Ex Parte Zannis et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 25, 201211261839 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte ANTHONY D. ZANNIS, HERBERT E. SCHWARTZ, PRASANNA MALAVIYA, MASON, KEITH M. MCGRATH, DANNY E. MCADAMS, ANDREW M. JACOBS, JACK FARR II, and RANDALL L. HOLCOMB __________ Appeal 2010-009925 Application 11/261,839 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and STEPHEN WALSH, Administrative Patent Judges. WALSH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims directed to a surgical instrument. The Patent Examiner rejected the claims for obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2010-009925 Application 11/261,839 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 89-93, which are all the pending claims, are on appeal. The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Greelis (US 5,346,498, issued Sep. 13, 1994) and Minar (US 2005/0148902 A1, filed Feb. 7, 2005, published July 7, 2005). (See Ans.3-6.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the evidence and the arguments presented in the Examiner’s Answer and the Appeal Brief. We find the evidence supports the Examiner’s position, which we adopt in its entirety. For the reasons set out in the “Response to Argument” portion of the Answer, we find Appellants’ contentions unpersuasive. SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 89-93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Greelis and Minar. 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 lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation