13423300 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

Ex Parte Groman

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 2016

13423300 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/423,300 03/19/2012 63397 7590 GERALD E LINDEN C/O STAUFFER 5380 Mayfield Rd. LYNDHURST, OH 44124 09/27/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Boaz Barry Groman 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. BG-112 9909 EXAMINER ROSE, ROBERT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3727 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2016 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): GELPA TENTS Â©YAHOO.COM gelpatents@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BOAZ BARRY GROMAN Appeal2014-008254 Application 13/423,3001 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-11.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies the inventor, Boaz Barry Groman, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Appellant does not seek our review of the rejection of claims 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112 ii 2. Id. at 10. Appeal2014-008254 Application 13/423,300 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 4, and 7 are independent, with claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8-11 depending from claim 1, 4, or 7. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below: 1. A handheld adapter for a micro-abrasive dental blasting device comprising: means, at one end of the adapter, for receiving pressurized air from a dental chair; means, at an opposite end of the adapter, for supporting and providing pressurized air to the micro-abrasive dental blasting device; means, disposed in the adapter between the one end of the adapter and the opposite end of the adapter for regulating pressure of air provided to the micro-abrasive blasting device. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being unpatentable over GromanDental.com No MessTivI Disposable Micro Air Abrasive Tips, http://gromaninc.com (hereinafter "GromanDental.com"). 2. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being unpatentable over Paasche (2,441,441, iss. May 11, 1948); and 3. Claims 3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paasche and Ho (5,356,292, iss. Oct. 18, 1994). OPINION Anticipation by GromanDental.com - Claims 1-11 Appellant argues claims 1-11 as a group. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2-3. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2-11 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). The Examiner finds that 2 Appeal2014-008254 Application 13/423,300 GromanDental.com discloses each feature of claim 1. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 3. The only limitation that Appellant contends is not disclosed by GromanDental.com is the "means ... for regulating pressure of air." See App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2-3. With respect to that limitation, Appellant responds that "[t]he GromanDental.com publication ('Groman publication') does NOT disclose a handheld adapter comprising a pressure regulator." App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Appellant also provides a declaration from the inventor that provides essentially the same statement and quotes a portion of GromanDental.com directed to controlling air flow via a foot pedal. See id. The Examiner, however, points to "the device labeled as Prepmaster (3rd figure on page 1 of the Groman publication)" as disclosing the "means ... for regulating pressure of air." Ans. 3. The relevant description of the Prep Master device notes "Flow control: A two-speed finger actuated valve." GromanDental.com, 1. Appellant fails to address this finding. See Reply Br. 2-3. Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 1-11 based on anticipation by GromanDental.com. Anticipation by Paasche- Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 as a group. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 4. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 4, and 5 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Paasche discloses each feature of claim 1. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3--4. The only limitation that Appellant contends is not disclosed by Paasche is the "means ... for regulating pressure of air." See App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 4. With respect to that limitation, Appellant responds by simply quoting portions of the declaration providing by the inventor, and concludes that "the 102 rejection cannot be 3 Appeal2014-008254 Application 13/423,300 sustained." App. Br. 14. Among other things, the quotation from the declaration states that "Paasche is not analogous prior art" (which is not relevant to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102) and that "Paasche describes a flow valve, not a pressure regulator." Id. (emphasis omitted). There is no explanation, however, in the Appeal Brief, the Reply Brief, or the quoted portion of the inventor's declaration that explains why Paasche is non- analogous art or why it fails to disclose a pressure regulator. The Examiner cites Paasche's button 50 as corresponding to the "means ... for regulating pressure of air" (Final Act. 4), which Paasche explains is "operated to admit air" to the device (Paasche, 2:48-54). Appellant fails to apprise us of any error in that finding. Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 based on anticipation by Paasche. Obviousness over Paasche and Ho - Claims 3 and 6--11 Claim 3 depends from claim 1, claim 6 depends from claim 4, and claim 7 is independent with claims 8-11 depending therefrom. Although providing a separate heading for this rejection, Appellant provides no separate argument against the Examiner's rejection of those claims. See App. Br. 14-15 (simply concluding: "The 103 rejection cannot be sustained, and should be withdrawn.'). Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 3 and 6-11 as being unpatentable over Paasche and Ho. 4 Appeal2014-008254 Application 13/423,300 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11under35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being unpatentable over GromanDental.com; We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being unpatentable over Paasche; and We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 3 and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paasche and Ho. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5