Ex Parte CL¿MENT et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 9, 201512964053 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2015) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation