Ex Parte Ellis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

13169930 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/169,930 06/27/2011
46320 7590 07/25/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Ellis
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.
RSW920110043US1 (717) 2795
EXAMINER
HARRIS, DOROTHY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD ELLIS and CLARE OWENS
Appeal2014-005001
Application 13/169,930
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal2014-005001
Application 13/169,930
Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(l) ("Request") on July 5, 2016, for reconsideration of our
Decision mailed May 5, 2016 ("Decision"). The Decision affirmed the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12. We reconsider our decision in light of
Appellants' Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the Decision.
Appellants repeat arguments previously presented in the Appeal and
Reply Briefs alleging that claims 9-12 recite statutory subject matter, and
conclude the Board's analysis on page 3 of the Decision is devoid of any
factual findings and ignores several of Appellants' arguments. Request 2-5.
We addressed Appellants' arguments by adopting the Examiner's findings of
fact as our own, and concurring with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. Decision 3. The
additional highlight on page 3 of the Decision was for emphasis.
Appellants also repeat arguments previously presented in the Appeal
and Reply Briefs alleging that claims 1-12 are patentable over the
combination of Nickerson, Nielsen, and Mehra and conclude the Board
neglected to address these arguments. Request 5-8. We addressed
Appellants' arguments by adopting the Examiner's findings of fact as our
own, and concurring with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the
reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. Decision 3. We added highlights
for emphasis. Decision 4.
We find Appellants' contentions restate the arguments presented in
Appellants' briefing as to alleged errors in the Examiner's fact finding and
conclusions. Appellants' contentions were addressed in our Decision; we
will not repeat our findings and conclusions here. Appellants have failed to
show any matter that was misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in
2
Appeal2014-005001
Application 13/169,930
rendering our Decision. We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive for
the reasons given in our prior Decision. We decline to change our prior
Decision.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellants' Request for
Rehearing to the extent of reconsidering our decision, but we deny
Appellants' request with respect to making any change thereto.
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).
REHEARING DENIED
3