ROCHE DIABETES CARE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2021

2021004098 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 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.
16/289,933 03/01/2019 Nathan Allen CARRINGTON 655-14421 7144
180598 7590 09/09/2021
Brannon Sowers & Cracraft PC- Roche
47 South Meridian Street
Suite 400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
NOGUEROLA, ALEXANDER STEPHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1795
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2021 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):
docket@bscattorneys.com
pair_roche@firsttofile.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte NATHAN ALLEN CARRINGTON,
STACY HUNT DUVALL,
and LEON SCOTT VAN DYKE
__________

Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 25–45. 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Roche Diabetes Care,
Inc. Appeal Brief dated January 27, 2021 (“Appeal Br.”), at 2.
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

2

The Appellant’s invention is said to be directed to compositions, devices,
and uses in the analytical detection and/or quantification of an analyte, such as
glucose. Spec. ¶ 2. The Appellant discloses that “[i]t has been surprisingly
discovered . . . that zwitterionic buffers may be included in a wide variety of
reagent systems, and may improve the kinetics of glucose detection and/or
measurement.” Spec. ¶ 6.
Independent claim 25 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.
25. An electrochemical sensor comprising an electrode, and a dried
residue covering at least a portion of the electrode, where the dried
residue comprises (a) one or more enzymes selected from the group
consisting of glucose dehydrogenases, glucose oxidoreductases, and
combinations thereof; (b) optionally one or more co-factors, co-
enzymes, or a combination thereof for the one or more enzymes; (c)
one or more mediators, mediator precursors, or a combination thereof,
wherein at least one mediator or mediator precursor is aqueous
soluble; (d) one or more zwitterionic buffers; and (e) an hydratable
matrix comprising one or more gelling agents.
Appeal Br. 35.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 25, 27, and 30–45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nagakawa2 in view of Bhullar;3
(2) claims 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nagakawa in view of Bhullar, further in view of Yamoaka;4 and

2 US 2007/0053790 A1, to Nagakawa et al., published March 8, 2007
(“Nagakawa”).
3 US 2005/0019212 A1, to Bhullar et al., published January 27, 2005 (“Bhullar”).
4 US 7,776,575 B2, to Yamoaka et al., issued August 17, 2010 (“Yamoaka”).
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

3

(3) claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nagakawa in
view of Bhullar, further in view of Inamori.5
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
a. Claims 25, 27, and 30–43
The Examiner finds Nagakawa teaches an electrochemical sensor
comprising a dried residue that includes components (a)–(d) recited in claim 25.
Final Act. 3.6 The Examiner finds Nagakawa does not disclose that the dried
residue includes claimed component (e), i.e., “an hydratable matrix comprising one
or more gelling agents.” Final Act. 4; Appeal Br. 35. Nonetheless, the Examiner
finds Bhullar discloses a gelling agent as claimed. Final Act. 4.
More specifically, the Examiner finds Bhullar discloses a reagent similar to
the reagent disclosed in Nagakawa (corresponding to the claimed dried residue)
that includes
a variety of adjuvants to enhance the reagent properties or
characteristics. For example, the composition may include adjunct
materials to facilitate the placement of the reagent composition onto
the test strip and to improve its adherence to the strip. The
composition can also include materials to increase its rate of hydration
and/or increase its influence on the capillary action to fill the chamber
with the test sample. Examples of addjunct [sic] materials to be used
with the reagent composition include thickeners, viscosity modulators,
film formers, stabilizers, buffers, detergents, gelling agents, fillers,
film opening agents, coloring agents, and agents endowing thixotropy.
Bhullar ¶ 163 (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 4.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to add Bhullar’s gelling agent adjuvants to the reagent layer of

5 US 2008/0248514 A1, to Inamori et al., published October 9, 2008 (“Inamori”).
6 Final Office Action dated May 27, 2020.
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

