Ex Parte Pasto

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 2012

11115742 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CRIS E. PASTO ____________________ Appeal 2010-006940 Application 11/115,742 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006940 Application 11/115,742 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 8-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2-7, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 14 and the drawings filed April 27, 2005 are objected to; thus, these issues are not before us. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellant, the invention relates to an improved buttress stabilization stand or shoring stand end fitting. The invention includes an integrated (interior and/or exterior) lighting means for providing improved lighting to a work area and/or a rescue scene. (Abstract). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 8 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 8. A buttress stabilization or shoring stand end fitting comprising at least one lighting source located within the end fitting, and means for emitting light from within said end fitting to a work area. References Pfauser US 2,219,903 Oct. 29, 1940 Rejections Claims 8-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pfauser. Appeal 2010-006940 Application 11/115,742 3 GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 8 to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 8-18. (See App. Br. 3-4). We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 8-18 Appellant argues their invention is not anticipated by Pfauser (App. Br. 4). Specifically, Appellant contends Pfauser does not disclose a buttress stabilization or shoring stand (id.). Instead, according to Appellant, Pfauser discloses a lighted floor jack (id.). According to Appellant, even if Pfauser were construed to disclose a buttress stabilization or shoring stand, Pfauser does not disclose an end fitting with a light source located within (id.). Therefore, Appellant maintains, Pfauser does not disclose the recited buttress stand end fittings (id.). Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Pfauser discloses “[a] buttress stabilization or shoring stand end fitting comprising at least one lighting source located within the end fitting, and means for emitting light from within said end fitting to a work area,” as recited in claim 8? Appeal 2010-006940 Application 11/115,742 4 ANALYSIS We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Pfauser discloses the invention as recited when interpreted broadly, but reasonably, in light of the Specification (Ans. 5-8). Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s interpretation. We also agree with the Examiner that Appellant is arguing limitations not recited in the claim (see Ans. 6-7). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Pfauser discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9-18, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Pfauser. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pfauser 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)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED ELD