Ex Parte Van Den Berg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201612988918 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation