10638489 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2011)

Ex Parte Schmieding

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 10, 2011

10638489 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 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. 10/638,489 08/12/2003 Reinhold Schmieding A8130.0139/P139 5702 24998 7590 02/10/2011 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 EYE STREET NW Washington, DC 20006-5403 EXAMINER RAMANA, ANURADHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3775 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/10/2011 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 REINHOLD SCHMIEDING ____________ Appeal 2009-014904 Application 10/638,489 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and STEPHEN WALSH, Administrative Patent Judges. ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1 and 6-14. Claims 14 and 16-20 were “withdrawn from consideration but not canceled” (App. Br. 2; Reply Br. 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. Appeal 2009-014904 Application 10/638,489 2 The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 6-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cerundolo2 and Johnson.3 Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellant’s contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record falls in favor of Appellant for the reasons set forth in Appellant’s Brief and Reply Brief. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of record. REVERSED alw DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 EYE STREET NW Washington DC 20006-5403 2 Cerundolo, US 6,488,033 B1, issued December 3, 2002. 3 Johnson et al., US 6,595,998 B2, issued July 22, 2003.