Ex Parte Zulferino

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

10958703 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

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.
10/958,703 10/06/2004 Ralph Zulferino 5655 1298
7590 02/28/2013
Charles I. Brodsky
2 Bucks Lane
Marlboro, NJ 07746
EXAMINER
MUSSELMAN, TIMOTHY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2013 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 APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RALPH ZULFERINO
____________

Appeal 2010-010145
Application 10/958,703
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JOSEPH A.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3 to 11. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellant's contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
Appeal 2010-010145
Application 10/958,703

2

record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellant's claims 1 and 3 to 11 is unpatentable over the combination of
Murphy (US 7,036,145 B1; iss. Apr. 25, 2006) and Yuen (US 5,716,273; iss.
Feb. 10, 1998). In this regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of the
Examiner in regard to the rejection. We also adopt the Examiner's response
to the Appellant's arguments, as found on pages 5 to 7 of the Answer.
We add, for emphasis only that we agree with the Examiner that both
Murphy and Yuen disclose a teaching system (see, col. 2, ll. 5 to 6 of
Murphy and col. 2, ll. 44 to 46). We also agree that Yuen discloses at
column 10, lines 20 to 38 blocking access to the entertainment device until a
predetermined number of questions are answered correctly.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh