2020003054 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2021)

Upfield US Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 20, 2021

2020003054 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2021)

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. 13/697,578 12/04/2012 Richard Draijer 039676.00036 2133 68543 7590 07/20/2021 Arent Fox LLP - Los Angeles 555 West Fifth Street 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 EXAMINER CORNET, JEAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/20/2021 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): patentdocket@arentfox.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _________________ Ex parte RICHARD DRAIJER and BERT-JAN HENDRIK VAN DEN BORN _________________ Appeal 2020-003054 Application 13/697,578 Technology Center 1600 _________________ Before DEBORAH KATZ, JON M. JURGOVAN, and JOHN E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Patent Judges. KATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant1 filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (“Request”) on June 1, 2021 for reconsideration of our Decision on Appeal (“Decision”), issued April 1, 2021. In light of Appellant’s request, we revise the summary of our decision. 1 We use the word “Appellant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Upfield U.S. Inc. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2020-003054 Application 13/697,578 2 In our Decision, we affirmed a rejection of claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mumford2 and Harvard,3 as well as a rejection of claims 1–4 and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over McKee,4 Cholesterol Information,5 and Eteng.6 (See Decision 3–6.) These rejections were maintained in the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), issued January 15, 2020. (See Ans. 3–9.) As Appellant argues, a rejection of claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Mumford and Harvard was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer. (See Request 2; see Ans. 9.) Thus, there was no rejection before us under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The summary table in our Decision inadvertently listed the rejection over Mumford and Harvard as being under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) instead of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s request for rehearing to the extent that we modify the summary table to indicate the correct grounds of the rejection of claims 1–3. We do not modify the Decision in regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 2 Mumford et al., Discriminative Stimulus and Subjective Effects of Theobromine and Caffeine in Humans, 115 Psychopharm. 1–8 (1994). 3 Harvard Women’s Health Watch, Up with HDL, The ‘Good’ Cholesterol 1–3 (June 2008). 4 McKee and Nolan, International Patent Application Publication WO 2004/082609 A2, published September 30, 2004. 5 Continuing Medical Implementation, Cholesterol Information, available at http://www.cvtoolbox.com/cvtoolboxl/cholesteroEch.html (Nov. 2007). 6 Eteng et al., Comparative Effects of Theobromine and Cocoa Extracts on Lipid Profile in Rats, 20 Nutr. Res. 1513–17 (2000). Appeal 2020-003054 Application 13/697,578 3 Conclusion Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons given, we modify the summary table in the Decision as indicated below. Outcome of the Decision on Rehearing: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Granted Denied 1–3 102(b) Mumford, Harvard 1–3 1–4, 17–19 103 McKee, Cholesterol Information, Eteng 1–4, 17–19 Final outcome of the Appeal after Rehearing: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3 103 Mumford, Harvard 1–3 1–4, 17–19 103 McKee, Cholesterol Information, Eteng 1–4, 17–19 Overall Outcome 1–4, 17–19 GRANTED