Ex Parte Hofmann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 8, 201412447720 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PETER HOFMANN and MICHAEL WINKLER ____________________ Appeal 2012-001698 Application 12/447,720 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before PETER F. KRATZ, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 17, 21, 27, 28, 30-33, and 36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 17, 27, 28, and 30-33 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as obvious over Bayer1 in view of Bergstrom2 and, alternatively, over Bayer in view of Hassel3 (Final 4-11; Ans. 5-12). In 1 Bayer et al., US 6,942,785 B2, patented Sep. 13, 2005. 2 Bergstrom et al., US 5,766,460, patented Jun. 16, 1998. Appeal 2012-001698 Application 12/447,720 2 response to each of these rejections Appellants confine their arguments to the rejection of claim 1 (Br. 4-5). We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative to resolve the issues on appeal for each of these rejections (see Claims App’x at Br. 9 for a copy of claim 1). For the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Answer, we affirm. The Examiner adds Miyake4 to reject claims 21 and 36 (Final 11-12; Ans. 12-13). We also affirm based upon the findings and conclusions expressed in the Answer. Appellants argue that none of the references disclose or teach all of the structures required by claim 21 (Br. 6-7). But this argument does not identify an error in the Examiner’s rejection, which is based upon the obviousness of combining the subunits of Bayer with the housing of Miyake. Appellants contend that Miyake’s pumps 52-54 are not micropumps as defined in claim 36 (Br. 7). Given that Miyake’s pumps 52- 54 are in a compact chemical analysis apparatus similar to that of Appellants’ apparatus as determined by the Examiner (Ans. 13), and Appellants’ own Specification uses the term pump (pump element 46 (Spec. 3, l. 17: Fig. 3), it is not apparent how Miyake’s pumps differ from the pumps of Appellants’ claim, and Appellants fail to explain the difference. The Examiner also maintains a rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 as indefinite (Final 3; Ans. 4). Appellants do not dispute this rejection (Br. 7). Therefore, we affirm. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. 3 Hassel et al., US 6,832,622 B2, patented Dec. 21, 2004. 4 Miyake et al., US 5,519,635, patented May 21, 1996. Appeal 2012-001698 Application 12/447,720 3 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation