Ex Parte Vroon

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 25, 2008

10761013 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 25, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte WILLIAM J. VROON
____________

Appeal 2008-3618
Application 10/761,013
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: March 9, 2009
____________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

ERRATUM
On November 25, 2008, the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (hereinafter “Board”) mailed a Decision on Appeal wherein on
page 20 of the Decision, under the heading "SUMMARY," the Board
affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 27, 45-
49, 51-53, 55-58 and 60-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Slager; Francis, Jr.; Silberman, and Anderson with respect to claims 1,
3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 15, 46-49, 51-53, 55 and 62; but reversed the rejection with

Appeal 2008-3618
Application 10/761,013

respect to claims 16, 17, 24, 25, 27, 45, 51-58, 60 and 61, inadvertently
indicating the rejection of claims 51-53 and 55 as both affirmed and
reversed. However, a review of the supporting opinion, particularly pages
15 and 16, reveals that Appellant’s arguments were persuasive with respect
to independent claim 51 (and its dependent claims 52, 53, and 55), and the
Board’s intention was to reverse the rejection with respect to claims 51-53
and 55.
In addition, a review of the supporting opinion reveals that claim 62
depends from claim 61, and therefore includes a limitation determined to
have been nonobvious over the prior art. Finally, claim 54, which was
rejected on a different ground, and not separately argued, depends from
claim 51, and, therefore, also includes a limitation determined to be non-
obvious over the cited prior art.
Therefore, this Erratum serves as notification to Appellant that the
SUMMARY on page 20 of the Decision on Appeal is hereby modified to
read as follows:
1. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 27, 45-49,
51-53, 55-58, and 60-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Slager, Francis, Jr., Silberman, and Anderson is AFFIRMED with respect to
claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 46-49, but REVERSED with respect to
claims 16, 17, 24, 25, 27, 45, 51-53, 55-58, and 60-62.
2. The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Slager, Francis Jr., Silberman, Anderson, and Budowski is
REVERSED.
2
3. The rejection of claims 6, 19, 50, 54, and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Slager, Francis Jr., Silberman, Anderson, and Bazany is
AFFIRMED with respect to claims 6 and 50, but REVERSED with respect
to claims 19, 54, and 59.
4. The rejection of claims 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Slager and Francis, Jr. is AFFIRMED.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
The original time period for response is being reset as of the mailing
of this Erratum.

CLJ

WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202