Ex Parte Molnar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 4, 2017

12873964 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 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.
12/873,964 09/01/2010 Gabriela C. Molnar 1023-965US01/P0036326.00 6291
71996 7590 04/06/2017
SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A
1625 RADIO DRIVE , SUITE 100
WOODBURY, MN 55125
EXAMINER
KOHARSKI, CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3766
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2017 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):
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
medtronic_neuro_docketing @ cardinal-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABRIELA C. MOLNAR and
SCOTT R. STANSLASKI
Appeal 2015-004297
Application 12/873,964
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gabriela C. Molnar and Scott R. Stanslaski (Appellants) filed a
request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (hereinafter “Request”), dated
March 29, 2017, of our Decision mailed January 30, 2017 (hereinafter
“Decision”). In the Decision, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—4, 6—10, 12—21, 23, and 25—31 and reversed the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5 and 22.
Appeal 2015-004297
Application 12/873,964
DISCUSSION
A request for rehearing is limited to matters overlooked or
misapprehended by the Panel in rendering the original decision. See
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 It may not rehash arguments originally made in the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 and Reply Briefs, and alleges that we
misapprehended the arguments because we were not persuaded by them.
See id. For example, Appellants contend that we misapprehended
“Appellant’s arguments about how McDonald in view of ‘Meadows fails to
disclose or even suggest selecting a subset of electrodes from a plurality of
electrodes as sense electrodes, wherein the sense electrodes are
symmetrically arranged relative to the first subset of electrodes selected as
stimulation electrodes.’” Id. at 2. However, these arguments are addressed
on pages 4—5 of the Decision, as noted by Appellants {id. at 2—3), where we
explained that Meadows shows subsets of electrodes arranged symmetrically
in Figure 3A and that these subsets are necessarily selected for each
embodiment.
2
Appeal 2015-004297
Application 12/873,964
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