4

Nagakawa’s sensor in order to enhance its reagent properties or characteristics as
disclosed in Bhullar paragraph 163. Final Act. 4–5.
The Appellant argues that Bhullar, in paragraph 63, “does not indicate which
‘reagent properties or characteristics’ will be enhanced by a gelling agent.” Appeal
Br. 11. Therefore, the Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to add a gelling agent to the reagent layer of Nagakawa’s
sensor as proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 8.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Bhullar
discloses that “[t]he reagent composition can . . . include a variety of adjuvants to
enhance the reagent properties or characteristics” and discloses that exemplary
materials include gelling agents. Bhullar ¶ 163; see also Appeal Br. 10
(recognizing that the “possible adjuvants” disclosed in Bhullar include gelling
agents). Thus, we find Bhullar teaches that adjuvants, including gelling agents,
will enhance the properties or characteristics of a reagent. We find that enhancing
reagent properties or characteristics alone is sufficient motivation to add a gelling
agent to Nagakawa’s reagent, which is used for the same purpose as Bhullar’s
reagent.7 See Final Act. 17 (finding that “[a]t the very least, one of ordinary skill
would recognize that adding the gelling agent of Bhullar to the reagent of
Nagakawa would provide ‘enhancing the reagent properties or characteristics’”).
To the extent that Bhullar does not expressly “indicate which ‘reagent
properties or characteristics’ will be enhanced by a gelling agent,”8 on this record,
it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the

7 Bhullar discloses that the invention is directed to evaluating a sample fluid, such
as blood, for a target analyte, such as glucose. Bhullar ¶ 49.
8 Appeal Br. 11.
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

5

function(s) of a gelling agent in Bhullar’s reagent. In that regard, similar to the
disclosure in paragraph 163 of Bhullar, the Appellant discloses:
The reagent composition may also include a variety of
adjuvants to enhance the reagent properties or characteristics. For
example, the composition may include adjunct materials to facilitate
the placement of the reagent composition onto the test strip and to
improve its adherence to the strip. The composition can also include
materials to increase its rate of hydration and/or its increase its
influence on the capillary action to fill the chamber with the test
sample. Additionally, the reagent composition can include
components selected to enhance the physical properties of the
resulting dried reagent composition, and the uptake of a liquid test
sample for analysis. Examples of adjuvant materials to be used with
the reagent composition include thickeners, viscosity modulators, film
formers, stabilizers, buffers, detergents, gelling agents, fillers, film
opening agents, coloring agents, and agents endowing thixotropy.
The adjuvant materials or components can impact the application,
reproducibility and physical properties of the reagent composition.
Spec. ¶ 30 (emphasis added). Notably, the Appellant does not disclose the specific
property or characteristic of the reagent that is enhanced by the gelling agent.
The Appellant also argues that an object of Nagakawa’s invention “is to
provide an analyzing tool which is capable of shortening the analysis time.”
Appeal Br. 15 (quoting Nakagawa ¶ 8) (emphasis added). However, the Appellant
argues that the addition of a gelling agent is contrary to Nagakawa’s objective
because a gelled reaction phase would be more viscous than the corresponding
ungelled reaction phase and thus slow dissolution of the reagent portion and slow
diffusion of both the reagent and the glucose. Appeal Br. 19–20. For that reason,
the Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to add a gelling agent to Nagakawa’s reagent layer as proposed by the
Examiner. Appeal Br. 21.
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

6

On this record, the Appellant does not direct us to any evidence establishing
that the addition of a gelling agent to Nagakawa’s dried reagent would have been
expected to slow dissolution of the reagent and slow diffusion of both the reagent
and the glucose whereby the objectives of Nagakawa cannot be achieved. See In
re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (“Argument in the brief does not take
the place of evidence in the record.”).
Nagakawa discloses that reaction time may be shortened by dividing the
reagent into two portions. Nagakawa ¶ 66; Nagakawa Fig. 3 (illustrating reagent
portions 51 and 52); see also Appeal Br. 16. Nagakawa also discloses that
measurement time may be shortened by reducing the height (facing distance) of the
capillary. Nagakawa ¶¶ 82, 85; Nagakawa Fig. 3 (illustrating capillary 4); see also
Appeal Br. 16. Thus, Nagakawa does not attribute a shortened reaction time to any
components that are either included or not included in the reagent composition. In
fact, Nagakawa contemplates using high viscosity materials in the disclosed
sensor. Nagakawa discloses:
Preferably, the facing distance may be no greater than 100 µm,
and more preferably, no greater than 75 µm. On the other hand, the
facing distance may be no smaller than 30 µm. This is because, when
the facing distance is excessively small, a sample containing solid
components, like blood containing blood cells, or a sample having a
high viscosity cannot move smoothly through the flow path.
Nagakawa ¶ 24 (emphasis added).
Moreover, the teachings of Bhullar support a finding that the addition of a
gelling agent to Nagakawa’s reagent layer, as disclosed in Bhullar, would not run
counter to the objectives disclosed in Nagakawa. See Final Act. 11 (finding that
“there is no reason to believe that the adjuvants [e.g., gelling agents] of Bhullar
will destroy the function of Nagakawa”). In particular, Bhullar discloses that “it is
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

7

preferable that the reagent layer be thin and uniform” because the “liquid test
sample will hydrate or dissolve the thin reagent layer more quickly.”9 Bhullar
¶ 97; see also Bhullar ¶ 3 (disclosing that “[c]urrent trends in test strips require
smaller test samples and faster analysis times”). Bhullar also discloses that “[t]he
control and reproducibility of the quantity, location, width, thickness, and other
properties of the reagent layer become more important as . . . test time
diminishes.”10 Bhullar ¶ 162 (emphasis added). Therefore, Bhullar discloses that
including materials, such as gelling agents, that specifically enhance the physical
characteristics of the reagent is desirable. Bhullar ¶¶ 162–163.
In an attempt to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness, the Appellant
argues that the claimed invention exhibits unexpected results. More specifically,
the Appellant argues that “the claimed electrochemical sensors show unexpected
properties compared to the prior art, including improved kinetics of glucose
detection and measurement, and improved temperature and storage stability.”
Appeal Br. 23.
For support, the Appellant directs our attention to Figures 1–3 of the instant
Application which are said to show the time to maximum signal for several
sensors. More specifically, Figure 1 is said to show “the kinetics curves for DC

9 Similar to Bhullar, the Appellant discloses that a liquid test sample hydrates or
dissolves a thin reagent layer more quickly. Spec. ¶ 73. Conversely, the Appellant
discloses that a thick reagent layer takes more time for a liquid test sample to
hydrate or dissolve the reagent. Id. Thus, it would appear that the thickness of the
Appellant’s reagent layer rather than the presence of some amount of a gelling
agent dictates the rate of dissolution in the Appellant’s invention.
10 According to the Appellant, Bhullar’s sensor reaches a maximum signal in
approximately 4.0 seconds whereas Nagakawa’s sensor reaches maximum
absorbance in about 5 seconds or greater. Appeal Br. 24, 28. Thus, it would
appear that Bhullar’s test time is faster than Nagakawa’s test time.
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

8

response (µA) versus time (ms) for three illustrative sensors based on a PQQ-GDH
enzyme using reagents that include (A) a PIPES buffer,11 (B) a β-glycerophosphate
buffer, and (C) a phosphate buffer.” Spec. ¶ 12; see also Appeal Br. 24. The
Appellant contends that sensor (A) corresponds to the claimed sensor and sensors
(B) and (C) correspond to Bhullar’s sensors. Appeal Br. 24. The Appellant
contends that sensor (A) “reaches the DC peak maximum at approximately 2.3
seconds” and sensors (B) and (C) “reach the DC peak maxima at approximately
4.0 seconds.” Appeal Br. 24.
Figure 2 of the instant Application is said to show “the kinetics curves for
DC response (µA) versus time (ms) for two illustrative sensors based on a FAD-
GDH enzyme using reagents that include (A) a PIPES buffer, and (B) a phosphate
buffer.” Spec. ¶ 13; Appeal Br. 25. Figure 3 of the instant Application is said to
show “the kinetics curves for DC response (µA) versus time (ms) for three
illustrative sensors using reagents that include (A) a MOPS buffer12 at a pH of 7.5,
(B) a β-glycerophosphate buffer at a pH of 7.5, and (C) a β-glycerophosphate
buffer at a pH of 7.0.” Spec. ¶ 14; Appeal Br. 26. The Appellant contends that
Figures 2 and 3 show that sensor (A) reaches the DC peak maximum “at
approximately 1.43 seconds (FIG. 2) and approximately 2.0 seconds (FIG. 3)” and
sensors (B) and (C) reach the DC peak maximum at “approximately 3.1 and 3.5
seconds, respectively (FIG. 3).” Appeal Br. 26. The Appellant does not identify
the DC peak maximum for sensor (B) in Figure 2.

11 The Appellant discloses that PIPES is a zwitterionic buffer. Spec. ¶ 20.
12 The Appellant discloses that MOPS is a zwitterionic buffer. Spec. ¶ 20.
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

9

Based on the foregoing, the Appellant argues that “Appellant’s sensors show
unexpected results, and are almost twice as fast as those described in Bhullar.”
Appeal Br. 26.
“[A]n applicant relying on comparative tests to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness must compare his claimed invention to the closest prior art.” In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Appellant identifies Bhullar as
the closest prior art.13 See Appeal Br. 24–26. Bhullar discloses that K2HPO4 and
KH2PO4 are used as buffers. See Bhullar, Table 1. The buffers in sensors (B) and
(C), however, are identified as β-glycerophosphate buffers and phosphate buffers.
Spec. ¶¶ 12–14. On this record, it is unclear whether the buffers disclosed in
Bhullar and the buffers in sensors (B) and (C) are the same.
Moreover, “objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate
in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In re Tiffin,
448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971). In this case, claim 25 recites that the residue or
reagent in the sensor comprises, inter alia, a gelling agent(s), but it does not appear
that the sensors tested include a gelling agent. Appeal Br. 35; Spec. ¶ 77.
The Appellant argues that Appellant’s working Examples include Keltrol F
which is a gelling agent. Reply Br. 17.14 Keltrol F, however, is identified as a
“thickening agent,” not a gelling agent, in the Appellant’s Specification. Spec.
¶ 77; see also Bhullar ¶ 165 (identifying Keltrol F as a thickener). The Appellant

13 The Examiner, on the other hand, identifies Nagakawa as the closest prior art.
See Final Act. 21–22. The Examiner finds Nagakawa discloses a sensor
comprising, inter alia, GDH as an enzyme, PQQ as a coenzyme, and PIPES as the
zwitterionic buffer. Final Act. 3; see also Nagakawa ¶ 97. The Appellant,
however, argues that Nagakawa’s Examples are directed to colorimetric sensors
rather than electrochemical sensors as claimed. Appeal Br. 27.
14 Reply Brief dated June 16, 2021.
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

10

discloses that thickening agents and gelling agents are different adjuvant materials.
Spec. ¶ 30 (disclosing that examples of adjuvant materials include thickeners and
gelling agents); see also Appeal Br. 35–36 (reciting in claim 33 that the dried
residue recited in claim 25 further comprises one or more adjuvants selected from
the group consisting of, inter alia, “thickening agents”); Appeal Br. 37 (reciting in
claim 45 that the dried residue recited in claim 25 “further compris[es] one or
more thickening agents” (emphasis added)).
We also note that the exemplary sensors relied on by the Appellant (Figures
1–3) merely comprise two different zwitterionic buffers (i.e., PIPES and MOPS)15
and two different enzymes (i.e., PQQ-GDH and FAD-GDH).16 Claim 25,
however, generically recites “one or more zwitterionic buffers” and “one or more
co-factors, co-enzymes, or a combination thereof.”17 Appeal Br. 35. In the

15 Spec. ¶¶ 78, 82.
16 Spec. ¶¶ 78, 82.
17 The Appellant discloses that FAD-GDH is a “co-enzyme.” Spec. ¶¶ 22, 24. The
Appellant discloses that PQQ-GDH, on the other hand, is an “enzyme.” Spec.
¶ 23. Claim 25, however, limits the recited enzymes to “glucose dehydrogenases
[GDHs], glucose oxidoreductases, and combinations thereof.” Appeal Br. 35. In
that regard, the Appellant discloses:
Enzymes useful for glucose analysis in electrochemical systems
include oxidoreductases, such as glucose oxidases (GODs), glucose
dehydrogenase (GDHs), which may also be referred to as glucose de-
oxidoreductase (GlucDORs), and the like. Illustrative glucose
dehydrogenases (GDHs) include, but are not limited to, wild-type
GDHs, mutant GDHs, and the like. . . . It is to be understood that co-
enzymes, such as GDH-NADs, FAD-GDHs, and the like, may be
included in the reagent compositions described herein.
Spec. ¶ 22 (emphasis added). The Appellant also discloses that flavin adenine
dinucleotide (FAD) and pyrroloquinolinequinone (PQQ) are “bound cofactors.”
Spec. ¶ 4. Thus, on this record, it is unclear whether PQQ-GDH is an enzyme, an
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

11

absence of any evidence of a trend, we find that the Appellant’s evidence of
unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with claim 25 for this additional
reason. See In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (in certain
circumstances, “one having ordinary skill in the art may be able to ascertain a trend
in the exemplified data which would allow him to reasonably extend the probative
value thereof”).
Finally, we recognize that sensors (A) have a faster time to maximum signal
than sensors (B) and (C) in Appellant’s Figures 1–3. However, the Appellant does
not direct us to any evidence establishing that the differences illustrated in Figures
1–3 would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the Appellant’s invention. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973)
(explaining that the applicant must establish that the difference between the
claimed invention and the prior art would not have been expected by one skilled in
the art at the time of invention). Therefore, the Appellant’s arguments that the
faster times exhibited by sensors (A) would have been “unexpected” are entitled to
little weight. See De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705 (“It is well settled that unexpected
results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory
statements in the specification does not suffice.”).
On balance, the evidence of record weighs in favor of the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 25, 27,
and 30–43 based on the combination of Nagakawa and Bhullar is sustained.

enzyme containing a bound cofactor (PQQ), or a “co-enzyme” similar to FAD-
GDH.
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

12

b. Claims 44 and 45
Claim 44 depends from claim 25 and recites that the electrochemical sensor
further comprises “one or more film forming agents.” Appeal Br. 36. Claim 45
depends from claim 25 and recites that the electrochemical sensor further
comprises “one or more thickening agents.” Appeal Br. 37.
The Examiner finds Bhullar teaches film formers and thickening agents.
Final Act. 8–9. The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s
findings. Rather, the Appellant argues that the Examiner does not explain why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have added a film former and/or a thickening
agent to Nagakawa’s modified sensor. Appeal Br. 30.
The Examiner finds Bhullar discloses that a variety of adjuvants, including
gelling agents, film formers and thickeners, will enhance the properties of a
reagent. See Final Act. 11 (finding Bhullar teaches that “every adjuvant will
enhance reagent properties”); Bhullar ¶ 162 (disclosing that it is “desirable for the
[reagent] composition to include materials that specifically enhance the physical
characteristics” of the reagent layer); Bhullar ¶ 163 (disclosing that adjuvants
include gelling agents, thickeners, and film formers). Thus, for the same reason
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to add a gelling agent to
Nagakawa’s dried reagent (i.e., to enhance the reagent properties), the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add
a thickener or a film former to Nagakawa’s modified dried reagent. See Final Act.
19–20.
The Appellant also argues that adding a thickener or a film former in
combination with a gelling agent would increase the viscosity of Nagakawa’s
modified reagent and further slow dissolution, diffusion, and reaction time.
Appeal Br. 31.
Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

13

As discussed above, Nagakawa contemplates using high viscosity materials
in the disclosed sensor. Nagakawa ¶ 24. Moreover, Bhullar, like Nagakawa, is
interested in faster analysis times and adds adjuvants, such as gelling agents,
thickeners, and film formers, to the reagent composition. Bhullar ¶¶ 162–163.
Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we find that adding some
amount of a thickener or a film former to Nagakawa’s modified dried reagent
would not have been expected to significantly slow dissolution, diffusion, and
reaction time whereby the objectives of Nagakawa’s invention cannot be achieved.
See Schulze, 346 F.2d at 602 (“Argument in the brief does not take the place of
evidence in the record.”).
The obviousness rejection of claims 44 and 45 based on the combination of
Nagakawa and Bhullar is sustained.
2. Rejections (2) and (3)
The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or legal conclusions in the rejections of claims 26, 28, and 29. Rather, the
Appellant argues that Yamaoka and Inamori do not cure the “insufficiency of
Nagakawa and Bhullar vis-à-vis claim 25.” Appeal Br. 32, 33.
For the reasons discussed above, there is no deficiency in the obviousness
rejection of claim 25 that requires curing by either Yamaoka or Inamori.
Therefore, the obviousness rejections of claims 26, 28, and 29 are sustained.
C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
In summary:

Appeal 2021-004098
Application 16/289,933

14

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
25, 27, 30–45 103(a) Nagakawa, Bhullar 25, 27, 30–45
26, 28 103(a) Nagakawa,
Bhullar, Yamoaka
26, 28
29 103(a) Nagakawa,
Bhullar, Inamori
29
Overall
Outcome
25–45

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 35 U.S.C. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED