12136502 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Spicer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2013

12136502 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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. 12/136,502 06/10/2008 David B. Spicer 2008EM152 5700 23455 7590 09/26/2013 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY 5200 BAYWAY DRIVE P.O. BOX 2149 BAYTOWN, TX 77522-2149 EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1771 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2013 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 DAVID B. SPICER, SUBRAMANIAN ANNAMALAI, and JAMES MITCHELL FRYE ____________ Appeal 2012-007315 Application 12/136,502 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-007315 Application 12/136,502 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1 finally rejecting claims 9-21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Stell (US 7,138,047 B2, issued Nov. 21, 2006) in view of Chave (US 2,015,420, issued Sept. 24, 1935).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We sustain the above rejection based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Answer. (Ans.3 4-15.) With respect to separately argued dependent claim 19 (see App. Br. 14-15 (arguing Stell uses dilution steam, which is not a liquid)), we add that Appellants’ arguments in support of patentability are not commensurate in scope with claim 19 because a “dilution liquid” is not a required component in forming the mixture stream (see claim 9 (“optionally, a dilution liquid”)). The decision of the Examiner 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). AFFIRMED kmm 1 Final Office Action mailed Jun. 8, 2011. 2 Appeal Brief filed Dec. 12, 2011 (“App. Br.”). 3 Answer mailed Feb. 22, 2012.