Ex Parte Appleby et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12504330 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
12/504,330 07/16/2009 Michael P. Appleby 1021-044 9890
34060 7590
MICHAEL N. HAYNES
1341 HUNTERSFIELD CLOSE
KESWICK, VA 22947
EXAMINER
GUPTA, YOGENDRA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
PAIR @ MichaelHaynes. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALBOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL P. APPLEBY, IAIN FRASER, and
JAMES E. ATKINSON
Appeal 2014-0061241
Application 12/504,330
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R.GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The rejections maintained on appeal all rely upon Higashi (US
6,682,688 Bl, issued Jan. 27, 2004), or Stampfl (US 6,242,163 Bl, issued
June 5, 2001), as evidence of anticipation and/or obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (See Ans. 4-17 for lull listing
of the rejections on appeal).2
As noted by Appellants, this appeal is related to two other applications
12/644,253 (Appeal No. 2011-011457, where the Examiner’s decision was
affirmed in a decision dated April 29, 2015) and 12/141,455 (Appeal No.
1 The real party of interest is stated to be Mikro Systems, Inc. (App. Br. 1).
2 The Examiner withdrew the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
all the claims, and the rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
indefinite (Ans. 17).
Appeal 2014-006124
Application 12/504,330
2013-001393, where the Examiner’s decision was affirmed in a decision
dated April 7, 2014) (App. Br. 1). Both of these appeals concerned similar
subject matter to that currently on appeal (mold devices including the same
or similar product-by-process limitations as disputed in this appeal). The
Examiner’s rejections in each of these related appeals, based on the same
prior art of Higashi and/or Stampfl as involved in this appeal, were affirmed.
Similar to those appeals, upon consideration of the evidence on this
record and each of Appellants’ contentions, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over
the applied prior art. We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, the
preponderance of which support the anticipation rejections and the
conclusions of law articulated by the Examiner in the obviousness rejections.
Accordingly, we sustain the above rejections based on the findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the
Examiner in the Answer, and for the applicable reasons stated in the related
decisions on appeal, Appeal Nos. 2013-001393 and 2011-011457.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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
2