Ex Parte Stokes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2013

11863823 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2013)

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.
11/863,823 09/28/2007 Gregory John Charles Stokes 21854-00092-US2 2385
30678 7590 01/22/2013
NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE & QUIGG LLP
1875 EYE STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
STULII, VERA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1791
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2013 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 GREGORY JOHN CHARLES STOKES
And STEVEN JOHN ANTHONY BARICS
____________

Appeal 2011-013135
Application 11/863,823
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-16. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A filled two-piece aluminum can containing a wine that has less
than 35 ppm of free SO2, less than 300 ppm of chlorides and less than 800
ppm of sulfates, the can being sealed with an aluminum closure such that the
pressure within the can is at least 25 psi and wherein the inner surface of the
aluminum can is coated with a corrosion resistant coating.

Appeal 2011-013135
Application 11/863,823

2
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Miyazaki et al. (Miyazaki) JP 62-014777 Jan. 23, 1987
Ferrarini et al., “Packaging of Wine in Aluminum Cans,” Oenology Dept. of
C.R.V.E. Grape and Wine Research Centre, Bologna University, No. 5, pp.
59-64 1992).

Kojima et al., “Corrosion of Aluminum in White Wine,” Corrosion
Engineering 45, pp. 357-371 (1996).

Leske et al., “The composition of Australian grape juice: chloride, sodium
and sulfate ions,” Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 3, pp. 26-
30 (Apr. 1997).

The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
(a) claims 1-4, 8-12, 15, and 16 over Ferrarini in view of Kojima,
(b) claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 over the stated combinations of references
further in view of Leske, and
(c) claim 5 over the stated combination of references further in view
of Miyazaki.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any particular claim
on appeal. Appellants also do not present separate, substantive arguments
against the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 5-7, 13, and 14.
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
The instant appeal is closely related to a co-pending application
presently before us, Appeal No. 2011-013108. The difference between
claim 1 on appeal and claim 1 in the related case is that instant claim 1
specifies that the pressure within the can is at least 25 psi. However,
Appellants do not argue patentability based on this limitation. Also, the
Appeal 2011-013135
Application 11/863,823

3
prior art relied upon by the Examiner and the arguments and evidence
presented by Appellants are essentially the same as that in the related appeal.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner rejections for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer and articulated by the Board in the
related appeal. Reiterating Appellants’ arguments and our reasons
underlying the decision would serve no purpose other than to further burden
the record.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed 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).
AFFIRMED

cam