Ex Parte McKinstry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2016

13213369 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

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.
13/213,369 08/19/2011 Kevin Dale McKinstry S TK04030PU S1 8147
51344 7590 02/02/2017
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK
1000 TOWN CENTER, TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
STARK, JARRETT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2823
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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 @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN DALE McKINSTRY, OTTO RICHARD BUHLER,
JEFFREY GLENN VILLIARD, and FOREST DILLINGER
Appeal 2015-002024
Application 13/213,369
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
This is in response to a Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”), dated
December 19, 2016, of our Decision, mailed October 19, 2016 (“Decision”),
wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of all appealed
claims.
We have reconsidered our Decision, in light of Appellants’ comments
in the Request for Rehearing, and we find no error in the disposition of the
§ 103(a) rejection.
We have reviewed the arguments set forth by Appellants in the
Request. However, we remain of the opinion that the subject matter of the
claims is properly rejected and unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2015-002024
Application 13/213,369
Appellants merely argue that because “Fjelstad says nothing as to how
to maintain constant impedance between shielded and unshielded sections,”
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have “made the leap” to impedance
matching same (Req. Reh’g 2).1
This is not persuasive of any error in our Decision. As stated therein,
Appellants’ sole argument in the Appeal Brief was directed towards
Fjelstad’s alleged lack of teaching or suggesting of impedance matching per
se (Decision 3). Appellants did not challenge the Examiner’s determination
that Jellum exemplified shielded and unshielded sections of a flexible trace
interconnect array. It was unchallenged that a shielded section would de
facto have had a different impedance than an unshielded section.
Appellants’ argument, thus, fails to consider the applied prior art as a whole.
Appellants fail to explain why it would not have been within the ordinary
level of skill using ordinary creativity to apply the known concept and
advantages of impedance matching to such a known circuit/flexible trace
array. See KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“[a]
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton”). Furthermore, “if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
417.
1 Appellants appear to fail to explicitly set forth “the points believed to have
been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board” as required by 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a). Thus, the request appears to be improper. Nonetheless, we have
responded to Appellants’ apparent reargument of their position on appeal.
2
Appeal 2015-002024
Application 13/213,369
Accordingly, no persuasive merit is present in Appellants’ argument
(Req. Reh’g 3).
Thus, we decline to modify our decision to affirm the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of the appealed claims.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, Appellants’ Request is granted
to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, but is denied with
respect to making changes to the final disposition of the rejection therein.
This Decision on the Request for Rehearing incorporates our
Decision, mailed October 19, 2016, and is final for the purposes of judicial
review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (a)(1).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(v).
DENIED
3