Ex Parte Stanton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 9, 201311761549 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2013) 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. 11/761,549 06/12/2007 William Stanton MI22-3535 1182 21567 7590 10/09/2013 Wells St. John P.S. 601 West First Avenue Suite 1300 Spokane, WA 99201-3828 EXAMINER JELSMA, JONATHAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1721 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/09/2013 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 WILLIAM STANTON and FEI WANG ____________ Appeal 2012-005217 Application 11/761,549 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005217 Application 11/761,549 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) listed below:1 claims 11-15, 17, and 25 as unpatentable over the combined prior art of Tu and Lee with either of Gorski or Volk; claim 26 over the combined prior art of Tu and Lee with either of Gorski or Volk, and further with Eggers; and, claim 36 as unpatentable over the combined prior art of Tu, Kalk, Tan, and Otani.2 Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims is unpatentable. We sustain the above rejections based on the detailed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and thorough rebuttals to arguments3 expressed by the Examiner in the Answer. Indeed, Appellants did not present any specific arguments to contest the Examiner’s § 103 rejections 11-15, 17, 25, and 26 based on Tu and Lee with Volk (Ans. 9-12, 18-22; Brief generally). The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 1 See Examiners Answer p. 4 for a listing of the references relied upon in the rejections. 2 Appellants’ arguments are presented on the five pages of Section VII, labeled “ARGUMENT.”. The Brief contains no page numbers. 3 No Reply Brief has been filed. Appeal 2012-005217 Application 11/761,549 3 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation