Ex Parte Kaczkowski et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

11523315 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte EDWARD F. KACZKOWSKI, DANIEL E. JASKIEWICZ,
RICK L. ARCHEY, GEORGE SEE, and ROBERT A. PYLES
____________

Appeal 2011-002686
Application 11/523,315
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
CHUNG K. PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 as
unpatentable over Radomyselski (US 7,297,277 B2, issued Nov. 20, 2007)
in view of Hayday (US 6,524,474 B2, issued Feb. 25, 2003) and Pyles (US
6,994,735 B2, issued Feb. 07, 2006) and of claims 4, 5, 8, and 10 as
Appeal 2011-002686
Application 11/523,315

2
unpatentable over these references in various combinations with other prior
art of record.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We sustain each of these rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in
the Answer.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl

1 Only the rejection of sole independent claim 1 has been contested by
Appellants with any reasonable specificity. Accordingly, the dependent
claims on appeal stand or fall in accordance with the success or failure of
Appellants' arguments regarding claim 1.