Ex Parte CAGAN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2018

13757387 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/757,387 02/01/2013
154930 7590
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
08/16/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher L. CAGAN
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10033US02CON 6791
EXAMINER
MINCARELLI, JAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2018 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):
anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com
Arlene.Hudgens@Xsensus.com
Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER L. CAGAN
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387 1
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LARRY J. HUME, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm, and designate the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a new
ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for valuing all of
the real estate in a geographic area using an automated valuation model.
Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is CoreLogic Solutions,
LLC. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer
system that includes a data processor and is connected to at least
one data repository, perform a method comprising:
accessing, by the computer system from the at least one
data repository through a first communication channel, property
data associated with each real estate property in a geographic
area;
calculating at a first predetermined time, by the data
processor of the computer system, a valuation for each real estate
property in the geographic area based at least in part on the
accessed property data using an automated valuation model;
storing, by the computer system in the at least one data
repository, one or more successfully calculated valuations
associated with the real estate properties in the geographic area;
calculating at a second predetermined time, by the data
processor of the computer system, updated valuations for the real
estate properties in the geographic area;
calculating, using the data processor of the computer
system, changes to the one or more successfully calculated
valuations associated with respective real estate properties in the
geographic area;
calculating, using the data processor of the computer
system, an index of change in property valuation for the
geographic area;
generating, and transmitting through a second
communication channel, an electronic map depicting the
geographic area and at least one of the one or more of the
successfully calculated valuations associated with the real estate
properties in the geographic area; and
generating, and transmitting through the second
communication channel, an electronic image that includes the
index of change in property valuation for the geographic area.
App. Br. (Claims App.) i.
2
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
a judicial exception to patentable subject matter. Non-Final Act. 3--4. 2
Claims 1--4 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bradley et al. (US 6,842,738 Bl;
issued Jan. 11, 2005) and Wiese (US 6,323,885 Bl; issued Nov. 27, 2001).
Non-Final Act. 4--14.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bradley, Wiese, and Sklarz et al. (US
2002/0087389 Al; published July 4, 2002). Non-Final Act. 15-17.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bradley, Wiese, and Schulkins (US
2004/0243509 Al; published Dec. 2, 2004). Non-Final Act. 17-18.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bradley, Wiese, and Foretich et al.
(US 2003/0191723 Al; published Oct. 9, 2003). Non-Final Act. 19-21.
Claims 12, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Bradley and Partlow et al. (US
2005/0216384 Al; published Sept. 29, 2005). Non-Final Act. 21-30.
Claims 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bradley, Partlow, and Wiese. Non-
Final Act. 30-35.
2 We herein refer to the Specification (filed Feb. 1, 2013) ("Spec."); Non-
Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 22, 2014) ("Non-Final"); Appeal Brief
(filed Apr. 21, 2015) ("App. Br."); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Aug.
10, 2015) ("Ans."). We note that Appellant did not file a Reply Brief to
rebut the Examiner's findings and legal conclusions in the Answer.
3
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
Claims 14 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bradley, Partlow, Wiese, and Sklarz.
Non-Final Act. 35--40.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bradley, Partlow, Wiese, and Gargi et
al. (US 8,051,089 B2; issued Nov. 1, 2011). Non-Final Act. 40--42.
Claims 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bradley, Wiese, and Hartz, Jr. et al.
(US 6,636,803 Bl; issued Oct. 21, 2003). Non-Final Act. 42-53.
Claims 27-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bradley, Wiese, Hartz, Jr., and Gargi.
Non-Final Act. 54--57.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Brief. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101: Claims 1-28
The Examiner concludes claims 1-21 are directed to an article of
manufacture and claims 22-28 are directed to a method; the Examiner thus
concludes that each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Ans. 4. In addition, the Examiner concludes the concept of "accessing real
estate property data, storing property data, calculating property data and
changes to property values, and generating images such as maps depicting
the calculated property values and changes to property values" "is an
abstract idea because valuing property ( e.g., real estate) is a fundamental
4
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
economic practice." Id. at 4. And the Examiner concludes the present
claims are unlike the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) because the present claims are not used as a
technical solution to solve a real problem in a technological field; instead,
the present claims are directed to providing more accurate trends for a
property's value. Ans. 7. The Examiner also concludes the limitations in
the claims map to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts such as
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Id. at 3.
The Examiner further concludes:
[The] claims require no more than a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and
conventional activities previously known to the industry because
it is well-understood, routine, and conventional for computers to
access, store, and calculate data as well as to generate displays of
data or maps.
Ans. 5.
Appellant argues the Examiner's conclusion that the present claims
are directed to an abstract idea is incorrect because "[t]here is no recitation
in the present claims of economic practices, organizing human activities, an
idea of itself, or mathematical relationships/formulas." App. Br. 7.
Appellant further argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea; but,
even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea, the combination of steps
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because
Appellant realized the benefit and advantage of calculating
trends based on valuations from automated valuation models
( A VMs) - which can be calculated for each property in a
geographic area even if some properties were not sold or
appraised in the geographic area. Appellant conceived of a
process for calculating trends that can overcome data sufficiency
5
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
challenges of the prior art. Thus, the claimed invention is an
improvement over the [prior] art.
Id. at 8. Appellant still further argues that features in claim 1 are
comparable to features found in DDR because like in the DDR case these
additional limitations amount to something more. Id. at 9--10.
Following the decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134
S. Ct. 2347 (2014), (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 82-84 (2012)), we analyze claims where the abstract idea
judicial exception to the categories of statutory subject matter is at issue
using the following two-part analysis set forth in Mayo: 1) Determine
whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea; and 2) if an abstract idea is
present in the claim, determine whether any element, or combination of
elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350.
As to the first part of the analysis, examples of abstract ideas
referenced in Alice include: fundamental economic practices3; certain
methods of organizing human activities4; "[a]n idea ofitself'5; and,
mathematical relationships or formulas. 6 Claims that include abstract ideas
3 Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2350: e.g., intermediated settlement, i.e., the use
of a third party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk.
4 Id. at 2356: e.g., a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk ( citing
Bilski, 561 U.S. at 599).
5 Id. at 2354, 2355: e.g., a principle, an original cause, a motive (citing
Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) and Le Roy v. Tatham, 14
How. 156, 175 (1852)).
6 Id. at 2350: e.g., a mathematical formula for computing alarm limits in a
catalytic conversion process (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95
(1978)), or a formula for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into
pure binary form (Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72).
6
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
like these are examined under the second part of the analysis to determine
whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
As to the second part of the analysis, we consider the claim as a whole
by considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination. Id.
at 2355. Limitations referenced in Alice that may be enough to qualify as
"significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as
non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: Improvements to another
technology or technical field7; improvements to the functioning of the
computer itself8; and meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 9
Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as
"significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as
non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: adding the words "apply it" ( or an
equivalent) with an abstract idea 10; mere instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer11 ; or requiring no more than a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and
conventional activities previously known to the industry. 12
7 Id. at 2358: e.g., a mathematical formula applied in a specific rubber
molding process (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177-78 (1981)).
8 Id. at 2359.
9 Id. at 2360: noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful
limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular
technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers" ( quoting
Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11).
10 Id. at 2357-58.
11 Id.: e.g., simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical
machine, namely a computer ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 84--85).
12 Id. at 2359: e.g., using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances,
and issue automated instructions.
7
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
If there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the
abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is directed to non-
statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Federal Circuit held "merely selecting information, by content or
source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to
differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit
exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract
ideas." Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2016). In addition, "merely presenting the results of abstract
processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as
identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part
of such collection and analysis." Id. at 1354--55. The Federal Circuit further
stated:
[ t ]he claims in this case do not even require a new source or type
of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. ... As a result,
they do not require an arguably inventive set of components or
methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that would
generate new data. They do not invoke any assertedly inventive
programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation
of information-to provide a "humanly comprehensible" amount
of information useful for users ... by itself does not transform
the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and
analysis.
Id. at 1355 (internal citations omitted).
Step 1
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's analysis and
conclusion that claims 1-21 are directed to an article of manufacture and
claims 22-28 are directed to a method. Ans. 4. We also agree with the
8
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
Examiner's conclusion that each claim falls within one of the four statutory
categories. Id.
Step 2A
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's analysis and
conclusion that claims 1-28 are directed to an abstract idea. Ans. 3-7. That
is, we agree with the Examiner that the concept of "accessing real estate
property data, storing property data, calculating property data and changes to
property values, and generating images such as maps depicting the
calculated property values and changes to property values" is "is an abstract
idea because valuing property ( e.g., real estate) is a fundamental economic
practice." Ans. 4. While we agree with the Examiner's conclusion of patent
ineligibility and supporting rationale, we additionally rely on Electric
Power.
