Ex Parte Pascal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2017

11721716 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 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.
11/721,716 08/13/2009 Jerome Pascal 0078840-000033 2695
21839 7590 02/01/2018
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
KRUER, KEVIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROME PASCAL, FABRICE CHOPINEZ,
and DAMIEN RAULINE
Appeal 2015-002364
Application 11/721,716
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on rehearing in Appeal No. 2015-002364. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
ANALYSIS
Appellants assert that our prior Decision contains inconsistent
indications regarding whether we affirm or reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 19 as obvious over Hasegawa, Katayama, and Nicco. (Request for
Rehearing 1—3). Appellants note that our substantive discussion on page 7
of our prior Decision stated that “we are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in determining that claim 19 would have been obvious over Hasegawa,
Katayama, and Nicco.” (Request for Rehearing 1). Appellants also note
Appeal 2015-002364
Application 11/721,716
that, consistent with the foregoing statement, page 10 of our prior Decision
stated that “[w]e reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19, 23, 26,
and 29-36 as obvious over Hasegawa, Katayama, and Nicco.” (Request for
Rehearing 2).
Appellants note that, in conflict with these statements, page 10 of our
prior Decision also stated that “[w]e affirm the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 12[,] 14—16, 18—22, 37, and 38 as obvious over
Hasegawa, Katayama, and Nicco.” (Request for Rehearing 2). Appellants
indicate that this portion of our prior decision errs in stating that we affirm
the rejection of claim 19 as obvious over Hasegawa, Katayama, and Nicco.
(See Rehearing Request 2—3). Appellants suggest that the concluding
portion of our prior Decision should be corrected as reflected below:
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 5,
8, 11, 12 14—16, 18 22,18,20—22, 37, and 38 as obvious over
Hasegawa, Katayama, and Nicco.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19,
23, 26, and 29-36 as obvious over Hasegawa, Katayama, and
Nicco.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 5,
8, 11, 12, 14—16, 18, and 20—22 as obvious over Showa and
Nicco.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 19 as
obvious over Showa and Nicco.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14,
25, 27, and 28 as obvious over Showa, Nicco, and Kobayashi.
(Rehearing Request 3).
Appellants persuade us of error in the statement on page 10 of our
prior Decision indicating that we affirmed the rejection of claim 19 as
obvious over Hasegawa, Katayama, and Nicco. Accordingly, we grant
2
Appeal 2015-002364
Application 11/721,716
Appellants’ Rehearing Request and clarify that the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 19 as obvious over Hasegawa, Katayama, and Nicco is reversed.
CONCLUSION
We grant Appellants’ Rehearing Request.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 12,
14—16, 18, 20-22^ 37, and 38 as obvious over Hasegawa, Katayama, and
Nicco.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19, 23, 26, and
29—36 as obvious over Hasegawa, Katayama, and Nicco.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 12,
14—16, 18, and 20—22 as obvious over Showa and Nicco.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 19 as obvious
over Showa and Nicco.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14, 25, 27, and
28 as obvious over Showa, Nicco, and Kobayashi.
REHEARING GRANTED
3