Ex Parte Grammel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13814414 (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.
13/814,414 02/05/2013 Gert Grammel ALU-103/807034 US 9921
47382 7590 03/02/2017
Patti & Malvone Law Group, LLC
One North LaSalle St., 44th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
EXAMINER
PATEL, JIGAR P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
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):
info @ pattimalvonelg .com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERT GRAMMEL and LIE YEN LEVRAU
Appeal 2016-005931
Application 13/814,414
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005931
Application 13/814,414
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—8. We reverse.
The Examiner has rejected (i) claims 1—3 and 5—7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li (US 2010/0091647 Al; published
Apr. 15, 2010) and Massa (US 2007/0058528 Al; published Mar. 15, 2007)
(Final Act. 2—5); and (ii) claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Massa, and Weis (US 2003/0128661 Al; published
July 10, 2003) (Final Act. 5—7).
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 8—14
and Reply Br. 3—9), the Examiner’s rejection (Final Rej. 2—7), and the
Examiner’s response (Ans. 2—5) to Appellants’ arguments.
The Examiner relies upon Li (see 23—27 and 36; see Final Act. 3^4
Ans. 2—5) as teaching “upon receipt of a confirmation [that a restoration path
could be found] . . . , performing a path restoration” as recited in
independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 5.
However, we find no teaching or suggestion in Li of any confirmation, as
recited in independent claims 1 and 5, and as similarly recited in dependent
claims 2—\ and 6—8. Although Li does perform path restoration (Fig. 4; ||
25, 26, and 40-45), it is not done “upon receipt of a confirmation” that a
path could be found, as recited in claims 1—8.
Therefore, we concur with Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-13;
Reply Br. 4—8) that the Examiner erred in finding that Li, and thus the
combination of the references, teaches or suggests “upon receipt of a
confirmation [that a restoration path could be found] . . . , performing a path
2
Appeal 2016-005931
Application 13/814,414
restoration,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in
independent claim 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections
of independent claims 1 and 5, as well as claims 2-4 and 6—8 depending
respectively therefrom.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1—8.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—8 is reversed.
REVERSED
3