Similar to the claims in Electric Power, claims 1-28 of the present
case are directed to selecting information, by content or source, for
collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a
process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from
§ 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. And also
similar to Electric Power, claims 1-28 of the present case are directed to
presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing
information, without more ( such as identifying property valuations for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.
Because claims 1-28 are directed to an abstract idea, we proceed to
step (2B) of the Alice, two-part test.
9
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
Step 2B
Regarding step (2B) of the Alice two-part test, claims 1-28 do not
amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the present case,
claims 1-28 describe the concept of "accessing real estate property data,
storing property data, calculating property data and changes to property
values, and generating images such as maps depicting the calculated
property values and changes to property values" (Ans. 4), which is not
significantly more than an abstract idea. Like Electric Power, the present
claims also are directed to selecting information, by content or source, for
collection, analysis, and display, which is not significantly more than an
abstract idea.
With regard to Appellant's argument that the pending claims are
patent eligible because they recite an improvement over the prior art (see
App. Br. 8), Appellant improperly conflates the requirements for eligible
subject matter(§ 101) with the independent requirements of novelty(§ 102)
and non-obviousness(§ 103). "The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a
process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining
whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of
possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond, 450 U.S. at 188-89; see also
Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
( stating that, "under the Mayol Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly
discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot
rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for
patent eligibility").
In Electric Power, the Federal Circuit distinguished DDR, stating
"[t]he claims at issue here do not require an arguably inventive device or
10
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
technique for displaying information." Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1355.
Unlike the inventive concept found in DDR ("modification of conventional
mechanics behind website display to produce dual-source integrated hybrid
display"), the claims at issue merely required "off-the-shelf, conventional,
computer, network, and display technology." Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although the Examiner concludes certain claim
features are well-understood, routine, and conventional without providing
evidence, 13 the applied prior art teaches such features for the reasons stated
infra. And for the reasons stated supra, we conclude the present claims are
directed to selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
analysis, and display, which is similar to the claims in Electric Power; the
application of Electric Power to the present claims illustrates the present
claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional. To the extent our
findings and reasoning change the thrust of the rejection presented by the
Examiner, we designate the rejection as a new ground of rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-13, 15--18, and 20--28
Independent claim 1 recites "calculating, using the data processor of
the computer system, an index of change in property valuation for the
geographic area." Independent claim 12 recites "calculating with the data
processor of the computer system an index of change in valuation for the
geographic area based at least in part on the valuations stored in the first data
layer and the updated valuations stored in the second data layer."
Independent claim 22 recites "calculating with the data processor of the
13 Appellant argues none of the applied art teaches such features. App. Br. 8.
11
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
computer system an index of change in property valuation for the geographic
area."
The Examiner finds Bradley teaches the limitations recited in the
aforementioned paragraph. Ans. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds
Bradley teaches a price trend for a specific property, a zip code, and a
county, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "calculating, using the
data processor of the computer system, an index of change in property
valuation for the geographic area" recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in
claims 12 and 22). Id. ( citing Bradley 4:54--56, Fig. 6). In addition, the
Examiner finds cited portions of Bradley teach price trends come from the
forecast data repository where computer 110 periodically updates property
value estimates, which the Examiner maps to the limitations recited in the
aforementioned paragraph. Ans. 8 (citing Bradley 4:30-38, 4:51-53)
Appellant argues that Bradley and Wiese do not teach "calculating,
using the data processor of the computer system, an index of change in
property valuation for the geographic area" recited in claim 1 because
Bradley is concerned with only sold properties rather than each property in a
geographic area. App. Br. 11-13. Appellant further argues that Bradley and
Partlow do not teach "calculating with the data processor of the computer
system an index of change in valuation for the geographic area based at least
in part on the valuations stored in the first data layer and the updated
valuations stored in the second data layer" recited in claim 12 because
Bradley fails to teach any type of calculating trends based on automatic
valuations and Partlow's recording a tick in a price to track price movements
is not the same as calculating of trends based on automated valuations. Id. at
14--15. Appellant further argues that the cited references do not teach
12
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
"calculating with the data processor of the computer system an index of
change in property valuation for the geographic area" recited in claim 22
because Bradley fails to teach any type of calculating trends based on
automatic valuations. Id. at 16-17. We disagree with Appellant.
The cited portions of Bradley teach a price trend over a time series
(i.e., an index of change in property values) for a specific property, a zip
code (i.e., geographic area), and a county, which the Examiner maps to the
limitation "calculating, using the data processor of the computer system, an
index of change in property valuation for the geographic area" recited in
claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 12 and 22). Ans. 7 (citing Bradley,
4:54--56, Fig. 6).
Moreover, we disagree with Appellant's argument that Bradley is
concerned with only sold properties rather than each property because
Figure 6 of Bradley states "ESTIMATES OF VALUE" for an unsold property.
Significantly, Appellant does not refer to any citation where Bradley
allegedly states it is concerned with sold properties only.
Nor do we agree with Appellant's argument that Bradley fails to teach
calculating trends based on automatic valuations because "automatic" is not
recited in the independent claims; nonetheless, assuming arguendo that
"automatic" is recited or otherwise implicated in the claims, which it is not,
the cited portions of Bradley teach price trends come from the forecast data
repository where computer 110 periodically updates (i.e., automatic
valuations) property value estimates. Ans. 8 (citing Bradley, 4:30-38,
4:51-53).
Appellant does not argue separately dependent claims 2-11, 13, 15-
18, 20, 21, and 23-28 with particularity, but assert the rejections of those
13
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
claims should be withdrawn for at least the same reasons as argued in
independent claims 1, 12, and 22. App. Br. 17-21. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejections of: (1) independent claims 1, 12, and 22; and
(2) dependent claims 2-11, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 19
Claim 19 recites "generating a report comprising the one or more of
the successfully calculated valuations associated with the real estate
properties and the one or more of the successfully calculated updated
valuations associated with the real estate properties."
The Examiner finds that Bradley generates a report from the forecast
data repository, which the Examiner maps to the limitations recited in claim
19. Ans. 9-10 (citing Bradley, 6:65-7:3).
Appellant argues that Bradley fails to teach claim 19 's limitations
because Bradley does not actually store both successfully calculated
valuations and updated valuations, then generating a report with the
valuations. App. Br. 17-18. We disagree with Appellant.
As an initial matter, the Examiner relies on Figure 6 of Bradley to
teach the disputed limitations recited in the independent claims. Ans. 7
(citing Bradley, 4:54--56, Fig. 6). And Bradley teaches price trends in a
forecast that illustrates past estimates and updated estimates (i.e.,
successfully calculated valuations and updated valuations). Ans. 7-8 ( citing
Bradley, 4:51-56, Fig. 6). As a result, the cited portions of Bradley teach
generating a report from the forecast data repository, which teaches the
limitation "generating a report comprising the one or more of the
successfully calculated valuations associated with the real estate properties
14
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
and the one or more of the successfully calculated updated valuations
associated with the real estate properties" recited in claim 19. Ans. 9--10
(citing Bradley, 6:65-7:3).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 14
Claim 14 recites "providing the first map and second map in rapid
succession to generate a movie-like presentation."
The Examiner finds that Sklarz teaches showing GIS charts, such that
each GIS chart is a map of property values; the maps are illustrated in a time
sequence changing over time, which the Examiner maps to the limitations
recited in claim 14. Ans. 11 (citing Sklarz ,r,r 157-70).
Appellant argues that Bradley fails to teach claim 14 's limitations
because Sklarz does not teach successfully calculated valuations presented in
a movie-like presentation. App. Br. 20-21. We disagree with Appellant.
We disagree because the cited portions of Sklarz teach showing GIS
charts, such that each GIS chart is a map of property values; the maps are
illustrated (i.e., providing a first map and a second map) in a time sequence
changing over time (i.e., generating a movie-like presentation), which
teaches the limitation "providing the first map and second map in rapid
succession to generate a movie-like presentation" recited in claim 14.
Ans. 11 (citing Sklarz ,r,r 157-70).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
15
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, designating the rejection as a new ground.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). Section 4I.50(b) provides "[a] new
ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final
for judicial review." Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered
by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be
remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is
binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion
of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims,
appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under §41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
16
Appeal2017-004549
Application 13/757,387
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 1214.01 (9th
Ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
17