Ex Parte Sheerin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2014

11953071 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 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.
11/953,071 12/09/2007 Howard H. Sheerin 1476
73311 7590 03/06/2014
Howard H. Sheerin, Attorney at Law
23233 N. Pima Rd.
Suite 113, PMB 174
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
EXAMINER
RAAB, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/06/2014 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 HOWARD H. SHEERIN
____________

Appeal 2011-013730
Application 11/953,071
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-013730
Application 11/953,071

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
1. A method of automating an information disclosure statement (IDS),
the method comprising:
sending a reference id over a network to a patent database site;
receiving reference data over the network from the patent database
site corresponding to the reference id; and
importing the reference data into an IDS file using Adobe Acrobat.

Prior Art
Grainger US 2002/0065676 A1 May 30, 2002
Tran US 2005/0210009 A1 Sep. 22, 2005

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grainger and Tran.

Appeal 2011-013730
Application 11/953,071

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Grainger and Tran teaches the
limitations of claims 1-20. Ans. 4-11. The Examiner finds Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments made in the Appeal Brief fail to show error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. Ans. 11-14.
We agree with the Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings of
fact made in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer. We sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 for the reasons given by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grainger and Tran is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

bab