Ex Parte Raymond et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 201411531592 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/531,592 09/13/2006 Megan N. Raymond 1410-77448-US 1456 48940 7590 08/22/2014 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP 120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1600 CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406 EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1792 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MEGAN N. RAYMOND, ARTHUR C. TEASDALE, CHRISTINE LOUISE KWIAT, KEITH DANIEL FORNECK, SOPHIA PAI, and RENEE GAN ____________ Appeal 2012-0101811 Application 11/531,5922 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejections under (i) 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (lack of written description), of claims 1-19, 21, and 22, (ii) 35 1 The current appeal is related to an appeal in Application 11/531,585 (Appeal 2012-010621), which is being decided concurrently. Appeal Brief filed February 9, 2012 (“App. Br.”) 4. 2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Kraft Foods Global Brands, LLC. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2012-010181 Application 11/531,592 2 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, of claims 1-19, 21, and 22, and (iii) double patenting grounds of claims 1-5, 10-13, 18, 20, and 23,3 because the Appellants offer no arguments against these rejections. App. Br. 18 n.3, 19 n.4, and 19-37; Reply Brief filed June 29, 2012 at 1-9. Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that summary affirmance without consideration of the substantive merits is appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection). On the substantive merits, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-23 for the reasons well-stated in the Answer at pages 9-34 and 37-54. The Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1-23 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). AFFIRMED cam 3 Examiner’s Answer entered May 3, 2012 at 7-8 and 34-37. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation