Ex Parte Hughes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 21, 2011

11811188 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 21, 2011)

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.
11/811,188 06/08/2007 Leonard Hughes CMH 2-001 6152
266 7590 01/21/2011
MUELLER AND SMITH, LPA
MUELLER-SMITH BUILDING
7700 RIVERS EDGE DRIVE
COLUMBUS, OH 43235
EXAMINER
GULLEDGE, BRIAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LEONARD HUGHES and STEVEN L. FUNK
____________

Appeal 2011-001624
Application 11/811,188
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and
MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-11. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2011-001624
Application 11/811,188

2
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Feinstone2; claims 1-3 and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bergmann3; and claims 4 and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Feinstone
and USB.4 Appellants do not separately group or argue the claims. Claims
1 and 4 are representative and are reproduced in the “CLAIMS APPENDIX”
of Appellants’ Brief (App. Br. “CLAIMS APPENDIX”).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s finding that both Feinstone and Bergmann
anticipate the subject matter of representative claim 1; and that the
combination of Feinstone and USB suggest the subject matter of
representative claim 4. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Feinstone or Bergmann.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-8 fall together with claim 1 with regard to the rejection
over Feinstone and claims 2, 3, and 5-10 fall together with claim 1 with
regard to the rejection over Bergmann. In addition, we affirm the rejection
of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Feinstone and USB. Claim 11 falls together with claim 4
with respect to the obviousness rejection.

2 Feinstone, US 3,795,624, issued March 5, 1974.
3 Bergmann, US 5,358,667, issued October 25, 1994.
4 United Soybean Board, “Soy Methyl Ester Solvents Technical
Background,” www.unitedsoybean.org (2002).
Appeal 2011-001624
Application 11/811,188

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).
AFFIRMED

cdc

MUELLER AND SMITH, LPA
MUELLER-SMITH BUILDING
7700 RIVERS EDGE DRIVE
COLUMBUS, OH 43235