Ex Parte Corona et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2014

13183552 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte ALESSANDRO CORONA III, BRIAN W. EVERINGHAM,
GAYLE MARIE FRANKENBACH, RAJAN KESHAV PANANDIKER,
MARK ROBERT SIVIK, BETH ANN SCHUBERT,
MARIO ELMEN TREMBLAY, KERRY ANDREW VETTER,
GREGORY THOMAS WANING, and JEFFREY SCOTT WEAVER
____________
Appeal 2013-003344
Application 13/183,5521
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–7 and 9–16. Claims 1–7 and 9–15 were rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Guentert2; claims 1–7 and 9–15
were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over either of Lang3
or Duden4; and claims 1–7 and 9–16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

1 The Real Party in Interest is The Procter & Gamble Company. (Br. 1.)
2 Guentert et al., US 2007/0190009 A1, published Aug. 16, 2007.
3 Lang, US 2008/0131390 A1, published June 5, 2008.
4 Duden et al., US 2001/0051142 A1, published Dec. 13, 2001.
Appeal 2013-003344
Application 13/183,552

2
as unpatentable over Delplancke5 (for a complete listing of the prior art
relied upon and the rejections, see Answer 5–7).6
Appellants’ arguments focus on claim 1 in each ground of rejection
(Br. 3–10). Accordingly, all of the claims stand or fall in each rejection with
claim 1.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find we find that the preponderance of evidence
on this record supports the Examiner’s finding that the subject matter of
Appellants’ representative claim 1 is anticipated by Guentert. A
preponderance of the evidence also supports the Examiner’s conclusion that
the subject matter of Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over the applied
prior art under § 103(a). We sustain the rejections based on the findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments7 expressed by the
Examiner in the Answer.
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

cdc

5 Delplancke et al., US 6,506,716 B1, issued Jan. 14, 2003.
6 The Examiner withdrew four additional § 103(a) rejections on claims 1–7
and 9–15 (Ans. 4; Final Rej. 3, 4, 6, 8).
7 No Reply Brief has been filed.