Ex Parte Lund et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2012

09873933 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT M. LUND, CHRIS D. KOCH, MILTON J. JOHNSON,
JOEL K. LAGERQUIST, DANIEL R. OELKE, JEFFREY T. KAYS,
JOSEPH J. KNUDSEN, and STEVEN J. TALUS
___________

Appeal 2009-014105
Application 09/873,933
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before GREGORY J. GONSALVES, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Appeal 2009-014105
Application 09/873,933

2
Appellants requests rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision
on Appeal entered March 29, 2012 (“Decision”) where we affirmed the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3, 37, 39-41, 43, 44, and 47-69.
The Request for Rehearing is denied.

ANALYSIS
First, with respect to the “point-to-multipoint network” limitation
recited in independent claim 1, Appellants argue that:
The Board’s characterization of a point to multipoint network is
directly at odds with the common understanding of such a
network among those skilled in the telecommunications arts.
Even if Mulcahy generally acknowledges that point to
multipoint networks exist, it is clear that the techniques
disclosed by Mulcahy and relied upon to support the rejection
of claim 1 do not apply to a point to multipoint network.
(Req. for Reh’g 2-3.)
Second, with respect to the “transmitting the location code and a
subscriber unit identifier” limitation recited in independent claim 1,
Appellants further argue that:
[E]ven if a terminal number entered by a service engineer as
disclosed by Mulcahy could be reasonably characterized as
corresponding to a location code as recited in Appellants’
claim 1, there still would have been no apparent reason to
modify the system described by Mulcahy to further transmit a
subscriber unit identifier as provided by Appellants’ claim 1.
(Req. for Reh’g 8.) In particular, Appellants argue that the “vague notion of
simply providing ‘additional node information’ bears no relationship to the
function or operation of the Mulcahy system, and the Board provided no
support or reasoning as to why it would have been included by one of
ordinary skill in the art.” (Req. for Reh’g 9.)
Appeal 2009-014105
Application 09/873,933

3
However, Appellants do not further elaborate on “the points believed
to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board” as required by 37
C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Rather, Appellants present new arguments not raised
in the Briefs before the Board. Such new arguments will not be considered.1
“Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not
previously relied upon in the brief and any reply brief(s) are not permitted in
the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3)
of this section.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Appellants have not identified a
reason for meeting one of these exceptions.

CONCLUSION
The Request for Rehearing has been considered and denied.
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

babc

1 To have these new arguments considered by the Examiner, Appellants can
file a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114.