Ex Parte Bentley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

11747881 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111747,881 05/11/2007
93379 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
09/20/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jon Bentley
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
648.0288 5361
EXAMINER
LAEKEMARIAM, YOSEF K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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):
sarah@setterroche.com
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JON BENTLEY,
ANJUR SUNDARESAN KRISHNAKUMAR,
and DAVID M. WEISS
Appeal2014-005871
Application 11/747,881
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005871
Application 11/747,881
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 27-
29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A telephone comprising:
a housing, wherein said housing is a base;
a handset;
a cord connecting said handset to said base; and
a light source attached to said base, wherein said light
source includes at least one light emitting element and a
rechargeable power source selectively powering said at least
one light emitting element, wherein said rechargeable power
source is recharged when said base receives power, and wherein
said at least one light emitting element is automatically
illuminated when power to said telephone is interrupted.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE 1
Claims 1, 6, 9, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pelletier (US 2004/0028192 Al, Feb. 12, 2004) and
Tischer (US 2008/0194225 Al, Aug. 14, 2008). Final Act. 2-5.
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Final Office Action ("Final Act.")
mailed on July 11, 2013, and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed on
February 12, 2014.
2
Appeal2014-005871
Application 11/747,881
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pelletier, Chin (US 6,474,828 Bl, Nov. 5, 2002), and Tischer. Final
Act. 5-7.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pelletier and Chin. Final Act. 7-9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pelletier, Tischer, and Collins (US 2007/0103886 Al, May 10, 2007).
Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pelletier, Tischer, Chin, and Shealtiel (US 6,836,643 B2,
Dec. 28, 2004). Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pelletier, Tischer, and Shealtiel. Final Act. 11-12.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pelletier, Tischer, Chin, and Valenzona (US 4,747,133, May 24, 1988).
Final Act. 12.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pelletier, Tischer, Shealtiel, and Valenzona. Final Act. 12-13.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pelletier, Tischer, Chin, and Deppen (US 6,888,940B1, May 3, 2005). Final
Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
3
Appeal2014-005871
Application 11/747,881
Appellants have presented several arguments as to why the
combination of the references does not teach or suggest the features recited
in the rejected claims.2
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each
argument presented by the Appellants on pages 14 through 20 of the
Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner's
findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Final Action and
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-15; Ans. 14--
20. We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut such findings
including the Examiner's responses to Appellants' arguments.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19,
20, 22, and 27-29 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 We refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 16, 2013.
4