Ex Parte Firebaugh et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 26, 201210902217 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/902,217 07/29/2004 Joseph Eric Firebaugh RSW920040074US1 (159) 9987 46320 7590 01/27/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER DUDEK JR, EDWARD J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2186 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/27/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JOSEPH ERIC FIREBAUGH and JASON MICHAEL BROWN ____________ Appeal 2009-010518 Application 10/902,217 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16, which are all the claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Examiner rejected claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Romm (US 2004/0045016 A1) and Smith (US Appeal 2009-010518 Application 10/902,217 2 2005/0071378 A1). Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 as representative. Br. 4; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We find that, on this record, the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of each representative claim is unpatentable over the combination of Romm and Smith. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 for the reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein by reference. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
