Ex Parte Das et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 15, 2014

11324273 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RABINDRA N. DAS, JOHN M. LAUFFER, VOYA R. MARKOVICH, and MARK D. POLIKS ____________ Appeal 2012-012347 Application 11/324,273 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1–11 and 21–42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-012347 Application 11/324,273 2 The Examiner rejects: claims 1–4, 9–11, 21–24, 29–35, and 40–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph, for failure to comply with the enablement requirement (see, e.g., Ans. 4–5); claims 9, 29, and 40 under § 112, 1st paragraph, for failure to comply with the written description requirement (id. at 5); claims 1–8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rao et al. (US 2003/0006402 A1, published Jan. 9, 2003) in view of Liu et al. (US 2005/0137293 A1, published June 23, 2005) taken with MSDS (ESPI “Barium Titanate” Nov. 1995) (id. at 6–8); claims 21–28, 30, and 31 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rao in view of Kuo et al. (Dielectric behaviours of multi-doped BaTiO3/epoxy composites, 21 J. EUR. CERAMIC SOC’Y 1171–1177 (2001)) and Liu et al. taken with MSDS (id. at 8–10); and claims 32–39, 41, and 42 under § 103 as unpatentable over Rao in view of Kuo taken with MSDS (id. at 10–13). We sustain each of the above rejections for the reasons well stated by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and in the Answer with the following comments added for emphasis. The Examiner correctly explains that Appellants' discussions of the § 112 rejections do not address the basis for these rejections (Ans. 13–14, cf. Br. 19). The Examiner also correctly explains that Appellants' discussions of the § 103 rejections are limited to an unembellished allegation that the applied references contain no disclosure or suggestion of particular Appeal 2012-012347 Application 11/324,273 3 limitations recited in the independent claims (Ans. 14, cf. Br. 19–24). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (July 1, 2011) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."). We emphasize that the Examiner's explanations have not been contested by Appellants in the record of this appeal (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed). Under these circumstances, Appellants fail to show error in any of the rejections before us. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. TIME PERIOD 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 cdc