Ex Parte Kritt et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2018

11852309 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018)

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.
11/852,309 09/09/2007 Barry A. Kritt RPS920070065US1 (085) 1976
50594 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33487
EXAMINER
LE, CANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRY A. KRITT, THOMAS S. MAZZEO, and
RODNEY E. SHEPARD II
Appeal 2015-003012
Application 11/852,309
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants requested rehearing of the Decision entered October 30,
2017 (“Decision” or “Dec.”), which affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).1 We have considered Appellants’
arguments, and such arguments have not persuaded us that we
misapprehended or overlooked any arguments, facts, or points of law in our
Decision. Therefore, we deny Appellants’ Request for Rehearing (“Req.”).
1 Our Decision also affirms the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—19 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, which the Request for Rehearing excludes.
Appeal 2015-003012
Application 11/852,309
DISCUSSION2
A request for rehearing “must state with particularity the points [of
law or fact] believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the
Board,” and must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1).
Appellants assert the Board overlooked their argument that Uemura’s
“2A” is a “printed document,” because the Board cited Uemura’s paragraph
50, but “neglected to provide any analysis at all.” Req. 5;3 see also id. at 4—6.
Appellants’ assertion is incorrect and contradicts the record.
Our Decision explicitly cites Uemura’s paragraph 50, italicizes the
relevant portion showing Appellants’ assertion about a “printed
document” is incorrect, and provides analysis to show Appellants’
assertion about the “printed document” is incorrect. See Dec. 7.
As discussed in our Decision (Dec. 7), Uemura teaches “the original
document. . . being previewed at the display part” (Uemura 1 50)—not a
printed document as Appellants assert. In fact, Uemura explicitly states,
“the original document. . . being previewed at the display part” is not “a
print state of the printed document” and does not constitute a printed
document. See Uemura 1 50 (“The different outputs in FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B
show the original document la being previewed at the display part 111 or a
print state of the printed document 2a output”) (emphasis added).
Consistent with that disclosure, Uemura’s Figure 4A is labeled “PREVIEW
IMAGE.” See Uemura’s Fig. 4A. As a result, our Decision correctly states
2 “Arguments not raised, and Evidence not previously relied upon ... are not
permitted in the request for rehearing except as permitted . . . 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1). Therefore, to the extent Appellants advance new arguments
without showing good cause, Appellants’ new arguments are untimely.
3 Appellants incorrectly state our Decision cites “Demara.” Req. 5.
2
Appeal 2015-003012
Application 11/852,309
that Appellants’ assertion about the “printed document” is unpersuasive. See
Dec. 7.4
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Appellants have not persuaded us that
we misapprehended or overlooked any issue of fact or law in our Decision.
We have granted Appellants’ Request for Rehearing to the extent that
we have reconsidered our Decision. Appellants have not shown that we
misapprehended or overlooked any issue of law or fact in reaching that
decision. Accordingly, we deny Appellants’ Request for Rehearing.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
DENIED
4 Appellants also acknowledge their argument is not directed to the
Examiner’s findings, as the Examiner “relied only upon Figure 4”—not
Figure 2A cited by Appellants. Req. 5 (emphasis added).
3