NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NATURAL ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant

v.

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor ______________________

2017-1963 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,048. ______________________

Decided: October 1, 2018 ______________________

SCOTT A. M. CHAMBERS, Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also repre- sented by RICHARD J. OPARIL, KEVIN M. BELL, BILLY DELL CHISM; MATTHEW ZAPADKA, Bass, Berry & Sims, PLC, Washington, DC.

MARY L. KELLY, Office of the Solicitor, United States 2 NATURAL ALTERNATIVES v. IANCU

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, ROBERT J. MCMANUS, AMY J. NELSON. ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and REYNA, Circuit Judges. PROST, Chief Judge. Woodbolt Distributors, LLC (“Woodbolt”) requested that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) reexamine U.S. Patent No. 8,129,422 (“the ʼ422 patent”) owned by Natural Alternatives International, Inc. (“NAI”). The PTO ordered inter partes reexamina- tion, and the examiner rejected the challenged claims as anticipated by or obvious over cited prior art, including a parent of the reexamined patent. NAI appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) final determination affirming the examiner’s rejections and its subsequent denial of NAI’s request for rehearing. The ʼ422 patent issued from the seventh U.S. applica- tion in a chain of eight U.S. applications generally di- rected to increasing athletes’ endurance. This opinion addresses NAI’s priority challenge as to the ʼ422 patent. Our companion opinion, Natural Alternatives Internation- al, Inc. v. Matal, No. 17-1962, addressed NAI’s priority challenge as to the patent issuing from the eighth applica- tion—U.S. Patent No. 8,067,381 (“the ʼ381 patent”). Because the facts and procedural history in the two cases are substantially identical, we do not repeat our discussion of those topics here. Regarding the merits of this appeal, we affirm the Board’s final determination and its denial of NAI’s request for rehearing for the reasons stated in our companion opinion. AFFIRMED