
prevent contact between the food and metal. Id. ¶ 3. The Specification
teaches that such coatings should be safe for food contact, not adversely
affect the taste of the packaged food or beverage product, have excellent
adhesion to the substrate, and resist staining and other degradation over long
periods of time. Id. Certain coatings conventionally used for this purpose
incorporate bisphenol A (BPA). Id. ¶ 4. The Specification teaches that there
is, however, “a desire by some to reduce or eliminate certain BPA-based
compounds commonly used to formulate food-contact epoxy coatings.” Id.
The Specification teaches a coating composition that is free of any
polyhydric polyphenol or any epoxide thereof. Id. ¶ 6. The Specification
further teaches that “[u]se of a polyhydric monophenol having no
appreciable estrogenic activity may be beneficial in the event that any
unreacted, residual polyhydric phenol may be present in a cured coating
composition.” Id. ¶ 95.
Claim 2 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:

Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

3
2. An article comprising:
a food or beverage container, or a portion thereof, having:
a metal substrate; and
a coating disposed on at least a portion of the substrate, the
coating formed from a coating composition comprising:
a polyether polymer that includes at least 25% by weight
of aryl or heteroaryl groups, exhibits a glass transition
temperature of at least 30°C, does not include any
structural units derived from polyhydric polyphenol or
any structural units derived from a compound exhibiting
estrogen agonist activity greater than or equal to that
exhibited by bisphenol S, and includes one or more
segments of the below Formula (II):

II
wherein:
each of the depicted oxygen atoms in Formula (II) is
present in an ether linkage,
H denotes a hydrogen atom, if present,
each R1, if present, is independently an atom or group
having an atomic weight of at least 15 Daltons,
v is 0 to 4, and
wherein two or more R1 groups can join to form one or
more cyclic groups;
wherein the polyether polymer is a reaction product of
reactants including a diepoxide and a dihydric
monophenol; and
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

4
wherein if the diepoxide comprises a diepoxide of a
dihydric monophenol, the dihydric monophenol used to
form the diepoxide includes a phenylene ring having
one or more organic substituent groups positioned
ortho to one or more hydroxyl groups.
Appeal Br. 27–28 (Claims App.) (emphasis added; reformatted for clarity).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Urano et al. (“Urano”) US 4,880,892 Nov. 14, 1989
Evans et al. (“Evans”) US 2007/0087146 A1 Apr. 19, 2007

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9–12, 14, 17, 21–27, 30–33, and 42–47 are
provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as obvious over claims 21–47 of Application No.
15/204,559, which later issued as US 10,294,388 B2 on May
21, 2019. Final Action dated July 30, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at
3.
2. Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9–12, 14, 17, 21–27, 30–33, and 42–47 are
rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Urano in view of Evans. Id. at 3–6.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects all pending claims for
nonstatutory double patenting. Id. at 3.
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

5
Appellant does not present argument contesting this rejection. See
Appeal Br. 7 (“Only the rejection of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is being appealed.”); Reply Br. 3. Consequently, Appellant has
waived any assertion of error and we summarily sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims for nonstatutory double patenting. See In re Berger,
279 F.3d 975, 984–85 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the Board did not err in
sustaining a rejection that was not contested by the appellant).

Rejection 2. The Examiner rejects all pending claims as obvious over
Urano in view of Evans. Final Act. 3–6.
In support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that Urano teaches a
coating composition that comprises “(a) an epoxy resin having on average
more than one epoxy per molecule,” and “(b) a mononuclear phenol having
at least two phenolic hydroxyl groups per molecule.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds that the epoxy of Urano may include
“polyglycidyl ethers of dihydric phenols such as resorcinol and hydro-
quinone.” Id. The Examiner further finds that examples of mononuclear
phenol taught by Urano include compounds represented by the following
formula:

Urano’s formula teaches a structure that is one of several phenols “to which
the present invention is applicable.” Urano 3:43–44. The Examiner further
finds that Urano teaches that the R´ group in the formula depicted above
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

6
may be a lower alkyl having 1 to 7 carbon atoms. Final Act. 4–5; see also
Urano 3:62–4:11.
The Examiner additionally finds that the dihydric phenols that are
reacted with the epoxy resin can be the same or different from the dihydric
phenol used to prepare the 1,2-epoxy resin component. Final Act. 5. In this
regard, Urano teaches that “[t]he dihydric phenols that are reacted with the
epoxy resin . . . can be the same or different from the dihydric phenol used to
prepare the 1,2-epoxy resin component.” Urano 4:49–52.
The Examiner relies on Evans as teaching that bisphenols are
“perceived by some people as being potentially harmful to human health.”
Final Act. 5; Evans ¶ 4. Accordingly, the Examiner determines that one of
skill in the art would not have chosen these compounds, from among those
disclosed by Urano, for use in a food coating composition. Final Act. 5–6;
Evans ¶ 4.
The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had reason “to replace bisphenol glycidyl ethers in examples, of Urano
et al, with diepoxides prepared from unsubstituted/ substituted dihydric
monophenols, such as hydroquinone and resorcinol, in examples of Urano et
al, and extend the said diepoxide with a mononuclear phenol to prepare the
polyether polymer.” Id. at 5–6.
Appellant alleges error on several bases. Appeal Br. 10–25.
Appellant organizes the claims into several groups for purposes of argument.
Id. We consider Appellant’s arguments in the order presented.

Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

7
Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9–12, 17, 21–27, 30, and 47
Appellant argues that claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9–12, 17, 21–27, 30, and 47
were rejected in error. Id. at 10–22.
First, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in relying upon Evans
to narrow the range of diepoxides and phenols for use in the coating
composition. Id. at 10–13.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that “[m]any current
packaging coatings contain mobile or bound bisphenol based materials and
are perceived as being potentially harmful to human health. There is a
strong desire to eliminate these compounds from food contact coatings.”
Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that the Examiner reads Evans too broadly.
Appeal Br. 10–13. Appellant asserts that “Evans only describes a ‘strong
desire’ to eliminate mobile or bound BPA and BPF based materials from
packaging coatings” rather than all bisphenol based materials. Id. at 11
(emphasis omitted). In the Answer, the Examiner concedes that Evans does
not teach to eliminate the use of all bisphenols. Answer 8–9. The Examiner
maintains, however, that Evans teaches not to use bisphenol A and bisphenol
F in food related coatings. Id. The Examiner further asserts that “[t]his
replacement of BPA based compounds in examples of Urano with reaction
product of dihydric phenols and epoxide obtained from the same dihydric
phenol (taught in the general disclosure of Urano et al) would result in a
polyether polymer of present claims and does not include polyhydric
polyphenols.” Id. at 9.
We are not persuaded of error on this basis. Urano teaches as follows
regarding the use of dihydric phenols:
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

8
The dihydric phenols particularly suitable in the practice of the
invention include 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane (bisphenol
A), resorcinol, 1,4-dihydroxynaphthalene, 2,2-bis(4-hydroxy)
methane (bisphenol F), bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)-sulfone,
tetrabromo- and tetrachlorobisphenol A, pyrocatechol,
hydroquinone, bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)methylphenyl-methane,
bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)-tolyl-methane, 4,4' -dihydroxy biphenyl,
phenolphthalin and 4,4'-dihydroxy-3, 3' ,5 ,5'-tetramethyl
biphenyl. Among them, particularly preferred is bis(4-
hydroxyphenyl)methane and 2, 2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)
propane.

Urano 4:37–48 (emphasis added).
Thus, the dihydric phenols relied upon by the Examiner (resorcinol,
pyrocatechol, and hydroquinone (see Answer 7)) are listed by name. The
Examiner may rely on such disclosure. See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft
Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the [reference]
discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any
particular formulation less obvious.”); see also Purdue Pharma Prod. L.P. v.
Par Pharm., Inc., 377 F. App’x 978, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding claim
obvious over argument that “a person of skill in the art would not have
selected tramadol out of the myriad other possible active ingredients for use
in a once-daily formulation” where the prior art reference listed tramadol as
one of fourteen different opioid analgesics).
Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner lacks an adequate basis to
find that Urano teaches a polyether polymer that does not include any
structural unit derived from a compound exhibiting estrogen agonist activity
greater than or equal to that of bisphenol S. Appeal Br. 13–18.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that, in view of the structural
similarity of the polyether polymer taught by Urano derived from dihydric
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

9
monophenols, “one skilled in art at the time invention was made would have
a reasonable basis to expect these compounds to not exhibit estrogen
antagonist activity greater than bisphenol S and 4, 4' -(propane-2, 2-
diyl)bis(2, 6-dibromophenol),[2] absent evidence to the contrary.” Final Act.
6.
Appellant argues that neither Urano nor Evans discusses or even
mentions estrogen agonist activity. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further argues
that the Examiner has failed to show that Urano or Evans regarded estrogen
agonist activity as a recognized potential problem. Id. at 14. Appellant
additionally argues that the Examiner has not shown that the references
describe a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that would
address estrogen agonist activity. Id. Appellant further argues that Urano’s
listing of many preferred polyhydric polyphenols teaches away from the
subject matter of claim 2. Id. at 15.
Appellant’s arguments regarding estrogen activity are not persuasive.
Urano teaches to combine an epoxy and a phenol. Urano 2:59–64.
Urano specifically lists resorcinol, pyrocatechol, and hydroquinone (each of
which is a dihydric monophenol) as “particularly suitable” phenols. Id. at
4:37–43. In its discussion of epoxides, Urano states “[e]xamples of said
polyepoxide include epoxy novolac resins; polyglycidyl ethers of dihydric
phenols such as . . . resorcinol and hydroquinone. Urano col. 3:15–19.
Urano further teaches that “[t]he dihydric phenols that are reacted with the

2 Claims 45–47 require that the polymer does not include any structural units
derived from a compound exhibiting estrogen agonist activity greater than or
equal to that exhibited by 4, 4'-(propane-2, 2-diyl)bis(2, 6-dibromophenol).
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

10
epoxy resin according to the process of this invention can be the same or
different from the dihydric phenol used to prepare the 1,2-epoxy resin
component.” Id. at 4:49–52. Accordingly, the Examiner’s stated reason to
combine is supported by Urano. Here, the reduced estrogen activity is an
attribute that would flow naturally from the combined teachings of Urano
and Evans. “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which
would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot
be the basis for patentability when the difference would otherwise have been
obvious.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985); see also Par
Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(it may be appropriate “to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a
claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis” where the
limitation at issue is “the natural result of the combination of elements
explicitly disclosed by the prior art.”).
Third, Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner failed to
establish that the references teach the following limitations:
wherein the polyether polymer is a reaction product of reactants
including a diepoxide and a dihydric monophenol; and
wherein if the diepoxide comprises a diepoxide of a dihydric
monophenol, the dihydric monophenol used to form the
diepoxide includes a phenylene ring having one or more
organic substituent groups positioned ortho to one or more
hydroxyl groups.
Appeal Br. 18–22; see also id. at 28 (Claims App.).
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Urano teaches that
[e]xamples of mononuclear phenol include compounds
represented by formula
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

11

wherein R’ may be a lower alkyl having 1 to 7 carbon atoms
(col. 3, lines 7-63) and n = 0 to 3 (col. 2, lines 7-65) which
reads on the structural unit of formula II in present claims 2, 6-
7, and 10-12.

Final Act. 4–5. In the Final Action, the Examiner further finds as follows:
The dihydric phenols that can be reacted with the epoxy resin
can be the same or different from the dihydric phenol used to
prepare the 1,2-epoxy resin component. Hence, it is clear that if
mononuclear phenol is used to prepare the 1,2-epoxy resin
component, it would include a substituent in either ortho,
meta or para positions, absent evidence of criticality to the
position of substituent (i.e. ortho v/s meta[ ] and para) on
dihydric phenol used to form diepoxide. . . . [The] secondary
reference of Evans et al discourages the use of bisphenols.
Hence, it is the office’s position that it is within the scope of
one skilled in art at the time invention was made to use any of
the other dihydric phenols including mononuclear dihydric
phenol, such as hydroquinone and resorcinol having an
alkyl substituent, to form the polyether polymer.

Final Act. 8–9 (emphasis added).
In the Answer, the Examiner further determines that, in the case of
hydroquinone, the “only positions that are open to substitution when n = 1 to
3 is ortho to hydroxyl groups in hydroquinone.” Answer 11.

Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

12
A schematic drawing of hydroquinone is reproduced, above, from the
Examiner’s Answer. Id.
Appellant argues that “Urano does not disclose or suggest selecting a
dihydric monophenol having one or more organic substituent groups
included in an ortho position to one or more hydroxyl groups for the purpose
of forming a diepoxide.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant asserts that none of the
polyepoxides specifically enumerated by Urano exhibit such structure. Id.
This is not persuasive. The mononuclear phenol structure taught by
Urano and relied upon by the Examiner teaches, inter alia, a dihydric
monophenol having lower alkyl substituent groups. As found by the
Examiner, in the case of hydroquinone, an R’ group will always be ortho to
a hydroxyl group.
Fourth, Appellant further argues that “Urano discourages using
epoxides with hindering substituents.” Appeal Br. 19. This is not
persuasive. Urano provides that “[i]f desired, [the epoxy resin] may have a
non-hindering substituent such as halogen atom, hydroxyl group, ether
group, ester group and the like.” Urano col. 3:12–14. Thus, Urano
specifically teaches that certain substituents may be present. Further, the
stated ether and ester groups would encompass a variety of “organic
substituent groups.” Accordingly, we determine that Appellant has not
shown error in the Examiner’s prima facie case in this regard.
Fifth, Appellant additionally contends that “epoxides derived from a
diepoxide of a dihydric monophenol having ortho positioning of substituent
groups to a ring hydroxyl group have unexpected benefits.” Appeal Br. 21
(emphasis added). Specifically, Appellant asserts that a dihydric
monophenol having an organic substituent group ortho to a hydroxyl group
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

13
could help avoid or reduce estrogen agonist activity. Id. Appellant further
asserts that it unexpectedly discovered that “it may be advantageous to
extend a diepoxide of a dihydric monophenol using a dihydric monophenol
that does not include any R1 groups at all, or any R1 groups at an ortho
position.” Id.
An applicant may overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by
establishing “that the [claimed] range is critical, generally by showing that
the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art
range.” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469–70 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (alteration
in original) (citation omitted). “Although it is well settled that comparative
test data showing an unexpected result will rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness, the comparative testing must be between the claimed invention
and the closest prior art.” In re Fenn, 639 F.2d 762, 765 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that unexpected results must be established by
factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the
specification does not suffice.” In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984), quoted with approval in In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir.
1995).
“It is the established rule that ‘objective evidence of non-obviousness
must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is
offered to support.”’ Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 965 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971)). This is as
true for evidence of unexpected results as it is for any other type of objective
evidence of non-obviousness. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (“the applicant’s showing of unexpected results must be
commensurate in scope with the claimed range”); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

14
1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980) (“In order to establish unexpected results for a
claimed invention, objective evidence of non-obviousness must be
commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to
support.”).
Here, Appellant has not directed us to specific information comparing
the estrogenic or genotoxic (or other) activity of a diepoxide of the claim
(having an organic substituent located ortho to a hydroxyl group) to a similar
diepoxide having an organic substituent located meta or para to a hydroxyl
group. See Further Declaration of Richard H. Evans Under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.132 dated May 15, 2018 (“2018 Evans Declaration”) ¶¶ 4–7.
Further, although Appellant’s briefing regarding unexpected results is
terse, it appears that Appellant supplies RPE (Relative Proliferative Effect)
data for just a single compound (2, 5-di-t-butylhydroquinone) that would fall
within the scope of claim 2. Spec. ¶ 93 (Table). This is insufficient to
demonstrate a beneficial effect throughout the claimed range of organic
substituents.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the objective evidence of
non-obviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims at issue.
Sixth, Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in failing to establish
that the applied references disclose or suggest a polyether polymer that
“exhibits a glass transition temperature of at least 30 °C” as required by
claim 2. Appeal Br. 22. In response, the Examiner determines that there is a
reasonable basis to expect that the polyether taught by the combination of
Urano and Evans would have had the presently claimed glass transition
temperature. Answer 15. In view of such reasonable expectation, the
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

15
burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claim differs from the prior
art. Id. at 15–16 (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252 (CCPA 1977)).
Appellant has not shown error in the foregoing determination.

Claims 14 and 42
Appellant additionally argues that claims 14 and 42 (Group 2) were
rejected in error. Appeal Br. 23. Claim 14 depends from claim 2 and further
requires that “the diepoxide comprises a diepoxide of a dihydric
monophenol.” Id. at 29 (Claims App.). Thus, this would invoke the last
limitation of claim 2 (“wherein if the diepoxide comprises a diepoxide of a
dihydric monophenol . . .”) requiring an organic substituent group. Id. at 28
(Claims App.). Similarly, claim 42 depends from claim 14 and further
requires that “the dihydric monophenol used to form the diepoxide has at
least two organic ortho substituent groups, and wherein the organic ortho
substituent groups each include one to four carbon atoms.” Id. at 32 (Claims
App.). Appellant argues that neither the polyglycidyl ethers of resorcinol or
hydroquinone is taught to bear an organic substituent. Appeal Br. 23.
This is not persuasive. As discussed above, Urano discloses a
monocyclic phenol having the following structure:

In regard to the structure above, Urano teaches that “the phenols to which
the present invention is applicable are compounds represented by the
following formulae.” Urano 3:42–44. Urano further teaches that R’ may be
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

16
a lower alkyl group having 1 to 7 carbon atoms. Id. at 3:62–63. Urano
additionally teaches that n may be an integer from 0 to 3. Id. at 4:17.
Urano further teaches that “[t]he dihydric phenols that are reacted
with the epoxy resin . . . can be the same or different from the dihydric
phenol used to prepare the 1,2-epoxy resin component.” Id. at 4:49–52. The
Examiner finds that this, in context, would have taught one of skill in the art
that the epoxide may be derived from a monocyclic phenol as taught by
Urano (structure reproduced above). Final Act. 5–6. Appellant has not
shown error in this reasoning. Accordingly, Urano teaches the limitations of
claims 14 and 42.

Claims 32, 33, and 46
Appellant additionally argues that claims 32, 33, and 46 (Group 3)
were rejected in error. Appeal Br. 24. Claim 32 is an independent claim and
claims 33 and 46 depend from claim 32. Id. at 31–32, 34 (Claims App.).
Appellant relies on the same arguments it presents with regard to
claim 2. Appeal Br. 24. As we do not find such arguments to be persuasive,
we determine that Appellant has not shown error with regard to the rejection
of claims 32, 33, and 46.

Claims 43–45
Appellant additionally argues that claims 43–45 (Group 4) were
rejected in error. Appeal Br. 24–25. Appellant relies on the same arguments
it presents with regard to claim 2. Id. As we do not find such arguments to
be persuasive, we determine that Appellant has not shown error with regard
to the rejection of claims 43–45.
Appeal 2019-004120
Application 14/453,203

17
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Examiner’s Answer,
and above, the Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 3, 5–7,
9–12, 14,
17, 21–27,
30–33,
42–47
Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
2, 3, 5–7,
9–12, 14,
17, 21–27,
30–33,
42–47

2, 3, 5–7,
9–12, 14,
17, 21–27,
30–33,
42–47
103(a) Urano, Evans 2, 3, 5–7,
9–12, 14,
17, 21–27,
30–33,
42–47

Overall
Outcome
2, 3, 5–7,
9–12, 14,
17, 21–27,
30–33,
42–47

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