Ex Parte Pasto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2012

11115742 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CRIS E. PASTO
____________________

Appeal 2010-006940
Application 11/115,742
Technology Center 2800

____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006940
Application 11/115,742

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 8-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 2-7, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 14 and the
drawings filed April 27, 2005 are objected to; thus, these issues are not
before us.
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to an improved buttress
stabilization stand or shoring stand end fitting. The invention includes an
integrated (interior and/or exterior) lighting means for providing improved
lighting to a work area and/or a rescue scene. (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 8 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
8. A buttress stabilization or shoring stand end fitting
comprising at least one lighting source located within the end
fitting, and means for emitting light from within said end fitting
to a work area.

References
Pfauser US 2,219,903 Oct. 29, 1940

Rejections
Claims 8-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Pfauser.
Appeal 2010-006940
Application 11/115,742

3

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 8
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 8-18. (See App. Br.
3-4).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 8-18
Appellant argues their invention is not anticipated by Pfauser (App.
Br. 4). Specifically, Appellant contends Pfauser does not disclose a buttress
stabilization or shoring stand (id.). Instead, according to Appellant, Pfauser
discloses a lighted floor jack (id.). According to Appellant, even if Pfauser
were construed to disclose a buttress stabilization or shoring stand, Pfauser
does not disclose an end fitting with a light source located within (id.).
Therefore, Appellant maintains, Pfauser does not disclose the recited
buttress stand end fittings (id.).

Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Pfauser discloses “[a]
buttress stabilization or shoring stand end fitting comprising at least one
lighting source located within the end fitting, and means for emitting light
from within said end fitting to a work area,” as recited in claim 8?

Appeal 2010-006940
Application 11/115,742

4
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Pfauser discloses the invention
as recited when interpreted broadly, but reasonably, in light of the
Specification (Ans. 5-8). Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s interpretation. We also
agree with the Examiner that Appellant is arguing limitations not recited in
the claim (see Ans. 6-7).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Pfauser discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 8 and
dependent claims 9-18, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claims 8-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by
Pfauser.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Pfauser 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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

ELD