Ex Parte Johannes

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2012

11725938 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/725,938 03/19/2007 Richard A. Johannes 003C.0050.U1(US) 7608
87120 7590 09/04/2012
Harrington & Smith
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
HAMMOND, BRIGGITTE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2012 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 RICHARD A. JOHANNES
____________________

Appeal 2010-006733
Application 11/725,938
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests rehearing (“Req.”) of the Decision on Appeal
mailed June 18, 2012 (“Dec.”). Appellant contends the Board erred in the
Decision by affirming the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 8, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) without a review of these claims (Req. 1).
Appeal 2010-006733
Application 11/725,938

2
The Decision has been reconsidered in light of Appellant’s arguments
in the Request for Rehearing. Claims 6, 8, and 12 have been reviewed and
the Decision is not modified for the reasons discussed below.
ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts the decision was incorrect in not considering claims
6 and 8 as they “were not separately argued” and by failing to address the
method steps of claim 12 (Req. 1-2).
The Examiner’s Answer states “the second ferrite block is adapted to
mate against the first ferrite block when the cover is attached to the main
section of the housing” (Ans. 4; citing Fig. 3 of Little).
Appellant’s arguments do not rebut this finding but merely reiterate
the claim limitations. That is, Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief
with respect to claims 6 and 8 state “there is no disclosure or suggestion of
the second ferrite block (upper 20) being adapted to mate against the first
ferrite block (lower 20) when the cover (14) is attached to the main section
(12) of the housing” (App. Br. 8, 9).
Although Appellant has provided separate headings for these claims
in the Appeal Brief, Appellant did not present any substantive arguments
separately directed to the patentability of claims 6 and 8 and did not
particularly point to error in the Examiner’s reasoning. In the absence of
separate substantive arguments with respect to claims 6 and 8, these claims
fall with their representative respective independent claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (mere
lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). See also In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appeal 2010-006733
Application 11/725,938

3
With respect to claim 12, Appellant contends, in Little, the “cover 14
appears to be attached after the ferrites 20, 20 are connected to the terminals
and housing 20” (Req. 3) (emphasis added). Appellant asserts there “is no
disclosure of forming subassemblies in Little, let alone connecting a second
subassembly to a first subassembly,” and thus, Little cannot anticipate claim
12 (App. Br. 9; Req. 3).
The Examiner found “[c]learly in figure 3, Little discloses the first
ferrite block is mounted to the main section forming a first sub-assembly
(20,12) and the second ferrite block is mounted the cover 14 forming a
second sub-assembly (20,14) in the same manner as that of the present
application” (Ans. 6). We agree with the Examiner regarding the
subassemblies (Ans. 6). Appellant did not provide any substantive
arguments as to why the Examiner is incorrect and did not provide where in
Little it states the cover is attached after the ferrites are connected to the
terminals and housing as alleged.
DECISION
Appellant’s Request for Rehearing is granted to the extent that the
Decision was reconsidered but is denied with respect to modifying 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)(2010).

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

peb