Ex Parte Vega

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2010

09796305 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2010)

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.
09/796,305 02/28/2001 Lilly Mae Vega P06726US00 4452
7590 09/27/2010
Lilly Mae Vega
712 E. County Rd 1720 N
Nauvoo, IL 62354
EXAMINER
CAMPEN, KELLY SCAGGS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LILLY MAE VEGA
____________

Appeal 2009-007351
Application 09/796,305
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007351
Application 09/796,305

2
Appellant filed a Request for Rehearing on March 25, 2010
(hereinafter “Req.”) of the Decision entered on January 26, 2010 (hereinafter
“Dec.”), which affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11 to 15,
19, 20, 23, 28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 40, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable of Barzilai (US 6,012,045, iss. Jan. 4, 2000) in view of
Friedland (US 6,449,601 B1, iss. Sep. 10, 2002).
The request for rehearing is DENIED.

DISCUSSION
Appellant’s Request includes a description of a patent portfolio which
includes an issued patent and a list of patent applications filed (Req. 2). The
Request also includes the patent prosecution history of the present
application from Appellant’s point of view. (Req. 2 to 3). The Appellant
argues that too much time has elapsed from the initial filing date of the
present application. (Id. at 3). Appellant also states that her IP has been
cited in literally thousands of now issued patents. (Id.) Appellant also
argues that the cited publications are not relevant to her applications. (Id.)
The Appellant requests that we allow all the initial claims so as to make the
Appellant whole. (Id.)
A request for rehearing must state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (2010).
The Request does not address any points misapprehended or
overlooked by the Board in our original decision. A discussion of the length
or problems in the prosecution history is not a discussion about what exactly
the Board overlooked or misapprehended. Although the Appellant argues
Appeal 2009-007351
Application 09/796,305

3
that the cited publications, presumably the cited prior art, are not relevant,
the Appellant has not expounded on this with an explanation of exactly why
the prior art is not relevant.
We have carefully considered Appellant’s Request, but as the Request
does not argue that any points have been overlooked or misapprehended by
the Board, we decline to modify our earlier decision.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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) (2007).

DENIED

hh

Lilly Mae Vega
712 E. County Rd. 1720 N.
Nauvoo, IL 62354