Ex Parte Mansour

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2017

13951912 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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. 13/951,912 07/26/2013 Mohamed Farouk MANSOUR TI-72260 9634 23494 7590 03/31/2017 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER AHSAN, UMAIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2017 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MOHAMED FAROUK MANSOUR Appeal 2016-005712 Application 13/951,9121 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 14-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. 1 Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-005712 Application 13/951,912 Claims 1—4, 6-11, 14, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Yamada (US 2014/0213290 Al; published July 31, 2014; PCT Filed Sept. 11,2012). Id. Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Yamada. Id. Claims 12, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Yamada and Cacace (US 2012/0059622 Al; published Mar. 8, 2012). Id. ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Appellant does not request review of the rejection for indefmiteness. Br. 14. We, therefore, summarily sustain this rejection. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1205.02, “Appeal Brief Content,” p. 1200- lb (9th ed., Rev. 7, July 2015) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it.”). Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 103 Aside from summarizing the content of the applied prior art (Yamada and Cacace) Appellant contends only: Yamada does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) (Br. at 14-16); and “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” (id. at 15-16). See also Ans. 2-3 (noting Appellant does not point out any patentable distinction over Yamada and Cacace). 2 Appeal 2016-005712 Application 13/951,912 Appellant’s contentions as to Yamada are not persuasive for the reasons provided by the Examiner. Ans. 3—4. We emphasize, as does the Examiner, that Appellant’s argument incorrectly characterizes Yamada as a foreign patent document. Br. 15. Yamada is rather a U.S. patent document with a benefit of PCT and foreign priorities. Thus, Yamada has a corresponding effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) at least as early as Sept. 11, 2012. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2152, “Detailed Discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b),” pp. 2100-203-04 (9th ed., Rev. 7, July 2015) (“[T]he availability of a U.S. patent document as prior art to a claimed invention is measured from the effective filing date of the claimed invention as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i), which takes into account both foreign priority and domestic benefit dates.”). Appellant’s contentions as to “articulated reasoning” are merely a rehashing of the Supreme Court’s and Federal Circuit’s guidance on 35 U.S.C. § 103 and, more particularly, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Br. 15-16. There are no corresponding arguments for consideration; much less a persuasive argument. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown an error in the Examiner’s findings of anticipation and obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 103. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-12 and 14-20 are 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 3