Ex Parte Aseere

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2012

11475309 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/475,309 06/27/2006 Lester M. Aseere 7601 2198
29602 7590 12/19/2012
JOHNS MANVILLE
10100 WEST UTE AVENUE
PO BOX 625005
LITTLETON, CO 80162-5005
EXAMINER
JUSKA, CHERYL ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LESTER M. ASEERE
____________

Appeal 2011-005024
Application 11/475,309
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); claims 1
and 3-10 as unpatentable over Nobuto (US Pub. No. 2004/0242100, Dec. 02,
2004) and claim 2 as unpatentable over Nobuto in view of Davies (US Pat.
No. 3,595,731, July 27, 1971). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
6.
Appeal 2011-005024
Application 11/475,309

2
We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttal to arguments set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer. 1
Appellant’s contention that a skilled artisan would not look to employ
a web heating temperature in Nobuto that corresponds to the claimed
temperature set forth in step b of claim 1 for the purposes of Nobuto is not
substantiated with evidence and fails to take into account the higher heating
temperatures encompassed and suggested by the disclosures of Nobuto, as
fully explained by the Examiner in the Examiner’s response to the argument
(Br. 5-6; Ans. 9-10).
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

bar

1 Appellant presents arguments directed to the features of sole independent
claim 1 only, based principally on the heat setting temperature set forth in
step b of claim 1 (Br. 3-7). The dependent claim features have not been
separately argued (id.).