Ex Parte Hansen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2017

14361003 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2017)

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.
14/361,003 05/28/2014 Erling Lennart Hansen 3672-P50149 1763
13897 7590 (
Abel Law Group, LLP
8911 N. Capital of Texas Hwy
Bldg 4, Suite 4200
Austin, TX 78759
EXAMINER
USELDING, JOHN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mail @ Abel-IP.com
hmuensterer @ abel-ip. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERLING LENNART HANSEN, LARS NAERUM,
POVL NISSEN, and DORTE BARTNIK JOHANSSON
Appeal 2016-007454
Application 14/361,003
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
AVELYN M. ROSS Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
The Appellants request reconsideration only of our affirmance of the
rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Nissen in view of
Hawkins, Kelly and Brady (Req. 1—6).1
The Appellants assert that Nissen’s co-binder carbohydrate (138)
must be a polymeric or crosslinked binder capable of functioning
independently as a binder and, therefore, cannot be a sugar (Req. 1—6).
Nissen indicates that the term “co-binders”, as that term is used by
Nissen, includes carbohydrates generally (138). The “Appellants do not
deny that a sugar compound such as dextrose qualifies as a carbohydrate”
1 Claims 20—25, which depend from claim 14, specify that claim’s optional
sugar component but, unlike claims 29 and 30, do not require presence of
that component.
Appeal 2016-007454
Application 14/361,003
(Req. 5). Thus, Nissen would have led one of ordinary skill in the art,
through no more than ordinary creativity, to use a sugar as the co-binder.
SeeKSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an
obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). The
Appellants’ unsupported assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered Nissen’s co-binder carbohydrate to be limited to a
carbohydrate that is polymeric or crosslinked (Req. 1—6) is ineffective for
indicating error in our decision.
Accordingly, the request for rehearing is denied.
DENIED
2