10732529 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

Ex Parte Guingo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 27, 2012

10732529 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte PIERRICK GUINO, JEROME CORNET, ARNOLD JANSEN, and FERNANDO CUERVO ____________ Appeal 2009-015011 Application 10/732,529 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR. and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING DECISION Appellants have requested a rehearing of our Decision dated June 28, 2012 (hereinafter “Decision”), wherein we affirmed the obviousness rejections of claims 1-6, 10, 11, 13, 15-17 and 19-25. See Decision 2. Appellants contend that the Board “cited a portion of Belz not cited in the Examiner’s rejections for a reference to ‘16 unicast plus one multicast,’ but did not actually present a detailed rejection based upon this newly cited Appeal 2009-015011 Application 10/732,529 2 material.” Request for Reconsideration 2 (citations omitted). Thus, Appellants contend that “this aspect of the Decision on Appeal appears to constitute a new ground of rejection.” Id. We have reconsidered our decision, in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Request for Reconsideration, and we find Appellants have not identified any points misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in our Decision therein. In particular, Appellants fail to present arguments as to why a mere reference to the prior art of record would constitute a new grounds of rejection. Though Appellants argue that the Board “misapprehended” the terms multicast traffic flow, multicast-enable router and multicast tree by reducing them to “data is transmitted while multicasting” instead of reviewing the actual scope of claim 1 ( Id.), Appellants’ arguments do not indicate where in the Decision that the Board allegedly “misapprehended” the terms in question. Appellants further argue that both claim 1 and claim 20 recite language relating to billing traffic flows based upon stored reports in an attempt to dispute the Board’s position that “[N]either claim 1 or 20 ‘recited limitations involving charging more for additional services.’” Id (quoting Decision 6). However, Appellants have not identified any points misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in the reasoning we stated in our Decision. See Decision 6-7. Appellants then argue the Board’s position that “‘Appellants are silent in regard to Belz’s disclosed ‘billing purposes’” overlooks the actual arguments in Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Request for Reconsideration 3 (quoting Decision 6). We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because Appellants still do not address Belz’s disclosure of Appeal 2009-015011 Application 10/732,529 3 “billing purposes” and also for the reasons stated in our Decision. See Request for Reconsideration 3; see also Decision 6-7. Finally, Appellants argue that the portion of the Decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 overlooks the claimed resource utilization reports and fails to consider the actual language of claim 5. Request for Reconsideration 3. However, Appellants have not identified any points misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in the reasoning we stated in our Decision. Decision 7. Appellants’ Request for Rehearing has been granted to the extent that our Decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with respect to making any modifications to the Decision. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a)(1)(iv). REHEARING DENIED peb