Ex Parte AseereDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 201211475309 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012) Copy Citation 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. 11/475,309 06/27/2006 Lester M. Aseere 7601 2198 29602 7590 12/19/2012 JOHNS MANVILLE 10100 WEST UTE AVENUE PO BOX 625005 LITTLETON, CO 80162-5005 EXAMINER JUSKA, CHERYL ANN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2012 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 LESTER M. ASEERE ____________ Appeal 2011-005024 Application 11/475,309 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before PETER F. KRATZ, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); claims 1 and 3-10 as unpatentable over Nobuto (US Pub. No. 2004/0242100, Dec. 02, 2004) and claim 2 as unpatentable over Nobuto in view of Davies (US Pat. No. 3,595,731, July 27, 1971). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appeal 2011-005024 Application 11/475,309 2 We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttal to arguments set forth by the Examiner in the Answer. 1 Appellant’s contention that a skilled artisan would not look to employ a web heating temperature in Nobuto that corresponds to the claimed temperature set forth in step b of claim 1 for the purposes of Nobuto is not substantiated with evidence and fails to take into account the higher heating temperatures encompassed and suggested by the disclosures of Nobuto, as fully explained by the Examiner in the Examiner’s response to the argument (Br. 5-6; Ans. 9-10). 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 bar 1 Appellant presents arguments directed to the features of sole independent claim 1 only, based principally on the heat setting temperature set forth in step b of claim 1 (Br. 3-7). The dependent claim features have not been separately argued (id.). Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation