Ex Parte Mullins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2017

13812270 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 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.
13/812,270 01/25/2013 Michael J. Mullins 074785-503254 5268
132483 7590 03/24/2017
POLSINELLI PC
c/o Blue Cube IP LLC
100 South Fourth Street
Suite 1000
St. Louis, MO 63102
EXAMINER
MCCULLEY, MEGAN CASSANDRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1767
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2017 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):
uspt@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. MULLINS, ANNIE LIAO, CHAO ZHANG,
JIAWEN XIONG, and HONGYU CHEN
Appeal 2016-005911
Application 13/812,270
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JULIA HEANEY, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’
rejections of claims 5—15.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-005911
Application 13/812,270
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
1. Claims 5—13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoene et al. (US 4,126,739, issued Nov.
21, 1978; hereinafter “Hoene”) in view of Jayaraman et al.
(US 2003/0118835 Al, published June 26, 2003; hereinafter
“Jayaraman”) (Final Act. 2—5); and
2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hoene in view of Jayaraman, and further in view
of Houlihan et al. (US 2009/0104559 Al, published Apr. 23, 2009;
hereinafter “Houlihan”) (Final Act. 5).
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence of record and each of Appellants’
contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief filed September 29, 2015, we
determine that Appellants have not demonstrated reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2—5). We sustain the rejections for the
reasons well-expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the
Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Most of Appellants’ arguments (Br. 6—10; no Reply brief has been
filed) do not address the Examiner’s rationale for combining the teachings of
the Hoene and Jayaraman references—that “[bjoth references are concerned
with adhesive compositions comprising anhydride copolymers.” Ans. 2.
Rather, Appellants largely focus on Hoene’s embodiment specific to printing
inks and, as such, ignore Hoene’s numerous teachings regarding its
copolymers’ use as an adhesive additive. Hoene, 1:8, 3:6, 5:16—17, 9:56—
10:18.
2
Appeal 2016-005911
Application 13/812,270
“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it
teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Thus, because Appellants have not presented any cogent arguments
sufficient to address the Examiner’s position, they have not shown any
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
Appellants do not argue dependent claims 6—15 separately (Br. 10);
therefore, these claims fall with independent claim 5 for the same reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5—15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
3