Ex Parte Carlson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 12, 201211351019 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL PIERRE CARLSON, LINDA ARNOLD LISLE, NEWTON JAMES SMITH, JR., and CLIFFORD JAY SPINAC ____________ Appeal 2011-003285 Application 11/351,019 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL1 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims 1-172. The Examiner has rejected claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Weider (US 2007/0050191 A1, pub. Mar. 1, 2007); and rejected claims 7-8 and 15-16 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed July 6, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 1, 2010). 2 Claims 18-24 are withdrawn (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2011-003285 Application 11/351,019 2 Weider in view of Rauen (US 2004/0015408 A1, pub. Jan. 22, 2004). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)3. We AFFIRM. OPINION We are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-17 as obvious over various combinations of Weider and Rauen (App. Br. 8-11). After carefully considering all of Appellants’ arguments, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and rationales in response to those arguments, as set forth on pages 13-15 of the Examiner’s Answer. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh 3 The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is withdrawn (Ans. 4). Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation