Ex Parte Zannis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2012

11261839 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2012)

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