Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2017

13593324 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2017)

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.
545.297 2016
EXAMINER
BARLOW, MORGAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/593,324 08/23/2012
85444 7590 06/20/2017
Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC
2171 E. Francisco Blvd., Suite L
San Rafael, CA 94901
Betty Lee
06/20/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BETTY LEE
Appeal 2015-006333
Application 13/593,324
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Betty Lee (Appellant) filed a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52 (hereinafter “Request”), dated May 22, 2017, of our Decision mailed
May 8, 2017 (hereinafter “Decision”). In the Decision, we affirmed the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—13.
DISCUSSION
A request for rehearing is limited to matters overlooked or
misapprehended by the Panel in rendering the original decision. See
Appeal 2015-006333
Application 13/593,324
37 C.F.R. § 41.52; see also Ex parte Quist, 95 USPQ2d 1140, 1141 (BPAI
2010) (precedential) (quoting Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1214.03). It may not rehash arguments originally made in the
Brief, neither is it an opportunity to merely express disagreement with a
decision. It may not raise new arguments or present new evidence except as
permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52. The
proper course for an Appellant dissatisfied with a Board decision is to seek
judicial review, not to file a request for rehearing to reargue issues that have
already been decided. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145.
The instant Request does not identify any matters overlooked by the
panel. See generally Request. Rather, the Request merely repeats the
arguments from the Appeal Brief. Compare e.g., Appeal Br. 5 with Request
1. For example, the Request essentially repeats Appellant’s assertion that
Comerford’s
wand 70 radially extends from motor shaft 60 and extends to the
exterior of the housing 110 radially from the central hub. This is
the only way that the Comerford device can operate as wand 70
must travel within peripheral slot 120 noting further that
Comerford acknowledges that his flexible cover 80 is “preferably
circular in shape.” [0018] Applicant sees no way in which wand
70 could move other than in a uniform 360° arc and that it
radially extends from the geometric center of the toy and not
offset as required by Applicant’s claims.
Request 2 (emphasis omitted). However, the claims at issue do not preclude
movement of the string-like projection in a uniform 360° arc that radially
extends from the geometric center of the toy. Rather, the claims merely
require “a string-like element appended to said selectively rotatable disk in a
location radially offset from its geometric center.” Appeal Br. 9, 10.
2
Appeal 2015-006333
Application 13/593,324
As we explained in the Decision, Comerford’s wand 70 (identified by
the Examiner as corresponding to the claimed string-like element) is
appended (i.e. attached) to thrust bearing 110 and gearing arrangement 105
at one end 72. See Decision 5—6 (citing Comerford H 19 and 21). This
attachment occurs at a location that is radially offset from the geometric
center of Comerford’s gearing arrangement 105 (identified by the Examiner
as corresponding to the claimed rotatable disk), which is all that is required
by the claim language. Thus, Comerford meets the limitation at issue.
As the Request is directed to matters already decided and does not
identify any matters overlooked or misapprehended by the Panel, we
maintain our decision in this appeal.
DECISION AND ORDER
We grant the Request to the extent that we have considered the
arguments pertaining to matters allegedly overlooked or misapprehended,
but otherwise deny the Request.
DENIED
3