Ex Parte Gauthier et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 12, 2012

11615307 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/615,307 12/22/2006 Sylvie Gauthier 6674-0039-1-1-1 1704
50811 7590 07/12/2012
O''Shea Getz P.C.
1500 MAIN ST. SUITE 912
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01115
EXAMINER
CHEN, VIVIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1787
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2012 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 SYLVIE GAUTHIER and GEORGE TSANGARIDES
____________

Appeal 2011-001466
Application 11/615,307
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.
Appeal 2011-001466
Application 11/615,307

2
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1
finally rejecting claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stoyanovich (US 6,099,938, issued Aug. 8, 2000) (Ans. 4-5), claims 10-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over DE ‘115 (DE 19815115, published Oct.
14, 1999, as translated) in view of Muroi (US 4,477,636, issued Oct. 16, 1984)
(Ans. 5-7), and claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over DE ‘115 in
view of Muroi as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Nishi (US 5,534,327,
issued Jul. 9, 1996) (Ans. 7).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Answer3.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10-16 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

kmm

1 Final Office Action mailed Nov. 12, 2009.
2 Appeal Brief filed Apr. 9, 2010 (traversing these rejections solely on the basis of
limitations found in independent claims 10, 13, and 15).
3 Examiner’s Answer mailed Jul. 7, 2010.