Ex Parte Brookes et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201613097450 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/097,450 04/29/2011 45113 7590 05/18/2016 Siemens Corporation Intellectual Property Department 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 Orlando, FL 32817 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steven J. Brookes 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. 2010P08330 USOl 6536 EXAMINER HANN,JAYB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2123 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2016 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN J. BROOKES, PETER A. KNIGHT, and IAN J. MORRISON Appeal2014-003533 Application 13/097,450 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. Appeal2014-003533 Application 13/097,450 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites "identifying any of the under-defined geometries that are under-defined due to singular (UDS) by the data processing system." The other independent claims (claims 6 and 11) recite similar limitations. The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable, claims 1-5 over Bolon 1 and claims 6-15 over Bolon and Deslandes2. Appellants assert their specification defines "under-defined due to singular" as "a geometry or set that is under-defined yet has a zero constraint balance with respect to its support and should therefore generally be well- defined by the constraints (including dimensions) to its supports." App. Br. 19 (citing Spec. i-f 14). Appellants argue neither Bolon nor Deslandes teaches or suggests geometries that are "under-defined due to singular" as defined in Appellants' specification. See App. Br. 20-26; Reply Br. 9-17. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of the evidence presented and Appellants' arguments. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found Bolon discloses identifying "singularities" and that "[i]dentifying singularities is identifying UDS" because"[ s ]ingularity as a term used within Bolon can refer to situations where underconstrained or overconstrained geometries result." Ans. 4--5. But as argued by Appellants, Appellants' specification defines "under- defined due to singular" as "a geometry or set that is under-defined yet has a zero constraint with respect to its supports and should therefore generally be well-defined by constraints (including dimensions) to its supports." Spec. 1 US 5,410,496; April 25, 1995. 2 US 8,248,407 B2; August 21, 2012. 2 Appeal2014-003533 Application 13/097,450 il 14. The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or reasoning to establish that identifying singularities teaches or suggests identifying geometries that are "under-defined due to singular" as defined in Appellants' specification. Nor has the Examiner established Deslandes remedies this deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 or their respective dependent claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-15. REVERSED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation