Ex Parte Van Den Berg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 5, 2016

12988918 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/988,918 12/13/2010 Robert Van Den Berg
23632 7590 05/09/2016
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PO BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TS 2194 USA P 5605
EXAMINER
LOUIE, PHILIP Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1772
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT VAN DEN BERG, JEROEN VAN WESTRENEN,
ANDREW LESLIE CIIEWTER, and FERRY WINTER
Appeal2014-007163
Application 12/988,918
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-13, 15, and 16. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The rejections maintained on appeal all rely upon Van Den Berg2 in
view of Pujado3 as evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (See
Ans. 2-9 for full listing of the rejections on appeal).
1 The real party in interest is stated to be Shell Oil Company (Br. 2).
2 Van Den Berg et al., WO 2006/117355 Al, published Nov. 9, 2006 ("Van
Den Berg").
3 Pujado et al., US 2007/0155999 Al, published July 5, 2007 ("Pujado").
Appeal2014-007163
Application 12/99 8,918
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 over the applied prior art.4 We sustain
the above rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Answer.
We add the following for emphasis. Notably, Appellants have not
presented any cogent arguments sufficient to address the Examiner's
position (Br. 4 (merely asserting without any analysis that Pujado does not
disclose certain claim limitations)). Cf In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art. Because Lovin did not provide such
arguments, the Board did not err in refi.1sing to separately address claims 2-
15, 17-24, and 31-34.").
The decision of the Examiner 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).
AFFIRMED
4 Appellants only present arguments directed to the common features of the
independent claims 1 and 16 (Br. 3, 4).
2