Ex Parte Halaka

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 7, 2012

11555975 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 7, 2012)

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.
11/555,975 11/02/2006 Folim G. Halaka IVGN 530.4 CON 7879
7590 08/07/2012
Talivaldis Cepuritis
Olson & Cepuritis, Ltd.
36th Floor
20 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
KURTZ, BENJAMIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1778
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/07/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FOLIM G. HALAKA
____________

Appeal 2011-005516
Application 11/555,975
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
RAE LYNN GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests rehearing of our Decision of March 27, 2012. In
that Decision, we sustained the rejections of record.
We have reconsidered our decision of March 27, 2012, in light of
Appellant’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing, and Appellant has not
convinced us of error therein.

Appeal 2011-005516
Application 11/555,975

2
Appellant’s arguments are either similar to their arguments presented
in their Brief and Reply Brief, or are new arguments.
To the extent that Appellant’s arguments are similar to arguments
already presented in their Brief and Reply Brief, we have addressed such
arguments in our Decision of March 27, 2012, and Appellant has not
convincingly pointed out what arguments or evidence in the Appeal Brief
and Reply Brief we overlooked or misapprehended in our Decision.
With regard to new arguments, we do not consider them. Appellant’s
failure to raise an argument for patentability in the principal Brief on Appeal
cannot be corrected in a Request for Rehearing. See Cooper v. Goldfarb,
154 F.3d 1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Moller v. Harding, 214 USPQ
730, 731 (BPAI 1982), aff’d, 714 F.2d 160 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (table) (“A party
cannot wait until after the Board has rendered an adverse decision and then
present new arguments in a request for reconsideration.”)); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52 (indicating that presentation of a new argument in a request for
Rehearing is untimely and inappropriate).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, Appellant’s Request is granted
to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, but is denied with
respect to making any change therein.
DENIED

cam