90013699 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2018)

Ex Parte 8976127 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 2, 2018

90013699 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2018)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 90/013,699 04/06/2016 8976127 604/3 2043 7590 07/02/2018 HAN DINGNAN 100007 POST BOX, 02 BRANCH POST BOX 100007 YOU XIANG, 02 FEN XIANG BEIJING, 10000-7 CHINA EXAMINER BONSHOCK, DENNIS G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2018 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 HAN DINGNAN ____________________ Appeal 2018-000351 Reexamination Control No. 90/013,699 Patent US 8,976,127 B2 Technology Center 3900 ____________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING INTRODUCTION Patent Owner requests rehearing of our Decision entered February 28, 2018 (“Decision”), in which we affirmed the rejection of claims 1-15.1 OPINION We will maintain the rejection. PRINCIPLES OF LAW A request for rehearing is limited to matters overlooked or misapprehended by the Panel in rendering the original decision. See 1 Claim 16 is not subject to reexamination. Appeal 2018-000351 Application 90/013,699 Patent US 8,976,127 B2 2 37 C.F.R. § 41.52; see also Ex parte Quist, 95 USPQ2d 1140, 1141 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (quoting Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1214.03 (8th ed., Rev. 9, Aug. 2012)). It may not rehash arguments originally made in the Brief, neither is it an opportunity to merely express disagreement with a decision. It may not raise new arguments or present new evidence except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) though (a)(4). Id. The proper course for an Appellant dissatisfied with a Board decision is to seek judicial review, not to file a request for rehearing to reargue issues that have already been decided. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145. ANALYSIS Patent Owner argues that the Examiner interpreted the Townsend and Fado references incorrectly. Req. for Reh’g 2. Patent Owner further contends that Townsend “can’t use the pressure data of Fado to work” and “must using (sic) a touch pressure data which contains exact touch location. Req. for Reh’g 3 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive on rehearing. Patent Owner has made no showing, or even presented argument, that the Board overlooked or misapprehended any matters in rendering the original decision. Patent Owner’s arguments concerning the references were previously presented in the Appeal Brief. See, e.g., App. Br. 9, 12, 15-16, 24. To the extent Patent Owner’s remarks can be construed as an argument that the Board misapprehended Patent Owner’s position, this argument is not persuasive. The Board considered and rejected Patent Appeal 2018-000351 Application 90/013,699 Patent US 8,976,127 B2 3 Owner’s argument in the Decision. We agreed with the Examiner’s finding that “the touch data of [a] standard capacitive touchscreen as described by Townsend does not of itself describe a stylus location, but rather only locations perceived contacts,” and that Fado’s touch data is “only pressure (and hence contact) and does not include location.” Dec. 4-5. We further found in the Decision that “Townsend discloses receiving a plurality of such perceived contacts and evaluating the reliability of that contact data to determine which touch is intentional.” Dec. 5, citing Townshend col. 6:5- 44. We agreed with the Examiner’s finding that all that is required by the claim “is that the touch data at the stylus does not include location. This data is then compared with a subset of the data at the touch screen to determine which press is the ‘touch object.’” Dec. 5; Ans. 28. We, therefore, conclude that Appellant has not shown any points which we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision. CONCLUSION We have granted Appellant’s request for rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision affirming the rejection of claims 1-15, but we decline to modify our decision in any way. We maintain the rejection of claims 1-15. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(d), this Decision is final for the purpose of judicial review. A party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983. Appeal 2018-000351 Application 90/013,699 Patent US 8,976,127 B2 4 REHEARING DENIED For PATENT OWNER: HAN DINGNAN 100007 POST BOX, 02 BRANCH POST BOX 100007 YOU XIANG, 02 FEN XIANG BEIJING 10000-7 CN CHINA For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NKPATENTLAW 4917 WATERS EDGE DRIVE SUITE 275 RALEIGH, NC 27606