Ex Parte Jones

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2013

12188553 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2013)

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.
12/188,553 08/08/2008 William F. Jones 2007P20833US01 5249
28524 7590 09/23/2013
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
MCNALLY, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM F. JONES
____________________

Appeal 2012-008701
Application 12/188,553
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 6-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons presented by Appellant in the Brief, we REVERSE.
All of the rejections rely upon the combination of Rowe1, Wear2, and
Weihs3 as evidence of obviousness. We agree with Appellants that the

1 Rowe et al., US 4,808,873, patented Feb. 28, 1989.
2 Wear et al., US 3,052,650, patented Sep. 4, 1962.
Appeal 2012-008701
Application 12/188,553
2
Examiner has failed to provide sufficient evidence of a suggestion within the
art for using the multilayer reactive foil 14 of Weihs as a source for heat for
curing the heat curable resin (epoxy resin) that is between the electrical
conductors of Rowe (Br. 6-9). The other references the Examiner adds as
evidence of the obviousness of other aspects of the claims, Van Heerden4
and Cooper5, fail to cure this deficiency.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED
tc

3 Weihs et al., US 2002/0182436 A1, published Dec. 5, 2002.
4 Van Heerden et al., US 2005/0142495 A1, patented Jun. 30, 2005.
5 Cooper et al., US 3,949,256, patented Apr. 6, 1976.