Ex Parte Shi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13143199 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
13/143,199 07/04/2011 Zhengbing Shi GDZY01-37US 3638
50163 7590
WANG & HO
66 HILLTOP ROAD
MILLINGTON, NJ 07946
EXAMINER
ELOSHWAY, NIKI MARINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3728
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
georgewang@bei-ocean.com
georgewang.hk @ gmail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHENGBING SHI
Appeal 2015-000358
Application 13/143,199
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT,1 BRETT C. MARTIN, and GORDON
D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
1 Administrative Patent Judge Charles N. Greenhut has replaced
Administrative Patent Judge Mark A. Geier who is no longer a member of
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Appeal 2015-000358
Application 13/143,199
The Appellant filed a REQUEST FOR REHEARING on December 5,
2016 (hereinafter “Rehearing Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52, seeking rehearing of our Decision, mailed October 3, 2016
(hereinafter “Decision” or “Dec.”), which affirmed various final rejections
of the claims made by the Examiner. We grant the Rehearing Request to the
extent that we consider the Requester’s arguments, but DENY the request to
modify the Decision.
The Appellant presents essentially the same argument as originally
argued in the Appeal. Namely that the Board “applied an incorrect legal
standard in assessing obviousness” and that the Board’s “logic is clearly
invalid.” Reh’g Req. 1—2, see also Reply Br. 1—2. A Rehearing Request is
not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to
express disagreement with the Decision, which is all the Appellant has done
in this instance. The Decision sufficiently addresses the Examiner’s basis
for finding the claims obvious, which is all the Appellant reargues here.
Dec. 3. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of any basis for granting the
Rehearing Request.
REHEARING DECISION
While we have considered the Decision in light of the Request for
Rehearing, we decline to modify it in any respect.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(d), this decision is final for the purpose
of judicial review. A party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice
on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See
37 C.F.R. §§90.1 and 1.983.
2
Appeal 2015-000358
Application 13/143,199
DENIED
3