10969505 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 21, 2011)

Ex Parte Rolland et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 21, 2011

10969505 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 21, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte LOIC PIERRE ROLLAND and SAM LOUIS SAMUELS ____________ Appeal 2010-010292 Application 10/969,505 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-19.2 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(electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. 2 Pending claims 20-56 stand withdrawn from consideration (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2010-010292 Application 10/969,505 2 The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Obuchi3. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced in the “Claims Appendix” of Appellants’ Brief (App. Br. 17). Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record falls in favor of Appellants’ contention that Obuchi fails to teach or suggest Appellants’ polyester (see, e.g., App. Br. 5-6 (“Obuchi does not disclose any of the polyester recited in claim 1 from which claims 2-19 depend”)). We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s contention that Appellants’ claims encompass copolymers of the recited polyester, simply because Appellants’ Specification discloses embodiments of the claimed invention that include polyesters recited in Appellants’ claims, as well as, copolymers and mixtures of the recited polyesters (see, e.g., Ans. 15-16; Spec. 4: 31-5:7). While the claims are read in light of the Specification, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the claims. Accordingly, we reverse both rejections before us on this record. REVERSED cdc E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY LEGAL PATENT RECORDS CENTER BARLEY MILL PLAZA 25/1122B 4417 LANCASTER PIKE WILMINGTON, DE 19805 3 Obuchi et al., WO 03/082980 A1, published October 9, 2003.