Ex Parte Moulckers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2014

11103852 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2014)

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.
11/103,852 04/12/2005 Ingrid M. Moulckers AUS920040711US1 1028
48916 7590 11/24/2014
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
EXAMINER
CLARK, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2014 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 INGRID M. MOULCKERS
____________________

Appeal 2012-006649
Application 11/103,8521
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims 1, 3–5, 8,
10–12, 15, 17–19, and 21–23. The Examiner has rejected all these claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sarno (US 2002/0042751 A1,
pub. Apr. 11, 2002) and Robin (US 2005/0114829 A1, pub. May 26, 2005).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The real part in interest, according to the Appellant, is International
Business Machines Corporation (Br. 3).
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Oct. 11, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 19,
2011).
Appeal 2012-006649
Application 11/103,852

2
OPINION
We are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 13 as obvious over Sarno and Robin (Br. 13–15). After carefully
considering all of Appellant’s arguments, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings of fact and rationales in response to those arguments, as
set forth on pages 5–7, 9–15, and 16–18 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Specifically, we determine that the Examiner has addressed adequately
Appellant’s arguments related to “assigned categories” and “verification” to
support the Examiner’s finding of obviousness. (Ans. 16–18).
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

hh

3 We choose independent claim 1 as representative of independent claims 1,
8, and 15. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).