Ex Parte CL¿MENT et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 9, 2015

12964053 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2015)

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.
12/964,053 12/09/2010 Antoine CL¿MENT TE922780-C2 4066
7590 07/09/2015
Patent Counsel
Huntsman International LLC
Legal Dept.
10003 Woodloch Forest Drive
The Woodlands, TX 77380
EXAMINER
KHAN, AMINA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/09/2015 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 APPEALBOARD
____________
Ex parte ANTOINE CLEMENT, ALFONS ARQUINT, and URS LAUK
____________
Appeal 2013-005554
Application 12/964,053
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, and 7-12. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The rejections maintained on appeal all rely upon Weaver (US
3,980,634 patented Sept. 14, 1976), as evidence of obviousness under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). (See, Ans. 5–7 for the rejections on appeal; also, Br. 8).
As noted by Appellants and the Examiner, this application is a
continuation of US Application No. 12/059,344, which was Appeal 2011-
008966, in which we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims
over the same prior art as herein in a decision mailed July 27, 2012.
Appeal 2013-005554
Application 12/964,053

2
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we determine that the preponderance of evidence
on this record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants’ sole independent claim 1 is unpatentable over the applied prior
art1. We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in
the Answer2.
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
sl

1 Appellants only present arguments directed to the features of the sole
independent claim 1 (Br. 9-12). They rely upon the arguments for claim 1
for separately rejected claims 8 and 11 (Br. 12).
2 No reply brief has been filed.