Ex Parte Laurenzi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2009

10974156 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LARRY LAURENZI, GILES MANIAS,
DAVID SAFENOVITZ, JOSEPH DRASNER,
and JASON DRASNER
____________

Appeal 2008-4664
Application 10/974,156
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1June 30, 2009
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-4664
Application 10/974,156

This is in response to a Request for Rehearing (“Request”), dated
April 27, 2009, of our Decision, mailed February 27, 2009 (“Decision”),
wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of appealed claims 1-
13.
Appellants contend that the Board did “not articulate a finding that the
differences between the device set forth in claims 1-3, 10, and 13 and the
applied art were encompassed in a known variation. Brown, Drasner and
Dornbusch do not include processes capable of accommodating a label with
a heat-activated sealant.” (Request 3).
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive of error in our
Decision. Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner's position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
Appellants’ contention presented in the Request was not previously
presented in the principal Brief. That is, Appellants did not allege this was
an error in the Examiner’s rejection presented for review. Moreover, the
argued limitation “processes capable of accommodating a label with a heat-
activated sealant” does not appear in claim 1.
For the above stated reasons and for the reasons expressed in our
Decision, the evidence of record continues to support a prima facie case of
obviousness, and Appellants continue to fail in their attempts to show error
in this obviousness conclusion.
2
Appeal 2008-4664
Application 10/974,156

The Request for Rehearing is DENIED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

DENIED

tc

CYNTHIA S. MURPHY ESQ.
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE, 19TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
3